Bishop John

On Easter Sunday I attended the Awakening Easter March and Festival outside Parliament House in Hobart.  The march is an annual event, and I was pleased to walk with one of our donkeys “Petal” through the streets of Hobart, as part of the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Prior to the march a festival gathering of Christians from many denominations was held. I wanted to share a part of that gathering with you, a solemn time of Aboriginal Reconciliation – the Story of the Water Ceremony which was conducted by The Revd Grant Finley of the Uniting Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Christian Congress. The text below is the Story of the Water Ceremony, and the details of the ceremony itself.

In 1988 when the Awakening Movement was first born and 50,000 Australian Christians from all affiliations and all states and territories, came together (in Canberra) to pray at the opening of the new Parliament House, it felt right at that time, to talk with our indigenous brothers and sisters about first steps towards reconciliation.

We asked, “What action can we take that has integrity?” Indigenous Christian leaders at the time said, “We want you to understand the past and move on with us, from it”.

And they said “Maybe this will help. When you white fellas first arrived you would have died of thirst had we not shown you where the waterholes were. Throughout this land of ours, time after time, we showed you where the waterholes were. You did not understand. We were welcoming you as brothers and sisters into our homes – but you poisoned our waterholes because you wanted our land to grow your stock”.

Here in this group of islands and our local history of Van Diemen’s Land, there are stories of some early cooperation but more often than not there was conflict, even warfare and the Black Line, and later the fiction that Truganini was the last Tasmanian Aboriginal person.

Through that first water ceremony in 1988, was born a powerful and simple symbolic action.

This action and response has been repeated year by year in Easter Marches, as part of the Pilgrimage to Uluru, and is now framed by the national apology to our Indigenous brothers and sisters, the walk over the bridge for reconciliation, the transfer of some land, the beginnings of a conversation about recognising Indigenous people in a new preamble to the Constitution of Australia, and just recently, the dual naming of some places.

What remarkable and profoundly moving steps were taken in the apology as we said Sorry as a nation – to acknowledge the profound pain of our past and to pledge to close the gap and walk together into a new future.

So now we invite our Indigenous brothers and sisters, and our church leaders, to once again offer water, as was done in the past, with a generous spirit of hospitality and like the first water ceremony we will again respond differently to the response of many of our colonial ancestors – we will respond with gratitude and thanks, with commitment to a new future.

We now invite all those who would be Ambassadors for Reconciliation to participate in this simple ceremony of the giving and receiving of water.

We invite Peter to once again offer the water which the Creator God gives, without which there is no life.

We invite you who are here today to accept it with understanding and thanks. Will you commit yourself to reflect on, and understand the past, link hands with all Australians in a new way and with God’s strength move forward together in ways which respect this land, which honours our Aboriginal and Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all, for our children and for generations to come?

When you receive the water, I invite you to just hold on to it for a moment, don’t drink it just yet, but take time to reflect on some of the stories of this land and what the waters of healing might mean in your life.

Peter and Bernard will offer a jug to each of the church leaders and then they and the church leaders will share the water with those who come forward.

If you are now willing to accept this offer to begin again, respond, by drinking it gratefully and committing yourself to work together for a better future for Australia and the world.

I (Bishop John) then led with the following response prayer:

Lord God, bring us together as one, reconciled with you and reconciled with each other, and especially we pray for reconciliation here in Tasmania between the Indigenous population and the latecomers.

You made us in your likeness, you gave us your Son, Jesus Christ. He has given us forgiveness from sin.

Lord God, bring us together as one, different in culture, but given new life in Jesus Christ, together as your body, your Church, your people.

Lord God, bring us together as one, reconciled, healed, forgiven, sharing you with others as you have called us to do. In Jesus Christ, let us be together as one.  Amen.

Adapted from a Prayer for Reconciliation, “A Prayer Book for Australia”, 1995, Broughton Books, p.203.

See also, Speech at the launch of James Boyce’s ‘God’s Own Country?’ – by Bishop John Harrower, 2001.

Today we submitted the Anglican Church of Tasmania’s Submission-Church-Submission to the Draft Bill and Consultation Paper proposed by the Tasmanian Government’s Health Minister as a private member’s bill.

I am very grateful to the small team who worked so hard in such a short time to lodge a thoughtful response. I am especially grateful to Revd Will Briggs, Bishop’s Research Officer, for his sterling work in research, writing the draft documents and coordinating the final submission. Thank you.

With others, we protested the initial 2 weeks response time given by the Tasmanian Health Minister and it was extended to 4 weeks! However, this time frame overlapped with the time we had been given by the Government to lodge our submission on the Euthanasia legislation. Well may we say: rushed policy making is poor policy making! Moreover, rushed policy is not only a dis-service to Tasmanians in governance but dismissive and divisive of our community.

This Tasmanian Government has made it very hard for us to engage effectively because of bringing out proposal after proposal for major social change. This rushed and turbulent process has been unnecessary and it has added distress to our community when life is already very challenging for many Tasmanians.

Some excerpts from  the Anglican Church of Tasmania’s Submission:  Firstly, Broad Concerns & then the Table of Contents:

 2.1 The Changes Are Significant

The key provision of the draft Bill is to move the regulation of terminations out of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.  These laws had previously been adjusted in 2002 so as to effectively decriminalise a process for providing and obtaining terminations in Tasmania.

The Minister is of the opinion that the proposed changes in the current Bill are simply a matter of fixing unforeseen implementation problems[i] and that there is no in-principle change to what was decided in 2002.  This is simply not the case.

The Bill makes significant changes both in and around the provision of pregnancy termination.  It is a significant movement away from the balance and resulting equilibrium of previous debates.  It is not reasonable to extrapolate from the status quo into new absolutist territory.  Yet this is what the Bill would do.

The changes that would occur, if the Bill were to pass the Tasmanian parliament, are:

1. A change in the fundamental framework of regulating termination of pregnancy. Criminality would be the exception, not the rule.
2. The removal of any reference to the existence of the unborn child.  The subject of a termination, whether lawful or unlawful, would be the mother alone.
3. The removal of any requirement for assessment of the mother or her child for terminations up to and including 24 weeks gestation.  This would effectively introduce “abortion on demand.”
4. The broadening of the assessment required for terminations after 24 weeks gestation so that social and economic circumstances are grounds for proceeding.
5. A new obligation for medical practitioners with conscientious objection to facilitate the procuring of a termination by making a referral.
6. A new obligation on non medical “counsellors”, a broadly defined category that ostensibly includes anyone who is in a position to offer advice to a pregnant woman, to make a referral.
7. The creation of geographical areas in which existing public order laws are augmented by restricting ill-defined “prescribed (sic) behaviours” and peaceful protest.

These are not minor changes.  These are profoundly significant changes in areas of discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and, most sadly, life and death.

  2.2 Fundamental Concerns

The issue of terminations has previously been addressed by the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania, in particular through public statements by Bishop John Harrower who said at the time of the 2002 changes to the law:

”While I am very concerned about the health of mothers, the lives of unborn infants are no less important.”[ii]

Our broad position derives from this simple recognition of the value and humanity of both the unborn child and the mother.  We therefore have a profound and fundamental disagreement with the following provisions of the Bill:

1. The effective introduction of “abortion on demand” for pregnancies up to 24 weeks gestation is an extreme implementation of the so-called “right to termination.”   It provides few safeguards to the mother, and certainly none to the child.
2. The broadening of provision of late-term terminations to include all forms of psychosocial and economic factors gives no consideration at all to the viability, health or welfare of the child.

A secondary concern is the provisions in the Bill which relate to freedom of conscience and civil liberties.  We disagree strongly with:

1. The introduction of an obligation, on pain of penalty, to facilitate terminations through referral.  This requirement is impractical and unconscionable.
2. The limitation on civil liberties based on geographical areas and the communication of certain points of view is novel and unnecessary.  Nothing has been presented that suggests existing harassment, privacy, and public nuisance laws are inadequate.

1. Overview

1.1  Terminology

2. Broad Concerns

2.1  The Changes Are Significant

2.2  Fundamental Concerns

3. The Case for Change Has Not Been Made

3.1  …because unplanned pregnancies occur

3.2  …because current regulation is under criminal law

3.3  …because current law acts as a barrier to healthcare services

3.4  …because the law needs to acknowledge women as capable decision makers

3.5  …because the law needs to recognise that a termination is a safe medical procedure

3.6  …because the law needs to recognise community standards

4. Criminalising Matters of Conscience

4.1  Conscientious Objection and the Duty to Treat

4.2  Obligation to Refer

4.3  Access Zones

5. Recommendations

5.1  Embrace a Life-Affirming Vision for Tasmania

5.2  Withdraw the Bill

5.3  Monitor and Review Properly and Transparently

Rev’d Peter Adlem spoke to his congregation at St Clements, Kingston on Sunday 17 March 2013 about anxiety and his anxiety over draft Tasmanian Abortion legislation .

All of us have times in our lives, when we are anxious.  And the fact of the matter is that we actually need some level of stress and worry and anxiety, for us to function as human beings.

In fact I want to argue today that some of us are not worried enough.

There’s a Bill about to be before parliament that I am concern about.  It’s a bill about abortion.

The full transcript of Rev’d Peter Adlem’s sermon can be read here.

See also, Abortion Law for Tasmania?   and  UPDATE: Tasmania’s Proposed Abortion Law Changes  and  Abortion Tas: Hospital Chaplain’s perspective.

Hospital Chaplain, Reverend Alan Bulmer, has written to Health Minister for Tasmania, The Hon. Michelle O’Byrne, in response to her draft Abortion Legislation for Tasmania.

As I read his sensitive letter, I was reminded again that the pastoral consequences of the life and death of the unborn are a very real part of a hospital chaplain’s ministry. His letter brings the personal aspect of the death of the unborn to the Minister’s attention and asks for the reconsideration and withdrawal of this draft legislation. Extracts from the Hospital Chaplain’s letter:

I am often called in to mothers who have miscarried.  If the pregnancy is under twenty weeks a birth certificate is not issued and a funeral is not necessary.  I have had several cases where families have requested naming ceremonies and some form of funeral for such babies.   A group of wood workers has produced some beautiful tiny caskets for such babies and I have helped place these babies in them.  I have viewed these babies and in many cases they are perfectly formed and beautiful.  Photos have been taken, locks of hair cut and prints made of hand and foot to keep as mementos.

There have also been instances where babies born at around twenty weeks have survived.  Many more do so at twenty-four weeks.

What is to happen to these babies who are aborted at up to twenty-four weeks (and indeed byond it)?  Will there be a birth certificate?  Will there be a death certificate and a funeral?  Will the parents see their aborted, beautifully formed (in most cases especially if the abortion is carried out because they only want a boy or a girl and this pregnancy is not the gender they want, for example).

I shudder to think of what babies of longer gestation would look like if they are aborted, as the bill allows for this to happen right up to the time of birth. . .

I dread to think of the consequences if this legislation gets through parliament and I urge you, and all politicians who support you, to rethink your position and withdraw it while there is still time.

Read full letter: Abortion

See also, Abortion Law for Tasmania?  and  UPDATE: Tasmania’s Proposed Abortion Law Changes.

From Bill Muehlenberg, Tasmania, Abortion, and Big Brother,

Although abortion has been effectively open slather in Australia for decades now, some states are still moving to give it even greater protected status, and in fact make things much harder on those who would seek to prevent the slaughter of the innocents.

That was certainly the case with the reprehensible abortion bill passed in Victoria in 2008. One amendment after another was voted down, thus making it one of the most hardcore pro-abortion bills anywhere in the world. But it seems the state of Tasmania is trying to take this even further.

On Friday a private members bill was introduced which would make baby killing so much easier in the Apple Isle.

Also references an excellent article from Tasmanian writer Mishka Gora:

“The neighbouring state of Victoria decriminalized abortion in 2008. Ms O’Byrne says that this is the model for her bill. But

• the Victorian bill contains no penalties for conscientious objectors; the Tasmanian bill does.
• the Victorian bill doesn’t mention counsellors; the Tasmanian bill threatens counsellors with jail.
• the Victorian bill doesn’t mention protests; the Tasmanian bill threatens protesters with jail.”

“The Health Minister has been quite disingenuous about the scope and purpose of her bill in her statements to the media. She has mentioned none of these tyrannical measures and has given the public a mere two weeks [Note: under pressure extended by 2 weeks to 5 April] to respond to one of the most far-reaching pieces of abortion legislation ever proposed anywhere.”

Gora concludes, “Tasmanian legislators are being offered a choice between abortion at any stage and abortion at any stage plus criminalizing dissent. The minister wants to make abortion a health matter, not a criminal matter. But she wants to achieve this at the expense of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and common sense. After all, if it is a crime to perform an abortion without medical qualifications or a woman’s consent, shouldn’t it be in the criminal code? The law as it stands is quite sufficient, and to alter it is nothing less than tyrannical.”

*Please put in even a brief submission, standing against this draconian bill. See the government site here for all the necessary details: www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/pophealth/womens_health –

**Comments on the draft Bill must be in writing and emailed to public.health@dhhs.tas.gov.au or posted to Population Health Equity, GPO Box 125 Hobart, TAS, 7001.

All responses must be received by 5:00pm Friday 5 April 2013.

See, BISHOP’S PASTORAL LETTER: ABORTION LAW FOR TASMANIA? Update 16 March 2013