10. Mr Neil Ingham asked -

During the Episcopates of Archbishops Mowll, Gough, Loane, Robinson & Goodhew -

(a) For each Episcopate, on how many occasions was the Archbishop's assent withheld from an ordinance duly passed by the Synod?

(b) For each Episcopate, what were those ordinances?

(c) For each ordinance, what were the reasons given for the withholding of assent?

To which the President replied -

I am informed the answer is as follows -

Section 5(c) of the Schedule to the Anglican Church of Australia Constitutions Act 1902 provides -

"no ordinance shall take effect or have any validity unless within one month after the passing of the same the Bishop shall signify assent thereto in writing provided that any ordinance to which the Bishop shall not assent may be referred by resolution of the Synod, to the Provincial Synod and if the Provincial Synod shall assent to the ordinance, the ordinance shall take effect on the Provincial Synod giving its assent.".

The 6th of the 1902 Constitutions (now superseded by section 5(c)) provided to similar effect.

Section 5(c) (and, before it, the 6th of the 1902 Constitutions) implies that the bishop has a discretion to withhold assent to an ordinance. The section does not specify any limits on the circumstances in which assent may be withheld.

Archbishops Mowll and Gough did not withhold assent to an ordinance passed by the Synod during their episcopates. To date, I have not withheld assent to an ordinance passed by the Synod.

During his episcopate Archbishop Loane withheld assent to one ordinance of the Synod, being the Parishes Ordinance 1978. Assent was withheld because, during the committee stage, a new clause was added to the bill, the significance of which was "not easily or immediately grasped". The bill was passed by the Synod in 1979 with the offending clause removed. Archbishop Loane then gave his assent.

Archbishop Robinson withheld assent to 4 ordinances of the Synod. Those ordinances, and the reasons assent was withheld, are as follows -

1. General Synod - Ordination of Women to the Office of Deacon Canon 1985 Adopting Ordinance 1985.
Archbishop Robinson withheld assent to this ordinance, which proposed the adoption of a canon to authorise the ordination of women as deacons, because he did not think that the canon was lawfully made by the General Synod.

Archbishop Robinson's reasons are set out in full on pages 265 to 266 of the 1987 Yearbook.

2. Marriage of Divorced Persons Ordinance 1985.

Archbishop Robinson withheld assent to this Ordinance since he considered that it represented a significant departure from the law of the Church as it has existed for many centuries -

(a) It transferred to the authorised celebrant the dispensing power of the bishop in all cases of marriage of divorced persons, except where the celebrant or the divorced applicant for marriage chose to seek the consent of the bishop or his surrogate.

( b) It left to the judgement of the celebrant (or of the bishop/surrogate, when applicable) the determination of whether a particular marriage of a divorced person was or was not contrary to the teaching of the canonical scriptures or the will of God revealed therein.

Archbishop Robinson's reasons are set out in full on pages 262 to 265 of the 1987 Yearbook.

3. General Synod - Defence Force Ministry Canon 1985 Adopting Ordinance 1985 

Archbishop Robinson withheld assent to this ordinance, which proposed adopting a canon concerning Defence Force Ministry, as he considered that the canon was unclear in several respects. In particular, the Archbishop was concerned about how the Primate could be given authority to grant a licence for a defence force chaplain to minister in Sydney.

Archbishop Robinson's reasons are set out on page 268 of the 1987 Yearbook.

4. General Synod - Constitution Alteration (Canonical Fitness) Canon and Bill 1989 Assenting Ordinance 1990

This ordinance sought to assent to a canon to amend the definition of "canonical fitness" in the Constitution. Archbishop Robinson withheld assent as he considered that one of the qualifications required for the office of bishop is that the person be male, and the proposed definition did not require this.

A brief report from the Standing Committee on the reasons assent was withheld is published on page 318 of the 1992 Yearbook.