Assembly Policies

PROTOCOLS RELATED TO REGULATION 3.6.40

Preamble

During the Fourth Assembly of the Uniting Church (1985) the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress was established. The Congress was a significant step in the shared journey of discipleship between indigenous people and later arrivals within the UCA.

Since then the journey has continued and the Assembly has given further, and more detailed expression, to what the church looks for in its relationship with Congress. One such development was Regulation 3.6.40 that enumerated the responsibilities of Congress. The first sentence in that regulation says “The Congress shall have responsibility for oversight of the Church’s life and mission with and for the Aboriginal and Islander people of Australia.”

Across the Uniting Church we have walked with Congress in various ways and with different experiences. Sometimes the expectations created by the covenantal relationship between Congress and the rest of the Church have differed from place to place. This led the 9th Assembly to consider a number of proposals that aimed to bring clarity to what was intended by the words: “The Congress shall have responsibility for oversight of the Church’s life and mission with and for the Aboriginal and Islander people of Australia.”

Part of resolution 00.31.03 of the 9th Assembly reads: that the Standing Committee should negotiate “written protocols on how Regulation 3.6.40 is to be followed, particularly in relation to partnerships in ministry with Indigenous people between the Congress and councils, agencies and Congregations of the Church”.

Since the last Assembly this negotiation has taken place and interim protocols have been made available to the Church for use and comment. At its meeting in March 2003 the Assembly Standing Committee resolved to endorse the protocols and adopt them as guiding principles under Constitution Paragraph 38(b) (i) for the Church. (03.29.02 / 03)

The protocols that appear below are to be used by the church as it seeks to give life to the covenant relationship that exists between the UAICC and the rest of the Church. They are intended as a practical aid to congregations, other Councils of the Church and agencies who wonder what they should do in a variety of settings. The ideas behind the protocols are not new but seek to give shape and form to some of the decisions already taken by the Church over many years. They seek to give practical advice about how the oversight of Congress can be exercised in a meaningful way.

Terence Corkin
Assembly General Secretary

Protocols

1. Where Congress is presently the means through which Uniting Church ministry is directed towards Indigenous people (eg. Congress congregations, community development services in Arnhem Land) the mechanisms exist for significant involvement by Congress in the shaping and delivery of that ministry. Such control is exercised through the normal processes of Congress and its relationships with the Councils of the Uniting Church. Such contexts do not require any variation to Regulation 3.6.40 in order to be effective.

2. No part of the Uniting Church, other than Congress, will commence a new ministry that is primarily directed towards indigenous Australians without first communicating in writing to the relevant part of the Congress structure and receiving permission to proceed. For the purpose of this protocol where the ministry / activity is proposed by a congregation, presbytery or synod (or their agencies, commissions and boards) the contact should be with the relevant Presbytery or State Council of Congress with a copy to the National Administrator. In the case of the Assembly or its agencies the contact should be with the National Administrator with a copy to any Presbyteries or State Councils that oversee ministry in the affected area.

3. Where a Uniting Church real property has a designated purpose of solely serving the needs of Indigenous people then as a matter of principle Congress should have the beneficial interest in that property.

a) If Congress presently has the beneficial interest in that property then it continues to do so within the freedom and constraints of the present practices of the Church.

b) If the present body controlling such a real property is a Uniting Church entity other than Congress, then at the initiative (in writing) of Congress the appropriate Council of the Church will enter into negotiations with that entity with a view to reaching the point where Congress has the beneficial interest in the property. The primary communication from Congress should be from the Congress State Council / Presbytery (or by their election the National Office) in the case of Congregational, Presbytery or Synod managed assets, and from National Office in the case of Assembly assets.

c) If control of such a real property is presently the responsibility of a Uniting Church entity other than Congress and it is bound by a relationship with a third party (eg a lease or Government contract) then at the initiative (in writing) of Congress the appropriate Council of the Church will enter into negotiations with the third party to explore whether it may be possible for that activity to be transferred to the beneficial interest of Congress. It is recognized in this negotiation that the third party’s legal rights need to be respected. In addition it is understood that there is no obligation upon the Uniting Church entity to undertake liabilities on behalf of Congress, in order to effect the desired result. Furthermore it is understood that the broader Uniting Church will not take on legal liabilities without appropriate accountability structures being put in place.

4. There are Uniting Church ministries that have a specific focus on Indigenous people, as well as those that do not have a specific focus or designated purpose towards Indigenous people yet are connecting more with indigenous people than with others. In addition there are ministries that seek to relate to both Indigenous and non-indigenous people within a given area. In such situations it is the covenanting relationship between the Congress and the Uniting Church that should shape the response. Covenanting assumes respect and a sense of common cause or partnership in ministry. A covenanting relationship opens up the possibility of a free flow of insight, ideas and agreed goals among partners in ministry. The covenant partners commit themselves to ongoing and serious consideration about how this exchange can occur between partners in ministry. The Congress and the wider Uniting Church commit themselves to developing mechanisms that will achieve this end on a case-by-case basis. For example:

a) In some contexts the interaction may be through Congress providing advisory services, or more substantial consultancy services that are funded by the managing body.

b) Where Congress has the interest (expressed to the managing body in writing) in establishing an ongoing involvement in an area of work then they will have a right to places on the governing Board or management committee (as the case may be). The degree of representation to be the subject of negotiation between Congress and the relevant Board / management committee. Where it is not possible to agree on the level and method of participation then the final decision will be made by the Council of the Church that has oversight of that particular ministry.

This protocol assumes that existing ministries will continue to be conducted in their present manner unless changes are made through the operation of this protocol.

5. Where Congress seeks to establish a ministry it ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that other parts of the Uniting Church will seek to support that work. Congress ministry is supported through a variety of funding sources. This protocol does not address that issue but encourages councils and agencies of the Church to be aware of opportunities to support the development of Congress ministries. Where Congress seeks to commence a ministry with Indigenous people it is encouraged to request a congregation, presbytery, etc for appropriate assistance. Examples include access to property (shared or exclusive use), assistance in kind such as accountancy services and / or professional advice for an agreed term to enable the skilling of Indigenous people. If such a request is made it is the responsibility of the part of the Church that receives the request to give serious consideration to it in the spirit of the covenant relationship with Congress. Where it does not seem possible to meet the initial request; so far as possible discussion should take place about alternative ways of offering support. A written communication should be sent to Congress advising of the result of the deliberations.

6. Where staff are to be engaged that will have a significant involvement with indigenous people the final authority for appointment rests with the council or agency that will be accountable for the work of the person ie the body that is the “employer”. However a covenanting relationship is best expressed by the participation of Congress appointees to the selection committee. The proportion of Congress appointees on the selection committee is a matter for negotiation with the appointing body. It is not essential that a person from Congress be involved in the appointment of such staff, and their absence from a selection committee would not render it unable to act. In the case of Frontier Services it needs to be recognized that there is the potential for many staff appointments to fall within the orbit of this protocol and that common sense will need to operate as to how extensively it would need to be applied.

7. Within these protocols there is reference to the need for written communication as a normal means through which the intention of the parties is expressed to each other. Of course there can be verbal communication at any stage in the process however there is a need for clarity about what has been agreed. Documentation is needed at key points in the process – to confirm that a desire for the conversation about a particular issue, clarity about the nature of the issue and the decisions that have been taken. Where deadlines are significant for the initiating party then they are at liberty to include in their communication a reasonable deadline by which time a response is required. As a way of facilitating action the initiating party is at liberty to indicate what they will do if there is no reply to the communication. For the purposes of these protocols written communication includes anything that provides a written expression of intent including letters, emails and approved minutes of a meeting available to the affected parties.

8. Should occasions arise where agreement cannot be reached in the operation of these protocols then the concerned party can request the Council that has oversight of the area of work to determine the matter. For example in the case of a Congregation this would be the Presbytery, for an agency it would most often be the Synod. In the first instance after receiving such a request the relevant council will seek to negotiate a resolution. If a negotiated resolution does not prove to be possible then a determination of the matter can be regarded as an expression of the council’s oversight responsibilities. If dissatisfaction remains there are no other avenues of appeal. However it may be a matter of sufficient import that, at the request of the council of the Church that has oversight, another party or council may be requested to assist with mediation. However such a third party would not have authority to arbitrate or determine the matter without the prior written agreement of all three participants in the process.

Approved by the Assembly Standing Committee March 2003

top of page

Printer Friendly Version

go back