A survey of Canberra-Goulburn synod members shows “59% are unable to affirm the statement that our ‘current suite of safe ministrypolicies and practices are effective at keeping our communities safe.’”according to an interim report of the diocese’s Safe Ministries Working Group (SMWG). “For clergy, this figure rises to 78%.”

The Anglican Diocese (region) of Canberra and Goulburn is holding its Synod (Church Parliament) this weekend.

“There is no longer any patience – either within the church or wider community – for the dreadful institutional failures the Royal Commission [into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse] exposed, the SMWG report says. “Secondly, that those responsible for implementing our safe ministry policies are losing confidence in these policies’ effectiveness.”

These concerns are not isolated to Canberra and Goulburn, the SMWG states. In common with other reports on safe ministry, the Canberra Goulburn notes a concern that “box ticking” was seen by many to describe their culture of safe ministry. A second concern was that safe ministry practices were shaped by insurance protection.

But in a footnote that SMWG stated “In fairness, we observe that it is not clear that insurers are really responsible for the policy decisions we have made. We are unaware of proposals rejected by insurers on the grounds of laxity. Indeed, our insurer’s explanatory notes clearly communicate their expectations, which we very likely exceed –and could probably meet in far simpler ways.”

UPDATE: “Our Diocese is fully committed to the safety of all who participate in the life our churches and other ministries.  Part of this commitment is regularly reviewing our policies and procedures so we can be confident they represent best practice,” Bishop Mark Short said in a statement to The Other Cheek “In 2024 the Synod agreed to a review of all we do in the safe ministry and professional standards areas.  The Safe Ministries Working Group was formed to ensure people doing ‘coalface’ ministry are consulted in this process. This weekend Synod will consider a motion noting the report from the SMWG. It will be then fed into a broader process that will include input from legal and child protection perspectives.  I am confident that when this journey is over we will have recommendations to improve both our care for precious people and our support of all who generously serve them in Christ’s Name.”

The SMWG report noted that administrative workload generated by safe ministry procedures was seen as burdensome. A series of quotes illustrate that frustration. “It’s all way too much.” “Over the top for many involved in voluntary ministry.” “System is difficult (if not impossible) to use and has created significant administrative burden.” “-‘”It takes so much time.”

Leading to comments like: “‘We have lost approximately ten existing volunteers … and putative volunteers once they have become aware of the demands of the process…. Several older members of our parish have specifically referred to safe ministry requirements as their main reason for stepping back from active participation in parish life.”

Recommendations include a rewrite old policies that:

• “are simple to understand and administratively minimalist, generally avoiding record-keepingor screening demands not legally required.”

• “are conversant with the realities of Christian ministry in an Anglican setting (including a sensitivity to its ecclesiology, ordained roles, rites of initiation and culture of grace)” This reflects a concern that “For the ordinary parishioner, or the newcomer to the church, their (quite possibly) first significant pastoral interaction with their Rector may be to attend an interview to sign a legally intimidating document. In their eyes, the role of “screener” has been combined with the role of pastor.”

• include “a shortlist of organisations whose training and screening requirements are sufficiently aligned with our own to permit a significant period of grace (e.g. five years) before people must transition to our framework.”

A radically simplified “New Safe Ministry Framework” is proposed in the report. It offers “a lighter administrative touch.”

It suggests a first draft of four rules for all ministry units to follow.

“1. No child is left alone with an adult who is not their parent/carer. 

2. All ministry leaders are trained in safe ministry practices. 

3. Safety concerns are always reported to the head of the ministry unit. 

4. Contact between church members and children outside church activities will only occur via parents/carer.”

Referencing “a culture of grace” might be a red light in the area of child protection. Training only leaders, depending on the definition, may not meet legislative requirements. For example, church volunteers are mandatory reporters under NSW legislation.

Image: All Saints Ainslie – used illustratively, with no suggestion there is a safe ministry concern at this particular church