Non-religious councillors will now have to excuse themselves from the meeting chamber if they don’t want to be subjected to forced acts of religious worship at Oberon Council in New South Wales.

The council this week rejected the pleas of non-religious councillors to stop imposing religion, with a majority deciding to keep prayers as part of formal meetings while adopting a “possible concession” that allows councillors to “remove themselves” from the meeting if they do not wish to participate in prayers.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the council also rejected non-religious councillor Ian Tucker’s proposal that would have provided two opportunities for religious councillors to pray – in the informal public forum (with there being no requirement that all councillors attend) held immediately before the opening of formal council meetings, and in a new moment of silent reflection or prayer during the meeting. 

In a speech, Councillor Tucker (pictured) pleaded for his colleagues to respect the views of non-religious people and provide them with equal treatment.

“One of the speakers at our October meeting said ,‘Treat others as you want them to treat you’… I believe I have always been respectful of others’ beliefs and I don’t feel this has been reciprocated,” he said.

“I am asking for respect on behalf of myself, for many others in the community who have different beliefs from what is forced on us at council meetings.”

Two other councillors – Katie Graham and Helen Hayden – also strongly opposed the inclusion of prayers in meetings.

Oberon Council has a roster of Christian church leaders who attend the meetings and deliver a few minutes of sermons and prayers. 

As previously reported by the Rationalist Society of Australia, Oberon Council decided in October to keep acts of religious worship in its draft Code of Meeting Practice, with councillors claiming that observing prayers was about “returning spirituality in the community” but “not about pushing any religion”.

The council then sought public feedback on the Code of Meeting Practice as part of a consultation process.

In a submission to that process, the RSA warned that failing to remove acts of religious worship could expose Oberon Council to legal risks.

In response to several public submissions that called for removal of prayers, the Oberon Council officers’ recommendation was, as a “possible concession”, for councillors to be allowed to leave the chamber before prayers without needing leave from the chair, arguing that this “minimises the potential impact of those with differing views”.

Councillors voted in support of adopting the Code of Meeting Practice, with prayers included as part of formal business, and in support of the council officers’ recommendation.

Yet, it is unclear whether non-religious councillors will be able to leave the chamber, given the recommendation merely suggested that such a measure “could be provided through a standardised disclaimer within the business paper each month”.

Also, the RSA understands that councillors are expected to be present for the whole duration of meetings, unless for declared conflicts of interest.

Speaking today, RSA Executive Director Si Gladman said it was deeply concerning that non-religious councillors would not be able to participate equally in full Oberon Council meetings due to their exclusion on the basis of religion and belief. 

In presenting his motion, Councillor Tucker said that the suggestion that reciting prayers aloud as part of meetings was not about forcing religion onto people would be shown to be a lie if council rejected his proposal that offered two other options for councillors to pray without having to impose prayers on others.

“When we discussed this in October, I thought the proposal that went to that meeting – to have a period of quiet reflection – was reasonable because it allowed those who wished to pray to do so. That proposal was not supported. Apparently people believe that it has to be a spoken-out-loud prayer,” he said.

“So I believe this new motion should satisfy everyone because there will now be two opportunities for prayer.

“If this motion is not supported and the draft policy … is adopted, the only difference that makes is that everyone – councillors and staff – are forced to participate. So where submissions have said that this is not about imposing beliefs, that would give the lie to that. Because that is exactly what it does – it imposes belief and forces non-believers to participate.”

One councillor, Lauren Trembath, argued that allowing non-religious people to remove themselves during the prayer would “satisfy everyone”.

“I don’t think it’s a big impost to leave the room, instead, and then come back into the room and we start the meeting.”

In separate submissions this year to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of Australia’s human rights and to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s review of the state’s anti-discrimination act, the RSA raised the imposition of prayers in government as an example of discriminatory and unfair treatment of non-religious Australians.

The Rationalist Society of Australia is actively advocating for prayer rituals to be replaced with more appropriate practices in councils and parliaments. See the latest updates here.

Si Gladman is Executive Director of the Rationalist Society of Australia. He also hosts ‘The Secular Agenda’ podcast.

If you want to support our work, please make a donation or become a member.