The Rationalist Society of Australia has called on a New South Wales council to remove acts of religious worship from its formal meetings and has warned that deciding not to could expose council to legal risks.
In a submission to Oberon Council, as part of a public consultation process, the RSA outlined a number of legal concerns with keeping prayers as part of the council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
At a meeting of council this week, Oberon councillors will decide whether to keep prayers as part of formal meetings.
Last month, the RSA reported that the council voted 6-3 in October to continue imposing prayers as part of its formal proceedings and then inviting members of the public to provide feedback on the proposed Code of Meeting Practice.
Councillor Ian Tucker had spoken against incorporating prayers into the formal meetings and had instead asked councillors who wanted to pray to do so in private before the commencement of the meetings.
In the submission, RSA Executive Director Si Gladman said the state’s Local Government Act did not authorise council to include prayer as part of official business.
He pointed to peer-reviewed analysis by constitutional law expert Professor Luke Beck, published in 2021, in which he wrote that the reasoning in the English High Court’s ruling in R (National Secular Society) v Bideford Town Council – that local councils in England had no power to commence their meetings with prayers without express statutory authorisation to do so – applied in NSW.
This was one of the arguments put forward by a law firm acting for Victorian councillor Victor Franco in 2023, when the Boroondara council finally decided to remove prayers after having refused to do so for a number of years.
The RSA’s submission to Oberon Council also noted that including prayers would be inconsistent with New South Wales’ new Model code of meeting practice for local councils, published by the Office of Local Government and which requires council decisions to “respect the diverse needs and interests of the local community”.
While the Model code also provides for councils to adopt a series of mandatory and optional provisions, the observance of prayers is not mentioned under either categories.
Among other concerns raised, the submission argued that imposing prayers was inconsistent with Australia’s various international human rights commitments that protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It mentioned that the RSA had, earlier this year, raised the issue of prayers in government as an example of discriminatory and unfair treatment against non-religious people in a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) into Australia’s human rights review (fourth cycle).
Mr Gladman also noted that Australia had ratified International Labor Organization anti-discrimination provisions against “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of … religion …, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation”.
“Each councillor has a right to feel welcome and able to participate in council meetings on an equal basis. This is especially so given that council is their place of work,” he wrote.
“Government institutions should be secular. They should uphold the principle of separation of church and state, and be neutral on matters of religion and belief.
“As a matter of principle, governments should provide equal treatment to everyone, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs.”
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.