Home » What's Presbyterian? » How the Church is organised » General Assembly 06 » News from GA06 » Monday 2 October

Monday 2 October

Motions related to Assembly Assessment

Seniority allowances, which under the new rates set by Assembly will rise significantly over the next two years, will be paid by the parish direct to the minister.

There was an extensive debate about the status of money specifically received for charitable appeals beyond the parish. Debate focused on the clarity and flexibility (or lack of it) of present policy and its consistency of application. Assembly decided that money specifically received for charitable appeals beyond the parish will not be counted in setting the level of a parish’s national assessment.

After some debate, it was confirmed funds raised for specific presbytery-approved building projects are exempt from national assessment.

National nominations process under the spotlight

On the final morning of Assembly, the major business was the process of nominating and deciding who would serve on Council of Assembly.

Assembly agreed that there should be a deadline of four weeks’ prior to General Assembly for nominations to national bodies and workgroups. The nominating committee would meet in the following week to draft the list of appointments, rather than leaving it to the day before Assembly. This would mean the list of appointments would go to Commissioners with the late Assembly papers. Debate focused the cost of this, and whether presbyteries or the national budget should pay the equalised travel costs. The process was agreed and the charge on presbyteries was carried.

Membership of Nominating Committee itself will be authorized by the Council of Assembly.

Assembly asked that the names of Council of Assembly nominees from the five direct appointing bodies be submitted to the Nominating Committee four weeks’ prior (at the same time as other nominees). This arose from concerns expressed in earlier Assembly debate about the gender and geographical balance on the Council, when some nominations from Te Aka Puaho, the Pacific Island Synod, the Council of Asian Congregations, the Synod of Otago and Southland and the Church Property Trustees were not available.

Overture four lost

Overture four, which was lost, was an attempt to change radically the method of appointing Council of Assembly. Put forward by Taranaki Presbytery, the process would bypass completely the Nominating Committee and enable each Session or Parish Council to vote for up to eight members directly. General Assembly would make the appointments based on voting.

Rather than General Assembly making the decision about the Council’s chair and deputy chair, the first meeting of the newly-elected Council of Assembly would elect them.

Mover Neil Walker likened the present system to the appointment of list MPs appointed by a closed shop, and implored Commissioners to “let the fresh air in”. Imminently-retiring chair of the Nominations Committee, Nancy-Jean Whitehead, summarised the present system, and John Marshall of the Book of Order and Judicial Reference Group made it clear that the decision as to the final composition must be retained by Assembly itself.

Another proposal, from Tony Scott (Auckland) put forward an amendment to “streamline” the Taranaki proposal. He proposed the election of four councillors during each Assembly period, with each having a four-year term. General Assembly would have the final say, taking into account the diversity of the Church and ensuring that no less than three would come from either the South or North Islands. This system, he said, would “show that we trust our parishes”. After a short debate, this was carried.

Points in the main debate included “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” sentiments, concerns about lack of knowledge of nominees, the risk of losing gender and equity balance, and fear of factionalism. It was also made clear that Assembly could not implement such a change and it would have to be recast in the form of legislation, brought to a later Assembly and then subjected to the “special process of approval” (formerly the Barrier Act). After considerable consideration, however, the motion was lost.