Will recent Commonwealth legislation prohibit congregations from listing the names of people needing prayer support in their news bulletins every week? Many people seem to think so although this is not the opinion of Sydney diocesan legal minds. They believe the law simply requires that organisations, including churches, act within the range of reasonable expectations people may have about their privacy being observed and personal information not made public about them without their express permission.

In January, The Daily Telegraph – a Murdoch-owned newspaper recognised for its habit of going over the top and giving a good beat-up to many a story – evinced great concern about the effects the Commonwealth privacy legislation will have on churches. Calling the Privacy Act that came into force on December 21, 2002, the ‘latest display of political correctness’, the paper claimed that the Act restricts churches from printing people’s names on weekly prayer lists. “Prayers banned without consent” was the headline.

The Telegraph outsells the SMH 2 to 1 every weekday, so concerned members of the public flooded the Anglican Media office with phone calls, after they read the report.

The assumption that this legislation will inhibit our congregational prayer for the sick and needy is a heavy charge to put onto a Federal law. The tenor of the article was of absolute certainty that this would happen.

The Bishop of Newcastle, Roger Herft, was quoted saying that the legislation “if it is not used sensibly, can contribute to the biggest disease of mankind, and that is loneliness.” He said he had never heard a church member complain about being on a prayer list, and that “on the contrary when they come to church and are surprised to hear their name on the list, they think it is wonderful that other people are thinking of them.”

The Telegraph also reported that a Roman Catholic priest had warned his parishioners in his parish bulletin that they must be careful of the legislation, and a Salvation Army spokesman said the Act appears to take away the ‘care factor’ and could deprive the sick of comfort.

There is no doubt that hospitals may now be far more reluctant to provide lists of patients to Anglican clergy who come seeking to visit their flock in the wards, and the work of hospital chaplains could be affected. Yet we must ask, “Is this the effect and intent of the legislation, or is it an over reaction by the hospitals who so act?” Anglicare officials are aware of this and are monitoring the matter carefully.

Early in November last year, a briefing memorandum on the privacy legislation was circulated throughout the Diocese to all ministers, churchwardens and parish councillors. It was the product of careful preparation by Sydney diocesan legal officer Robert Wicks, who also briefed the registrars of all Australian Anglican dioceses when they met late last year. The memorandum is on the diocesan website.

Mr Wicks was stunned by the Telegraph story and went on the Seven Network Breakfast Sunrise program to assure viewers that it ran contrary to the decided opinions of the Diocese of Sydney.

He said he agreed with the Deputy Privacy Commissioner who told the Telegraph that the act was concerned with people’s expectations of what will happen with their personal information.
Small businesses, that is, any with an annual turnover of less than $3 million, are generally exempt from the legislation. The Privacy Commissioner’s office has indicated that organisations such as parishes should in this regard be considered as small businesses, so that means the parish and the weekly prayer lists are exempt. There is also a journalism exemption that is a great relief for Southern Cross staff.

So there is no need for anxiety from congregations and church leaders. But we must be careful not to rest on our exemption as small businesses. Of course what the legislation does require is that all organisations act within the basic principles of personal courtesy and meeting the reasonable expectations people have about their personal information being made public.

To put it crassly, no one should say to their congregation, “Pray for Mrs Bloggs, who is in hospital having had a haemorrhoid operation.” They should say “Pray for Mrs Bloggs, who is in hospital.”
Congregations and their leaders will be able to continue acting as they always do, Christianly, and extending courtesy to everyone with their usual compassion and care.

Yet the law is undoubtedly a case of mild political correctness.