In March 1995 the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney resolved to request the Primate to refer the following question to the Appellate Tribunal for its opinion:

Would the Preaching and Administration of Holy Communion by Lay Persons and Deacons Ordinance 1995, if passed by the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney and assented to by the Archbishop of Sydney in the form now before the Synod, be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia?

Subsequently acting under the terms of Section 63 of the Constitution, I referred the question to the Appellate Tribunal and a preliminary hearing was held.

On 18 October 1995 the Archbishop of Sydney wrote to me to convey the following resolution of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney passed on 11 October:

Because of cost and other factors involved, this Synod withdraws the question asked in Resolution 3/95, requests the Diocesan Secretary to inform the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal that the Synod does not seek an answer to that question, and thanks the Appellate Tribunal for its trouble to date.

Subsequently I wrote to the President of the Appellate Tribunal seeking the advice of the Tribunal on certain questions. In a letter dated 1 November 1995 the President of the Appellate Tribunal, having consulted other members of the Tribunal, replied to my questions in these terms:

1. The Primate, having been obliged to refer the question as he did, could not unilaterally withdraw the reference.
2. If the request to the Primate to refer the question were withdrawn, he may withdraw his reference to the Tribunal without leave of the Tribunal, but is not obliged to do so.
3. If he did withdraw the reference the Primate would be entitled to make a fresh reference to the Tribunal of the same question.
4. The resolution of Sydney Synod of 11 October 1995 that it "withdraw the question asked in Resolution 3/95" may be reasonably construed as a withdrawal at the request of the Primate to refer the question.

In reflecting on the answers given by the Appellate Tribunal, I have taken into consideration the following matters:

1. Although the Preaching and Administration of Holy Communion by Lay Persons and Deacons Ordinance 1995 was not proceeded with at the 1995 session of the Sydney Synod, it was indicated that that Ordinance, or one with a similar intention, would be brought before the Synod the following year. I understand that one reason given for the withdrawal was in order that the President of Synod might have the benefit of the opinion of the Appellate Tribunal as to its constitutional validity.  
2. The possibility of lay or diaconal presidency at Holy Communion has been raised in at least one other diocese as a possible means of providing sacramental ministry for people in scattered rural areas.  
3. The Standing Committee of General Synod resolved at its meeting in October 1995 to request the Primate "to continue, at his discretion, the current reference before the Appellate Tribunal, concerning the Preaching and Administration of Holy Communion by Lay Persons and Deacons Ordinance 1995 of the Diocese of Sydney, or other questions concerning lay presidency".

In the light of the advice of the Appellate Tribunal and of the considerations mentioned above, I have decided to withdraw the reference of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney and under the provisions of Section 63 of the Constitution to make a new reference. In order to try to ensure that any questions or questions referred to the tribunal should be framed in the most adequate form, I invited comments from those who had been recognised by the Tribunal as parties to the hearing.

Having considered these comments, I have broadened the terms of the initial question to cover not simply the Sydney Ordinance (whose terms may in any case be subject to change) but the broad principle of lay or diaconal presidency at the Holy Communion. It has also seemed appropriate to refer an additional question as to the power of diocesan synods to legislate on this matter.

Various other suggestions were made to me as to additional questions which might be referred to the Tribunal, but I concluded that it was not appropriate for me as Primate to enlarge the range of issues beyond those covered in the original reference made at the request of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney. Insofar as such additional issues are relevant, they will presumably be raised by interested parties in their submission to the tribunal.

The Reference which I have made to the Appellate Tribunal is as follows:

1. Is it consistent with the Constitution of The Anglican Church of Australia to permit or authorise, or otherwise make provision for -
   1. deacons to preside at, administer or celebrate the Holy Communion;
      Or
   2. lay persons to preside at administer or celebrate the Holy Communion?
2. If the whole or any part of the answer to Question 1 is YES, is it consistent with the constitution of The Anglican Church of Australia for a diocesan synod, otherwise than under and in accordance with a Canon of General Synod, to permit, authorise or make provision as mentioned in Question 1?

+Keith, Melbourne
Primate
8 March 1996