|
First time around, the City of Brisbane lost. It seemed incomprehensible that the courts could not see what was so clear!
The following extracts are taken from the December 14th, 2005 Supreme Court of Queensland Order:
The respondents applied to the appellant for the benefit of this exemption during the relevant period in respect of the land on which the meeting room is situated. That application was refused because the appellant decided that the meeting room was not used "for public worship".
The respondents sought judicial review of that decision. The learned primary judge acceded to the respondents' application, set aside the appellant's decision and declared that the meeting room was used for public worship during the relevant period.
The learned primary judge found that, as a matter of practice, the members of the congregation of the Brethren "would welcome a visitor to attend any meeting … (other than a Care Meeting, the infrequent Special Meeting or the Lord's Supper) provided the visitor appeared to be well disposed, in the sense that his or her purpose was to participate in or to observe worship, was not obviously looking to make trouble or affected by alcohol and was not inappropriately dressed …"
Her Honour found that signs outside the meeting room notified passers-by that the public was permitted to attend the meeting room for religious worship with the Brethren ...
... just because it says 'Public'...
The City revisted their local statutes in June 2005 to ensure that at least this could never happen again.
Extracts from the Brisbane City Council define a 'Public Place of Worship' in terms that instantly show that the Exclusive Brethren are not in the same category as any other known 'church' as far as the City were concerned.
For the purposes of this resolution and to avoid misunderstanding, “public worship” is
defined as follows:
(i)
worship which is conducted within the concept of “open doors” so that members
of the public who are not regular congregation members of the particular religious
institution may, without impediment or condition, gain access to and participate in
such worship alongside the regular congregation members; and
(ii)
worship to which members of the public are actively invited to attend by means of
signage located at each of the public entrances to the land, such signage to include
an unambiguous and open invitation to members of the public to worship as well
as a statement as to relevant worship times (referrals to obtain worship times are
not acceptable in lieu of advertised times) and such signage to be printed in a style
that is clearly legible from outside of the boundaries of the land; and
(iii)
worship which is not pre-conditioned upon advance notice of any description and
which is not pre-conditioned upon the recommendation or approval of another
congregation member or by the completion of any precursory instruction or
induction.
|
|
At the same time, their legal team fortunately decided to appeal.
This site offered full support for them so to do and our faith in eventual justice was confirmed with the content of the final decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered December 14th, 2005 following the final hearing one month before.
Conclusion and orders
In our respectful opinion, the judgment below cannot be sustained. Private worship by a congregation is not "public worship", at least insofar as that term is to be understood in the context of rating exemptions, and it does not become public worship because the congregation may decide to permit particular members of the public to attend that worship. "Public worship" in the present rating context requires that the worship is in a place open to all properly disposed persons who wish to be present without vetting by a gatekeeper.
The time in which the respondents were required to file their notice of contention should be extended to 9 June 2005. The appeal should be allowed. The orders made by the learned primary judge should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, it is ordered that the application by the respondents should be dismissed with costs ...
The City of Brisbane had won ... and so can Your Community!
The Exclusive Brethren have no right to take your community tax money
This is not a church. This is a private club. A Very Private Club.
And You are Not Invited.
We understand that the Exclusive Brethren intend to try to persuade Brisbane City Council that they will meet their requirements. We have confidence that Brisbane City Council now know whom they are dealing with. World headlines are full of the results of their excruciating public testimony.
However, the efforts that this group will go to in order to save a few dollars may well help pave a route for us to see our families again.
Thank you Brisbane City Council!
|
|
Contact your local municipality and tell them how you feel about EB Tax Exemption
