If you’re a follower of things Anglican in Australia you will, by now, have heard the news that this last Saturday we elected a new Primate. Our new chair (it’s difficult to think of a better term given what the role is and is not) is Bishop Mark Short, currently the Diocesan Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn.
This is the first time in our history that our Primate is not one of the 5 Metropolitan Archbishops (Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane or Sydney). That in itself is extraordinary and an indication that the election process and the discussions around it were complex. So what happened in the meeting and how did Bishop Mark get elected? I’ve been speaking to a number of the electors over the past few days to build a picture of the story of the day.
Election Day for the Primate began with Morning Prayer at 10am in St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney.
The Cathedral is privileged to be holding the service prior to the meeting to elect the new Primate of Australia. The…
Posted by St Andrew's Cathedral Sydney on Friday 18 July 2025
The electors then crossed the square into St Andrew’s House where the process began. The group that met had been themselves chosen at the last General Synod and, in typical Anglican fashion, were made of three house: all the diocesan bishops, 12 clergy (which could include assistant bishops) and 12 laity.
The first order of business was to elect a chair with former Federal Senator Dr Karin Sowada chosen. Those present have described her to me as a “most excellent chair” and “in her element”. With that position filled the meeting then moved to an initial vote.
The Primates Canon 1985 allows any diocesan bishop to be elected and the first round of voting showed a spread of candidates gaining votes. It was already clear before the meeting that several prominent names were simply not going to be chosen by the majority, despite some feeling they were suitable. Archbishop Kanishka Raffel of Sydney’s links with GAFCON made him unpalatable to many of the bishops (also Bishop Richard Condie of Tasmania for much the same reason). On the theologically-liberal side it was recognised that Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy (Perth) was not going to get broad agreement and certainly not Brisbane’s Archbishop Jeremy Greaves for the same reasons. Adelaide had just resigned the position and Melbourne was not yet installed. Which left a choice that cascaded down to the non-metropolitan dioceses. Who would the spread of electors think was the right person for the job? The first round of voting took place around 1245 with the following result:
| Candidate | Bishops’ votes | Clergy votes | Laity votes | Total Votes |
| Anderson (NT) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Brain (Bendigo) | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Condie (Tasmania) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Grice (Rockhampton) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Raffel (Sydney) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| Short (Canberra-Goulburn | 5 | 8 | 6 | 19 |
| informal/spoiled | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
After lunch the meeting resumed. Every candidate apart from Brain and Short announced that they wished to not be considered in further rounds and, with a clear choice before them, the meeting had a second vote:
| Candidate | Bishops’ votes | Clergy votes | Laity votes | Total Votes |
| Brain (Bendigo) | 13 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| Short (Canberra-Goulburn | 7 | 11 | 12 | 30 |
The situation was now very clear. Short had the almost unanimous support of both houses of clergy and laity with the House of Bishops breaking in the other direction. The similarity between this moment and the infamous vote on marriage from the previous General Synod was not lost on many in the room. Once again the gulf in position between a number of bishops and the church that they were meant to represent was quite apparent.
Now the meeting heard a number of speeches. One bishop made no pretence of his dislike of the conservative position but spoke of Bishop Matt Brain as “an evangelical I can work with”. Others spoke to the capacity of either candidate to fulfil the role of Primate. The meeting was reminded that Bendigo was a smaller diocese with limited resources and hardly in a place to support the extra workload of Primate, particularly given that Brain was already enthusiastically involved in a number of different activities. Canberra-Goulburn, by contrast, had a number of assistant bishops who could help bear the load. It also had an international airport on the bishop’s doorstep. There was also the suggestion that Short was a more consultative leader.
What also appeared to influence a number of the bishops was the desire not to be seen to be a blocking vote that was so opposed to the quite clear mind of the other two houses. The memory of the last General Synod was still fresh, as was the experience last time we needed to elect a primate when the first day was deadlocked (that time because some conservatives refused to shift their position). The liberals had complained last time, it was argued, how could they now act in the same way?
And so the third vote was finally taken:
| Candidate | Bishops’ votes | Clergy votes | Laity votes | Total Votes |
| Brain (Bendigo) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| Short (Canberra-Goulburn | 11 | 12 | 12 | 35 |
One member of the panel that I spoke to was convinced that this shift in a number of bishops was a move of the Spirit to bring some stubborn voters around. Either way, the result was clear and Short and Brain returned to the meeting (having left initially when it was clear that they were the only remaining candidates). Short accepted the nomination and Brain led the meeting in praying for him.
Thanks David, very interesting indeed although I have not been an Anglican for 50 years.
David, it is very disappointing to see this published here. As I’m sure you will be aware, the Electoral Board all committed to the following: “That the members of the Board of Electors resolve that no member should communicate by phone, email or social media the details of candidates, statements about candidates or the outcome of ballots during the course of the election and will not communicate the successful election of a Primate until after the General Secretary’s email announcement.”
To so blatantly ignore such an injunction (yes, of course I’m aware that you personally did not make this commitment as you are not on the Board, but have facilitated the publication of it) as well as to publish a photo of someone taken without their permission goes against any reasonable journalistic standards, in my opinion.
Do better, please.
Or better still, take it down…
hello (Archdeacon in Adelaide) Sam. I see that you have made public the text of a motion within the meeting that I had not. You must have received that from someone inside the meeting – a breach of what you allege the spirit of the “injunction” is. But since it’s now public (by your hand) I’ll simply note that
1 the motion can be plainly understood to allow communication after the meeting – as it obviously was by those who spoke to me from many different dioceses.
2 if 1 is not true then you accuse those who spoke to me of knowingly breaching such an undertaking rather than feeling free, in good conscience, to speak to me. That is a remarkable accusation about their character.
3 you are correct to note that the motion was something that I did not personally subscribe or commit to.
4 one might argue that it is actually impossible for such a motion to bind even the members of Board. I imagine an alternate motion that calls on all members to have an alcoholic drink at the pub after the meeting to crown the new Primate’s head – are they bound by it?
I thought the photograph of Dr Sowada was excellent (and so did the members of the Board who shared it with each other – did you enquire as to whether they all got permission?) and I heard from all I spoke to that she was an most excellent chair.
davidould.net will remain a place where transparency is valued in all the affairs of the church. A light shining on everything that we do is no bad thing.