This post is co-published with Murray Campbell.

Over the past week a letter has been promoted and circulated around many churches and religious organisations. The Ezekiel Declaration (“the Declaration”) is addressed to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and outlines concerns over a potential “vaccine passport” that would be required for church attendance. The letter has now received 2000+ signatures of religious leaders from across Australia, and for that reason alone it is gaining much attention receiving quite a splash. For every signatory there are certainly many more Christian leaders who have not signed their names. Still, 2000+ names and the organisations that they represent is a significant number.

In some respects there are a number of clear core statements in the Declaration that we (David Ould and Murray Campbell) would want to support. We strongly agree that there is a serious question to be asked about “vaccine passports”, particularly when they impact upon church attendance. We are also in robust agreement with the authors of the Declaration that “conscience should never be coerced”.  

Nevertheless, we have declined from adding our names and support to this manifesto. While we share some of the concerns raised in the Ezekiel Declaration, we are unable in good conscience to align ourselves with other aspects and the overall tone and content. 

Our purpose here is to explain the reasons why we have not signed the Ezekiel Declaration and to also caution others from doing so. While we respect how some religious leaders have and will wish to affirm this document and continue to respect those leaders as individuals, we encourage people to think through the issues that we raise here before adding their endorsement to what we consider to be a confused and ultimately unhelpful document.


First, the tone of the letter is combative rather than cooperative.

Both the title and subtitle suggests a posture of hubris and even spiritual smugness: “The Ezekiel Declaration” and  “Watchmen, it’s time to speak”.

Really? Are the authors claiming a prophetic word or preaching Divine judgment upon those who are drafting COVID policies?  This level of rhetoric continues throughout the letter. For example, the authors refer to “medical apartheid” and “the dangerous precipice of a therapeutic totalitarianism”. This seems to be inflammatory language that does not accurately represent the current situation.

Straight away the letter therefore signals an ‘us versus them’ position; we the churches against a bullish and autocratic Government. At this point in time in Australia the situation is more akin to Daniel ch.1 than Daniel ch.6. We are appealing for a fair hearing before the Government, not open defiance with our lives being threatened for any dissent. We are seeking to persuade, not calling for civil disobedience.

We understand the issues at stake and we share concerns about any proposed vaccine passport, but from the outset the tone of the letter communicates an angry sermon rather than bridge building.

We will further address the theological implications of this title below but, for now, simply note that the Declaration takes on a combative approach.

We are also concerned that the Declaration is unnecessarily political. We are entirely convinced that there is a place for responsible engagement with political parties (at times working with them and at times challenging them) but a genuine danger in being seen to be overly partisan. The Declaration has already been leveraged by one political party for political purposes and this does nothing to allay fears that the Declaration is first and foremost a political document, and one that comes from a particular political position.


Second, the letter nowhere encourages people to be vaccinated and it fails to affirm the safety and efficacy of the available COVID-19 vaccines. 

There is a single word that is accepting but not positive about vaccinations, and even then it is partnered with a word of dissent,

While some individuals will receive the vaccination with thanks, others may have good and informed reasons for declining. 

The Declaration does not define what these ‘good and informed reasons’ are. It then proceeds to misuse the words of the Federal Health Minister in February 2021 in support of refraining from being vaccinated. 

One such reason [for declining vaccination] is highlighted in the statement of the health minister Greg Hunt: 

“The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data.”

When we read the linked transcript of the interview we see the Minister endorsing the vaccination process, not casting aspersions upon it. He states, 

One of the things that is absolutely fundamental to confidence is the belief in safety. And the essence of safety is a full and thorough assessment…that’s ultimately about making sure we have the maximum take-up in Australia, and above all else, safety, safety, safety. That’s our duty. But it also leads to confidence and take-up.

Hunt’s argument is not that the vaccine is unsafe. On the contrary, he is stating that the approval process for the vaccine is there to provide confidence in it; confidence in the face of the uncertainty that some feel – the same uncertainty that the Declaration promotes.

We see a similar failure to handle sources responsibly in the reference to a CDC study when discussing the efficacy of vaccines. The Declaration states, having referenced the study, “it is evident that vaccines do not prevent infection”. This is, at best, misguided language. Nobody claims that the vaccines prevent infection, simply that they greatly reduce the rate of infection and the negative outcomes from those infections. Further, the report that is linked in the Declaration to support this claim closes with these words,

While numerous studies have shown that the vaccines don’t work as well against the delta variant as they did against other strains, health officials say they are still highly effective, especially in protecting against severe illness and death. Roughly 97% of new hospitalizations and 99.5% of deaths in the U.S. are among unvaccinated individuals, U.S. health officials repeated this week.

The CDC also said the data has limitations. The agency noted that as population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of Covid cases. Additionally, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias, the agency said.

The CDC also said the report is “insufficient” to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the authorized vaccines against Covid, including the delta variant, during this outbreak.

In recent months, data coming from overseas and now locally is demonstrating the substantial effectiveness of these vaccines in lowering the risk of people being seriously ill and dying with COVID-19, a benefit that far outweighs the very small recorded risk of vaccine side-effects.

Christian leaders have an obligation to quote people in context and to represent their position with fairness. Christian leaders also have a duty of care to listen to experts,  convey accurate information, and to refer people to their local GP, rather than publicly undermine health advice. We have documented how at two critical points in its argument the Declaration does not do this.

We appreciate how some Australians are hesitant to take the vaccine at this point in time and are sympathetic towards them. Our intention isn’t to ‘force’ the conscience. We also understand and affirm that there are valid medical reasons why a limited number of Australians cannot use these vaccines. We also understand that as time progresses our understanding of COVID-19 and the best ways to fight against it will improve and at times perhaps change tack. Our concern here is how the Ezekiel Declaration offers no encouragement and no positive information about COVID-19 vaccines. At best this is disappointing, at worst this is knowingly misleading and may undercut people’s confidence in being vaccinated when it is actually the best decision for most of our population when the relative risks are properly assessed.

Finally, we note that it is now well-established that widespread vaccination is the single greatest accelerator for achieving an opening up of our communities and a more “normal” life, the very thing that the Declaration strives for.


Third, the arguments are a kaleidoscope of confusion, conflation, and misrepresentations. 

We have already noted above some serious errors in the way the Declaration handles other material. More generally it seems to us that there is an unhelpful and unclear mixture of different arguments being made. Had the Declaration not contained much of this it would be more useful. Instead the authors have chosen to roll in additional arguments that do little to support their case, especially when (as we have shown) their arguments are based on poor use of external material.

One more example is helpful.

The authors spend much time addressing the issue of mental health. While this is pertinent to discussions surrounding the pandemic, including ongoing lockdowns, it isn’t directly relevant to the question of mandatory vaccine passports for churches. Our hearts ache for those who are overwhelmed and exhausted mentally and emotionally. As pastors we tend to congregation members who are suffering and struggling because of the pandemic. The growing strain is palpable and we too are concerned at the emotional, social, economic, and spiritual toll this is taking on millions of lives. We are pleased to see that politicians, doctors and the media are beginning to address these issues with increasing urgency. These factors, however, are separate from the question of vaccine passports and whether the government should introduce them and even mandate them for public worship services. To conflate them as the Declaration does is to confuse the argument.

The Declaration presents itself as a call against mandated vaccination for attendance at worship service. In reality it also attempts to argue against lockdowns and repeats discredited anti-vaccination arguments and does so with questionable use of source. By rolling in these two extra divisive issues in the manner that it does it presents a far less cohesive argument, let alone fails to garner comprehensive support amongst a wider Christian cohort.


Fourth, the list of signatories raises some concerns in a number of ways. We are uncomfortable signing our names to an alliance of ‘Christian leaders’ where the list includes members of a non-Christian sect and numerous ‘churches’ and other organisations that are considered fringe if not heterodox any other day of the week.

One notable example is the endorsement of Reignite Democracy Australia, an anti-masking anti-lockdown and anti-vax group whose founder was recently charged with incitement following on from illegal anti-lockdown demonstrations.

In addition we have been personally contacted by those who tell us their names have appeared as signatories on the Declaration without their action or consent. We have also had correspondence with those whose professional background includes the investigation of data integrity and they have raised concerns with some elements of the data as it is presented. None of this is to suggest in any way that the writers and promoters of the Declaration have deliberately falsified the signatories, yet there remain concerns about how some of the signatories have been recorded.


Fifth, instead of offering clear Gospel hope to our country, this letter creates suspicion and suggests that Christians are more interested in their own freedom rather than the common good.

At a time when Australia desperately needs to hear and see the beauty of God’s good news, this letter fails to deliver. Despite the closing language affirming the gospel, the message given is not one filled with grace and hope, but rather one of frustration, unbelief, and defiance which obscures and even contradicts the final gospel call. 

Gospel and Biblical fidelity will always be a concern with any declaration made by Christian leaders but particularly one styling itself after the “watchman” of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 33 we learn what the watchman’s role is:

Ezek. 33:1-6   The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, 4 then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not heed the warning and the sword comes and takes their life, their blood will be on their own head. 5 Since they heard the sound of the trumpet but did not heed the warning, their blood will be on their own head. If they had heeded the warning, they would have saved themselves. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes someone’s life, that person’s life will be taken because of their sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for their blood.’

Ezekiel 33:1-6

In the context of the writing of Ezekiel (the impending judgment of Judah under God’s hand by the means of Babylon) the watchman’s role is clear; he calls the people to repentance for their sin in the face of judgment (a judgement signalled as imminent by the blowing of a trumpet). In other words, it is the role of any gospel minister to warn of the coming judgement and urge people to find their refuge in Christ. This document does not do that. By using the title of “Ezekiel Declaration” it confuses that great eternal moment of decision with a lesser, albeit significant, matter before the churches. It frames the question of vaccine mandates in the churches (and more general questions around vaccination and lockdowns) as on a scale with the Babylonian invasion and destruction of God’s people. The immediate remedy it suggests is not the gospel of Jesus. The Declaration communicates a defiance of God-ordained authority rather than trusting submission of the Lord as we engage with a difficult moment in our common life. By using the language of the “watchman” it also labels those who do not agree as failed watchmen who have neglected their solemn duties as stewards of the gospel. We are firmly convinced there is a much higher threshold for this charge of abandoning the gospel than disagreement over the matters raised in the Declaration. It is deeply divisive.

Why We Can’t Sign the Ezekiel Declaration

There is a genuine issue relating to vaccine passports, both in general and specifically when tied to church attendance. We will be extremely concerned if Governments decide that religious organisations must mandate vaccination for attendees and participants in public worship services and other religious meetings. There may yet be a need to respectfully make our case and even courageously refuse to place a limit on who may gather together with the people of God. But we are not at the moment yet, nor has any such potential restriction even been announced. Our concern is that the Ezekiel Declaration neither provides a productive pattern by which opposition should happen if required nor increases the opportunity for productive engagement with Governments before then.

Finally a personal word. The two authors have come to publish this position with some hesitancy. We are both known, perhaps even notorious, for standing for gospel purity within our own denominations. That has sometimes come at personal cost. Nor have we been shy when it comes to public engagement with the authorities, be they media, governmental or other. Where necessary we have taken the opportunity to speak of Jesus in the public sphere especially when his word is not well-received. We respectfully do not believe that the charge of “selling out” or cowardice can be levelled against us. We are also acutely aware that many of those that we are effectively criticising here are our natural allies in many of these struggles, not to mention those that we are at times more comfortable with when it comes to political expression. One of us has spoken on your platforms and been featured in your websites. We have spoken plainly about “culture wars” and the like and will continue to do so. We are fellow evangelicals.

Despite this we felt the need to write. We ask that the above be received as it was intended, “wounds from a friend that can be trusted” (Prov. 27:6). We long for gospel unity with all our brethren and offer this letter in that spirit.

To the rest of our readers we ask you to consider whether adding your endorsement to the “Ezekiel Declaration” is the wisest choice at this moment in time or even if you ought to now ask for it to be removed. We believe that the Ezekiel Declaration is an unhelpful move, unnecessarily political, confused in its argumentation and ultimately divisive at a time when the church should be known for its united loyalty to Jesus and his gospel, expressed in an appropriate engagement with the world.

Murray Campbell, Lead Pastor Mentone Baptist Church, Melbourne.

Rev. David Ould, Senior Associate Minister St John’s Anglican Cathedral Parramatta.

Leave a Reply

79 comments on “Why We Can’t Sign the Ezekiel Declaration. An Evangelical Response.

  1. After quarrelling over opinions, the Ezekiel Declaration has the hide to quote Romans 14 verse 1. What this Declaration would do is make of the church a first class stumbling block – in the very sense of Romans 14 – and it would do so professing sanctimoniously the name of Jesus Christ. Put simply there is nothing more ugly than a right-wing Christian (and none more sickening than those who are left-wing).

    • What is worse than right or left wing Christians is someone who claims he is wise, but is foolish and lacks any and all discernment about whats going on in his society.

      • 1 John 4:3. If we were to use biblical language, we’d say that what is going on in our society is the work of the Devil. I discern it very well, especially in the ranks of professing Christians. I refer you to the entire chapter 4 of 1 John.

  2. As evangelical Christians we face a huge challenge in how best to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our responses must be personal and communal.

    Personal responses focus on the question of immunisation. As a medical practitioner I believe we should all, individually, gain as much valid information as we can from trustworthy sources and then weigh up the pros and cons of immunisation for us in our particular situation with respect to our states of bodily and mental health, and any potential risks to them. Some will find it helpful to do this in conjunction with a trusted general practitioner who understands our health better than we do. For the vast majority of us that weighing up will lead us to a decision to become immunised by receiving a full course of one of the vaccines available, and as soon as possible.

    Our communal responses might best be guided by the second great commandment of Jesus. How best can we love our neighbour in this situation? One way is by not being a source of COVID-19 infection. If we have chosen not to be immunised for some reason, or we have not been immunised yet, we should take every precaution to avoid contact with anyone who may be susceptible to the infection. If that means not visiting elderly relatives, or not attending weddings or funerals, or not attending communal worship, so be it. We must not make any exceptions that might place someone else at risk. The community in which we make these responses should be our local church fellowship, those we know and trust, not any sort of organisation pushing a political agenda.

    Both personally and communally we should continue to trust the Lord of the universe, to pray to Him for guidance and to thank Him for having His protective hand over us until this pandemic passes, as pass it surely will.

    • Very well said, Robert. Christians otherwise are taking on the community’s fear and rage as if they had no faith and no Lord to trust. In fact we are making far too much of this by way of example to unbelievers.

    • Second part of your comment is a completely illogical argument – becoming typical of late – and particularly so when coming from someone trained in medicine.

      You are conflating non-vaccination with actually having a disease.
      Depending on various factors, being unvaccinated may or may not increase the statistically low risk of catching COVID-19, but a vaccinated person is supposed to be immune from the virus even if a visitor is symptomatic…. in which case they would not be visiting you anyway.

      Your comment that the “vast majority” should choose to be vaccinated apparently includes vaccinating the 30% of the population that already have natural immunity – notwithstanding that vaccination is at best inferior to natural immunity and at worst is likely to compromise natural immunity.

      You also appear to ignore those who maintain their Creator-designed immune system fortified by correct levels of Vitamin D, magnesium, Vitamin C, zinc and other recommended supplements that maintain a healthy system…… a message which is sadly lacking in the noise of daily press conferences.

      The entire logic of the argument is skewed toward presuming vaccinated people are in danger from unvaccinated heathy people….. when they should not be in any danger at all…… and the focus can be on proper treatment of the sick.

      There is zero justification for placing restrictions on anyone who volunteers to be part of a control group. The “risk” is theirs to take, and they are only theoretically “at risk” from others in the control group….. not a risk to or from the vaccinated cohort.

      Furthermore, should it prove to be that in several years time the vaccines result in some serious adverse effects, there will at least be a control group of unvaccinated to actually compare.

      (All this is without even considering the questions now becoming evident from Israel about the efficacy of the vaccines)

      • Alan Beasy, I take it that you are referring to the argument of Robert Bruce that communally we should be guided by the second great commandment of Jesus. If so, your response does not make any sense. What you appear to overlook is that the issue in question concerns how we are to follow the second great commandment. Robert Bruce’s comments may or may not be errant, n this respect, but you have not shown that they are. What is at issue, in relation to the aforesaid commandment of Jesus, is the perceived selfishness of those who refuse vaccination, not the efficacy of vaccination.

        • Yes. Chris. My response was referring to the comment by Robert Bruce. If my reply does not make sense to you, perhaps I can help.

          The matter of being guided by the second great commandment merely begs the question. In what way are those refusing the vaccination being selfish?

          If you read my comment you might recognise the contention I am making regarding how vaccinated people are at risk from unvaccinated.
          Firstly, there is a problem if the argument is that vaccinated people are not safe from the disease.
          Secondly, there is a false assumption that unvaccinated people are diseased people.

          And thirdly, it seems to totally ignore my point that at least 30% of the population already have superior immunity than a vaccine can provide.

          Perhaps for a new perspective or verification you might visit the links I included in my larger response visible further below.

          • Alan, thanks for your comments. You raise some interesting questions. They are not questions that I would aspire to comment on insofar as I do not have a medical training that would help me get on top of the issues. However I am happy to concede the points that you are wanting to make. The issue then becomes a political one concerning the rights of the individual. Even so, none of this has a bearing on the matter of the predicament facing those who would follow Christ. You ask the question as to the way in which “… refusing the vaccination [is] being selfish”. Even that is not the issue that captures the predicament facing those who would follow Christ. The point is that the opposition toward those who refuse the vaccination is strong in the wider community. Refusants are perceived as selfish, and as acting against the common good and the welfare of others. You have put arguments that would undermine that point of view if they were accepted by the mainstream. Maybe they should be? Again, that is not so much the point. The Christian does not have a duty to hold what is the right position in a public health debate. That is the point. He has a duty to love God and to love his neighbour as himself. Some have followed Christ into leper colonies and lost their lives.

            • Thanks Chris, I now understand the point Robert and you have been making….. that refusing the vaccine is our choice, but that our communal response should be to isolate ourselves, in love for our neighbour, for their perceived safety irrespective of who is right or wrong.

              Our political leaders are threatening to deny us access to public venues and other liberties, while you are saying that, for the love of Christ and the church, we should be vaccinated or remain separated from you all.

              I guess my only question is, who are the lepers in this sorry pass?

              • Alan, you make a very good point rhetorically, but my own view actually is not that love requires us to be vaccinated or sequestered. Unfortunately for me I do not have a clear answer as to what is required by love for our neighbour. I do think however that that is what we should be discussing as Christians, whatever views we might also have concerning the efficacy and safety of vaccination. This is where I find evangelical and other church commentators to be so vacuous and unhelpful to those who are their flock.

  3. I am very disappointed by your response to this blatant attack on the freedom that western countries have always had under the banner of Christianity. The Nuremberg Code states that nothing should be administered into a person’s body without their consent. COVID Passes are an attack on personal freedom. We do not know the long term implications of these experimental injections, because they have been administered under emergency legislation. It is naive to assume that those pushing this agenda have benign intent. These passes will be global and open up health information worldwide.
    In the UK there have been 1600 vaccine deaths recorded under the UK Yellow Card scheme. Children have hardly been affected by the virus – they do not need the vaccine. The first rule of Medicine is “do no harm”.
    Many people have had COVID and are now immune. My sister was 80 when she caught it in hospital and is still alive. My daughter had it 3 weeks ago and is now OK. Medicines are on the market which work well in the early stages, but the NHS will not offer them.

      • God’s word says His banner over us is love. To live within his precepts is to live in security and faith. Our countries laws are founded on Judeo Christian foundations. These are now being shamelessly disrespected by those in Governments around the world.
        C S Lewis said “there is no greater tyranny than that which is for your own good”. I am responsible for my own actions before God I am not a collective as in godless communism.

          • You are not persuaded to become a Christian. You make a decision to follow Christ and serve him. I made my decision 35 years ago and have served Him for those years. Unpleasant rhetoric to someone you have never met are is not a Christian response.

            • Acts 26:28. There is a good argument, on health grounds, against vaccination. It is not overriding because the issue is also a public health issue. None of this is relevant to how a follower of Christ should act in the circumstances. I have to say that you warrant more than unpleasant rhetoric for serving the interests of the Angel of Light.

    • No one has suggested that something be injected into your body without consent. You are misusing the “do not harm” rule as vaccines are administered to stop the harm. These are diseases that would overwhelm your immune systems ability to fight it if it were not for the “heads up this is what the enemy looks like and this is what you should do if it invades” receives in the form of a vaccine.

      It might be worth thinking about the social conditions within which you have your health too. Previous generations developed vaccines to wipe out polio and smallpox and stop the spread of other childhood diseases. It must have been hard to take the leap into vaccines for the first people who took them but I am grateful and humbled by their actions. Look at your ancestry, go back a few generations over 100 years ago and see how many children under 5 have died in families of 10, 12 children. How traumatic that must have been for their mothers and siblings.

      We are standing on what previous generations have built for us, perhaps we need to exercise the same kind of bravery they did – willingly – for the next generations to come.

      • Mel. Unfortunately your comment from the opening paragraph is predicated on the false assumption that everyone’s immune system will be “overwhelmed” without protection from the vaccine. This is patent nonsense given that of the millions of people who have contracted COVID-19, the majority had mild or no symptoms and over 98% recovered without a vaccine.

        A conservative estimate is that at least 30% of the population has natural immunity – which is far superior to superior to Vaccine immunity. I am one of those and I do not appreciate the suggestion that I must have a passport confirming that I have received a “shot” of mRNA spike protein messenger code in order for me to be free.

        Healthy, God-given immune systems do not need any assistance from a new miracle medical intervention.

        Your second paragraph is unrelated to the question of COVID-19 because they are completely different diseases and vaccines. Not to mention that COVID-19 is not a disease of any significance to children.

        • Alan, I sense that many people in this thread have been educated by the media. There is a growing number of scientists and doctors, many who are believers, who are warning us of the dangers of experiment gene therapy. These men and women are being censored. Those of us who seek truth must always consider that which our tech giants is keeping from us. I have left my congregation as there was far more fear than faith. I am now participating in a home church which is meeting illegally. My pastoral visits are illegal. What I find sadly lacking with many of my family in Christ is that they are oblivious to a larger (sinister) agenda. I am comforted by Psalm 64

          • Wayne, you do not have the right as a follower of Christ to find fault with other believers because they do not share your political views in relation to the present situation. It does not matter whether you are right in holding these views, and that other believers may have got things dreadfully wrong. That is not the point. You don’t leave your congregation because you believe that the people there are fearful. It doesn’t matter whether they are fearful or not. What makes you think that you are following Christ by meeting illegally with other people who may have more faith. I don’t understand how you can think like this as a follower of Christ, but, perhaps, you could give it some thought and let us know.

            • Chris. It would seem that you need to remove the log from your own eye. You are criticising another’s actions. The Bible does actually tell us to “come out from among them”. I may soon have to do that with the trajectory of the Church of England on same sex marriage.

              • Tricia, I certainly am criticising the actions of other people, but I hope not to be judgmental. So, I’ve tried to get Wayne to discuss further. Thanks for your response. In reply, I have to say that being ethical or being reasonable is not what it means to be a follower of Christ. When people, like David Ould (and others on this site), do not make this particular distinction, then admittedly I’m the first to do so. When the Bible tells us to “come out from among them” it is referring to pretenders, who, in our day, advocate for homosexual blessings and other ungodly things. Note that they do so by arguing in effect that it is reasonable and/or ethical to reject the Bible.

            • Chris. You seem to have set yourself up as a counsellor of Christian love, mentoring a balanced course between differing views, but in doing so you seem oblivious to your own bias and the clear implications of what you write.

              You were out of line to rebuke Wayne on the basis of assumptions which went beyond what Wayne wrote.
              Wayne did not “fault with other believers because they do not share (his) political views”.

              Do you not to realise that this is not merely a disagreement between people with different political views?

              There are vaccinated Christians verbalising their support for banishing fellow Christians from society if they not receive vaccinations. There are Christians literally telling other Christians they will not fellowship with them if they are not vaccinated – making ‘unclean’ lepers of them, without them even being sick.

              I understand that Wayne may have left his congregation due to what might have been unbearable pressure.

              At the end of a church service I was involved in on Sunday, a fellow Christian actually said out loud that Christians who do not get vaccinated should stay home. The irony for naturally immune Christians is that we do not share such fear.

              This is at the heart of your bias, Chris. You seems to think the proper Christian response to the fear by the vaccinated is for the unvaccinated to stay home.

              An alternative proposal is valid, which also offers liberty to the vaccinated.

              “Stay home if you want to.
              Wear a mask if you want to.
              Get vaccinated if you want to.
              But let the rest of us get on with our lives”?

              For those who are uncomfortable with signing the Ezekiel Declaration, perhaps the Moses Statement might be a consideration.

              http://caldronpool.com/mosesstatement/

              • Alan, thanks for your comment. I don’t understand why you say that I seem “to think the proper Christian response to the fear by the vaccinated is for the unvaccinated to stay home”. I didn’t say anything remotely like this. Unfortunately for me, I can not say exactly what love for our neighbour requires of us in relation to this matter, but I do think that this is what we should be discussing, as followers of Christ, notwithstanding the somewhat poor lead we have had from David Ould (see my reply to you above viz. at 6.16 PM, on September 4).

                I do have to say, Alan, that you are exactly like Wayne; that is to say, you are faulting other (vaccinated) Christians because they do not share your political views. I’m referring, in particular, to those who, you encountered, who said, in relation to this matter, that Christians should stay at home if they were not vaccinated. Of course I would reject this argument quicksmart, as it were, for I can not possibly conceive that this would show men and women that we are disciples of Christ (John 13:35). Did they give you some reason why they may have thought otherwise? I would also say, however, that the “alternative proposal” that you refer to appears beside the point insofar as what is required of us by the commandment to love our neighbour is not that we should afford “liberty to the vaccinated”. Do you, yourself, think otherwise for some reason?

                Concerning the Moses Statement I note that it is opposed to there being restrictions on a relevant freedom of assembly viz religious services; however I don’t see that our love for God does in fact motivate this Statement because it does not itself actually make any sense: the relevant restrictions only exist in order to control a public health crisis. The restrictions do not prevent public worship, and they are not intended to do so. They are designed to limit our attendance at church buildings. That makes sense to many people. Governments often get things wrong, however, in which case forbearance may be appropriate in the circumstances. I admit that that would be a political call, but there is certainly nothing here that would warrant invoking by name the putative author of the Pentateuch. In fact, to be perfectly frank, I believe the signatories of this Statement are acting in a manner that is unbecoming the body of Christ.

                • Thanks again Chris. I agree that “the proper Christian response to the fear by the vaccinated is for the unvaccinated to stay home” is not something you have directly advocated but one could be forgiven for thinking that from your earlier references regarding obedience to the second great commandment of Christ to love our neighbour. But I confess I am unsure as to what you are actually advocating.

                  You wrote: “The restrictions do not prevent public worship, and they are not intended to do so. They are designed to limit our attendance at church buildings” because “the relevant restrictions only exist in order to control a public health crisis”

                  OK. So firstly the matter of “a public heath crisis” is question begging. But are you saying our public worship is not prevented by limiting our gathering together as believers…. because I can worship publicly on my own?

                  You have stated previously that you are “happy to concede the points that (I am) wanting to make. The issue then becomes a political one concerning the rights of the individual”.

                  Perhaps I do not concur with your definition “political” in this context.
                  Your perception that I am “exactly like Wayne; that is to say, you are faulting other (vaccinated) Christians because they do not share your political views” demonstrates this. What was my political view? And where was I finding fault?

                  My “alternative proposal” was to illustrate an inconsistency – not to advocate an action granting “liberty to the vaccinated”. Liberty is not ours to afford or withhold – from either side of the fence.

                  i guess i will just have to leave it there. Others can weigh up your arguments.

                  • As to what I am advocating, Alan, it is nothing more than what Robert Bruce said above on 2 September:

                    “Both personally and communally we should continue to trust the Lord of the universe, to pray to Him for guidance and to thank Him for having His protective hand over us until this pandemic passes, as pass it surely will”.

                    Furthermore, I note that I am not vaccinated, and that I am particularly concerned should this be perceived by others as selfishness on my part i.e. in the present circumstances. So I was advocating for some discussion as to what love requires of us as Christians. Can you see that whether it is question-begging to speak of “a public health crisis” is scarcely the point, unless it is considered imperative to hold the right position in the relevant debates, medically and politically.

      • Vaccine passports are coercion to have the injection. In France you cannot sit in a cafe for coffee without one.
        I have a healthy immune system which will fight the infection – I don’t need an experimental cocktail to fight this virus. I would like to have medicinal treatment if necessary, but this is being withheld.
        All the jab does is hopefully prevents the “ at risk “ dying. It does not stop you getting infected and infecting others. So the vaccinated are just as likely to pass it on as the unvaccinated.
        I have had previous vaccinations, but these have all had the full trial before being given to the population. This jab has had more deaths and reactions reported than all the other roll outs put together. Swine flu vaccine was withdrawn after around 50 deaths.

      • The media is not to be trusted is true. They are bought and paid for. They can no longer sell newspapers as before and have to rely on advertising revenue. Guess who has spent billions on advertising in this COVID period – the UK Government.
        The UK Yellow card scheme reporting system does report 1600 vaccine related deaths. If you go to UK Column website they run an easy to read table on the Yellow Card scheme.
        The UK now has many people catching COVID even though they are double jabbed. My daughter works in a care home – last month 20 residents plus staff, including my daughter, caught COVID (all were double jabbed). Israel is the most jabbed country and has the highest number of cases. They are now saying the jab only lasts six weeks, but natural immunity is lasting. They want to start booster jabs – how many times do you want to be jabbed? It’s a big money spinner for the pharmaceutical companies.

    • Tricia the mention of the Nuremberg code is significant thank you. What I find most people ignoring is the climbing death rate from vaccine injury (approaching 500 in Australia and 50 pages of adverse effects TGA website). The death rate in highly vaccinated countries is alarming. ie Gibraltar, Iceland and Israel. I have not used vaccines for 47 years and my 9 children have never been vaccinated. We enjoy wonderful health and very rarely need to see our GP who supports our decision and does not vaccinate her own children. I have never had the flu and get 5 colds a decade. A key feature in our constant barrage of health advice from our chief health officers does not recommend sunlight or high quality Vit C, nor does it recommend good nutrition.

      • Wayne, I am also in the minority in my church. I find it difficult that even now after 18 months of this barrage of lies from Governments people are still accepting it. I have begun to talk about this gently and point out that children are not at risk from COVID and that the jabbed elderly are not dying – 20 recovered 80 and 90 year olds last month in a local nursing home.
        I think people find it difficult to accept that they have been duped and are hoping for the best. I agree with you, the epidemic is now in the double jabbed and how can people not think that if you are vaccinated you should not be getting it!
        I was encouraged by watching a video on Bitchute last night with a lawyer who is gathering evidence together with colleagues to bring a charge under Crimes against Humanity.
        The fight in the UK has now shifted to children. They are going to start so called vaccinations this term and are saying 12-15 year old can decide without parental consent. I have talked to my grandson who is 13 and told him to walk out of school when they come and come to my house. My daughter has told the school he is not to be jabbed but I don’t trust them. Under the “do no harm” element of medicine children are not at risk and do not need this. Doctors in the UK are being paid £22 for every jab – this sickens me. Especially after the blood clotting and heart problems which have occurred. Evil walks abroad. Prayer is needed.
        I am a member of a prayer group whose members are aware. Archbishop Vigano in the Catholic Church has been outspoken about the globalist goals using COVID. The catholic website Lifesitenews has been very good at getting to alternative info. There is a group of doctors in the US called Doctors for Truth.

    • Herd immunity, the differences between protecting the individual from death and serious illness. The inclined curve of Sars Covid 19 Delta strain is possibly going vertical above the r number of less than 1.0. The mean vaccine group provides a significant protection against severe illness or death and reduces hospitalisation and the possible collapse of the health system when ventilation ICU beds and indeed ED and ward beds are overwhelmed by delta. Perhaps loving ones neighbour requires vaccination. Rather than unpack all of Tricias comments as to which are false scientifically inaccurate or just plain conspiracy theory the simple answers are please get vaccinated. As Inam in a high risk group by being vaccinated and creating heard immunity you may save my life. Rev Davids letter above was a brave intelligent comment on a highly politicised document. For Rev David to take this brave stand in calling out members of his own faith community risking rejection from his own brethren is a very heartfelt and brave thing to do. Dr Robert Bruce also wrote a impactful comment. Vaccine hesitancy is understandable but placing the community at risk by not being vaccinated is to me lacking in compassion love and care for others. There is far more to unpack but Rev Davids brave intelligent response to the Ezekial declaration is magnificent.

      • Richie
        You are no more at risk from me than from anyone else. Israel is the most vaccinated country and has the most cases. The double vaccinated are still getting COVID so can transmit it. In fact virologists are now saying that the vaccine is the problem as it is causing more mutations, when herd immunity would cancel it out.
        If frail 80 and 90 year olds in my daughter’s nursing home did not die from this disease last month, then you should take heart.

        • Hi Tricia while I respect your right to refuse vaccination I think it best to not respond to your claims mainly as they are not based on scientific research or within WHO CDC or Health department research. It would take me 1000s of words to carefully debunk and refute your different claims. You are entitled to be vaccine hesitant as was I but I still believe that loving our neighbor means that by reducing the spread of SARS Covid 19 strains via vaccination we increase herd immunity lower the spread of the virus and provide protection for the most vulnerable. Sadly this issue seems to be fueling a division amongst the people of god where I hope love compassion and care for each other will prevail and ministry and pastoral care can be given to everyone even if this means that certain services and events may require a vaccination status, it doesn’t mean that other services and events can be available to all. Stay safe and appreciate your comment.

        • Tricia, I wouldn’t say that your claims are wrong because they conflict with scientific research that is accepted by public health authorities. I hope that i did not give that impression in a previous reply. (I’m not referring to your anecdotal comments which I have to say are irrelevant). The problem with your claims is basically that they concern medical issues and that the evidence is seen as problematical in the wider professional community. This is not evident perhaps to a lot of people because we are dependent on media reporting and government policies. I think that you are right to question government and the role of the media, whether you refuse vaccination or not, and that this may very well be an expression of your love for your neighbour.

          Not being critical of public health authorities insofar as they are reliant on approved research is no indication that you are acting in accordance with the will of the Creator God, nor is it any indication that you are acting so as to express your love for your neighbour. You might argue that Christians should act on the basis of the best evidence that is available. Of course, and so should everyone else, which is to say what difference does being a Christian make?

      • Thanks for your observations, Richie. My concern is that the community may actually be at risk from exclusive reliance on the available vaccines. I know that that is a medical question, but it can not be assumed by the public that the authorities are acting on the basis of an informed and objective medical consensus. There is a lot that is unknown by us all, whether we accept one medical opinion on the basis of evidence, rather than an alternative medical opinion on the basis of evidence. It is crucial, for us, in these circumstances, to see that our love for our neighbour is not simply something that we can appeal to because there is a medical consensus that herd immunity provided by extensive vaccination is desirable. The reason that we should seek to act in accord with God’s will for our lives, privately and collectively, is never made available to us by the weight of scientific opinion.

        We should pray to the Lord God mindful that our governments and their advisors function, effectively, by definition, in a liberal democratic society, in a totally godless manner. This is where the social conservatism of the Gafcon and its Prayer Network has been exposed by the pandemic. It is also where those of us who would be followers of Christ need to be so very careful in respect of our attitudes toward the vaccination issue, whatever they may be.

      • https://sydneyanglicans.net/news/should-christians-accept-the-covid-19-vaccine/51508?fbclid=IwAR3SmNJxqaVExYIn-MYPHNtdv4hN8sFySKeyJW9ZePER4hjnMdPK4VUMJRA

        Richie, the above link is to an article published by the Sydney diocese which holds an opposing view viz. that Christians should act on the basis of the consensus viewpoint in public health. Unfortunately (from my viewpoint), it does not address any of the issues that I have raised as being relevant for Christians.

  4. When your first argument is the “tone” and then to accuse the authors (and supposedly the signatories) of “hubris and even spiritual smugness”, it is a little difficult to take you serious. Play the ball, not the man. People are rightly concerned about restrictions on church attendance. Jesus said to make disciples of all men, not just those who have vaccine passports.

    Why does it need to say the vaccines are safe and effective? The goal of the Church is the gospel, it is the job of the government and pharmaceutical companies to prove their efficacy and safety. And if the reports they link to it are generally pro vaccination, why do you accuse them of not presenting any positive information about the vaccine. Their point is simply that it is understandable that some aren’t keen on it – they aren’t monsters.

    Your fourth argument is largely “some people I don’t like signed it”. Really? There are false (or no) gospel church leaders writing similar blogs condemning the ezekiel declaration, but this doesn’t mean you are the same as them. Don’t do the same false equivalence to the signers of the declaration.

    Whilst the government hasn’t specifically stated that church attendance will require a vaccine passport, there have been many statements about freedoms being returned being dependent on your vaccination status, so church attendance being included in this is not unlikely. To start the discussion by making it clear that many church leaders and members think this is unacceptable is an understandable step to make.

  5. Perhaps the most pertinent question to ask would be why a group of clergy think it will make two hoots worth of difference who does or does not sign this declaration.

    Other than occasionally paying cursory lip-service, governments gave up listening to church leaders long ago.

    • David, the reason why this Declaration makes a lot more than two hoots worth of difference is that church leaders long ago changed their message so that governments do in fact listen to them a lot. Thus the issue for the Declaration and its opponents is whether the circumstances of the Covid pandemic warrant constraints on freedom of assembly, including attendance at church buildings. On these terms, the issue is a purely political concern and church leaders who address the issue accordingly do so at great cost to their ministry. Apparently this is why the Declaration tries to use a lot of scriptural references only to abuse the Bible in the process, and it is also the reason why David Ould’s response is comparable insofar as it simply quarrels over opinions i.e. in the sense of Romans 14:1. Cf David Corless above.

    • My concern is this: Since churches contribute so much to mental health ,attendance at their services ought to be allowed similar conditions as those of other gatherings where people do congregate.

  6. Dear David,
    Thank you for your post on this topic.

    I accept that you have considered concerns about the Ezekiel Declaration.
    May I encourage you to write an alternative declaration that other church leaders can sign.

    You have correctly identified that:
    “There is a genuine issue relating to vaccine passports, both in general and specifically when tied to church attendance. We will be extremely concerned if Governments decide that religious organisations must mandate vaccination for attendees and participants in public worship services and other religious meetings. There may yet be a need to respectfully make our case and even courageously refuse to place a limit on who may gather together with the people of God. But we are not at the moment yet……”

    I would suggest that we are at that moment, and it will be far too late to wait until “such potential restriction” is “announced”

    Just a couple of other responses.

    Firstly, as a matter of opinion, the terms “medical apartheid” and “the dangerous precipice of a therapeutic totalitarianism” do represent the current situation…. at least in the rhetoric being heard from authorities.

    Secondly, there is good reason that “the letter nowhere encourages people to be vaccinated and it fails to affirm the safety and efficacy of the available COVID-19 vaccines”

    Understandably with your ministry responsibilities, perhaps you have not yet had time to become aware of the large cohort of medical practitioners informing the world of their findings.

    a) At least 30% of the population has natural immunity to corona viruses including COVID-19.
    b) Screening for natural immunity should be conducted before qualifying for a vaccine
    c) Natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity and vaccines do nothing to enhance natural immunity
    d) Outpatient medication is being used in other countries to treat COVID-19 with 75%-85% success in prevention of hospitalisation and deaths.
    e) This medication has been used for more than 30 years for the treatment of several diseases.
    More than one million doses of the drug are administered daily, particularly in low and middle-income countries.
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04602507

    In view of points a) to e), there is no reason at all for vaccinations to be mandatory.
    Suppression of this information by governments or media should at least raise serious questions about what on earth is going on.

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Mi9tVfW2DlWKTJNhBEpydgO9IG-EVVZM?usp=sharing

  7. Now do you see what you have achieved, David Ould? You have raised an issue that has degenerated into an argument about vaccination. Professing Christians may have a point of view in relation to this issue, but it is entirely redundant.

  8. “But we are not at the moment yet, nor has any such potential restriction even been announced” I wonder when exactly you think we will be at that moment? How many more people need to face coercion before you think it time to “respectfully make our case”? If you think that the church will be spared this you are very much mistaken.

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/unvaccinated-spotlight-staff-wont-get-christmas-bonus/news-story/6474986a8001e3072184c130ce3b29d0

    • great courage in this drive-by accusation.
      More seriously, that’s quite a charge to lay on someone that you don’t know and, it does appear, on the basis that you simply don’t agree with them.
      As we write in the piece, Murray and I have taken our stand on any number of issues and at great cost. While I don’t need your approval (and don’t really seek it) I think it’s worth commenting simply to note that this is typical of the sort of accusation we’ve faced over the past week that comes not from any great insight into who we are but simply because someone disagreed. If anything it further validates our argument that this is a divisive movement.

      • Appropriate to respond to a ridiculous comment that displays no thought, but David, not cool to write as if that warrants dismissal of all commenters in this thread.

    • Leo, I don’t see that there is any cowardice going on here. You may believe it is principled to oppose mandates that restrict attendance at church buildings, but why would you think that? There are many regulations in place that affect the conditions under which people can receive and/or attend various goods and services available to the public.

  9. hi Alan. I fear you may have misunderstood me. I certainly don’t dismiss all the commenters on this thread nor do I think I’ve even suggested that.
    Quite the contrary, I’ve allowed all sorts of discussion to continue, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t.

    • Understood. I did say “as if”.
      One or two acknowledgements for the effort some of us have made in the responses (eg “thanks, I see your point – or not”) might have allayed my dismay. Leo’s comment did not even warrant a response.

      Thanks for your ministry and willingness to say something in the public domain.
      I know it is a tough gig.

  10. I agree, Alan. We should, following David, be willing to say something in the public domain. We should do so, however, as those who are followers of Christ i.e. on our own terms. Anything else is incidental, and part of no one’s ministry.

    You may not know how tough is the gig.

    • Chris. True this is an open forum, but sometimes it is polite not to interject in someone else’s conversation.
      My comment was to David as a word of encouragement in the midst of what would be a lot of negativity – not an invitation for dispute over the line between the public domain and ministry. You have made your point previously.

      (And I may know how tough is the gig.)

      • Alan, thanks for your comment. David is the Moderator. He is very good at it. I will regardless make the point, as I see it, against Christian leaders participating, in the public space, at the expense of their ministry. David has difficulties in this area. This is highlighted, in this instance, by his personal and professional commitment to the Gafcon movement, which has called on its supporters to pray to God for the development of a vaccine to combat the Covid illness.

        The movement is now publishing notice of its gratitude that its prayers have been answered. Apart from the audacity shown by its advising the Creator God as to how he should answer our prayers, there is the problem that arises concerning what should happen if God does accord with our directions. So if God has answered our prayers, are we now to quibble with the secular authorities who in effect want to make the most of this blessing? The point, Alan, is that there is no free room in the public square for Christian leaders who are engaged in moonlighting.

  11. This counter-argument (David has made) has no bones. First, the Ezekiel declaration is the most needed letter to Scott Morrison with a fair ground of facts and knowledge. We, many Christians have been sick of seeing church leaders being so compliant to the human authorities’ control over our lives. Secondly, your counterargument is pretty much in lack of the understanding of the content of the letter but you are arguing its style doesn’t suit your style. We need to combat when we need to. David didn’t stay ‘cooperative’ to Goliath. Thirdly, I must say you are under and mis-informed of the covid jab. It is a medical experiment of mRNA gene therapy which has never been done on humans. It is not God’s plan to mess up our DNA with artificially made GMO materials into our blood Jesus has purchased. So many are dying and being maimed by it. Please educate yourself before you write your argument. It is such a shame that you break our Christian community when we need to collaborate and respect those brave pastors to rise up against injustice of this country. . So what is your plan to improve this country’s hard and unjust situation? Your negativity is not needed at the moment. Only encouragement and support to those who are eager to improve and help our country people is needed now.

  12. I have to say that as a medical practitioner of fifty years’ experience, and with two formal qualifications in Evidence-Based Medicine (E.B.M.), I find it difficult to accept bald statements such as, “so many are dying and being maimed by it”.
    When I teach E.B.M. in the United States, we have a saying that makes a very important point: “In God we trust; all others bring evidence!”
    If people are going to make claims such as “so many (Covid jab deaths)” can we please see the data that justify the claim? Please?

    • Robert. Perhaps this might qualify as data. https://uap-media.com.au/tga-full-report-of-covid-vaccine-adverse-events-and-deaths/

      These reported 448 deaths in Australia may or may not have been caused by the vaccine but it does at least ‘justify’ concerns.

      As a person with 2 degrees in E.B.M, I presume you are aware of these:
      https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/

      In any case, the issue of mandating vaccines for participation in society is certainly not justified, but I do understand the point you have made in a previous comment.

      • Alan, these TGA data do not justify the claims I referred to, as I am sure you understand because you say, “These 448 deaths in Australia may or may not have been caused by the vaccine”. The TGA observations are not cause-and-effect data.
        What concerns me is that naive people who do not understand data analysis see raw figures and make unwarranted assumptions which lead other naive people to believe that COVID immunisations should be avoided. That is not loving your neighbour.
        Most people who die in Australia have worn footwear in the days leading up to their deaths. Should footwear be banned as a public health measure?

        • Robert, that is, of course, true, but I don’t think that you would you want to say that medicine that is evidence based is limited to causal evidence. The relevance of the evidence in question arises because the events concerned are classified as being adverse events. Footwear should not be banned because the wearing of footwear is not considered adverse. Would you want to say that medicine that is evidence based is limited to causal evidence?

          The more important issue is that we are being blasphemous in our prayers to God by thanking him for vaccines in circumstances where there is adverse evidence. It might be said that that is the normal situation. I agree, but the point is that we should not, in effect, enlist the Lord God in support of a public health policy.

        • Come now Robert. You are not seriously suggesting there is any parallel with foot ware and spike-protein-inducing vaccines. You understand the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.
          Certainly I understand (as you agreed I do) that not all or any of the 448 deaths have yet been attributed to the vaccine. That does not mean there is NO justification for concerns.

          There have always been and will always be some people who make unwarranted assumptions due to their lack of training in critical thinking and logic, (Interestingly it does not necessarily mean they are wrong either)

          But what is just as bad, or worse, is people who do have the training and fail to apply it, or exclude some of the data and draw faulty conclusions for political reasons. We are seeing that right now with the TGA imposing restrictions on GPs who are using their professional judgement (as if GPs cannot read data).

          I note that you have made no reference to any other of the information from my previous comments.

          I refer you to my most recent Post here.
          https://www.facebook.com/100006553182477/posts/3176367745924967/

    • https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

      Robert, I refer you to the link above because you asked for it effectively. This stuff is way out of my range of expertise, so you will have to judge for yourself. The real problem is that this particular issue (i.e. re invermectin) is not being discussed by the experts as a medical science issue. It is being discussed by the media as if it was their business and by regulators and commercial interests who have excessive power to influence the media, government, and the people. Perhaps we should ask concerning where is the Gafcon Payer Network when it is needed?

    • Vaers. Reports from physicians about blood clots. Myocarditis in the young. In UK – UK Column runs a chart – 1600 deaths attributed to vaccine, over a million adverse reactions (massive underreporting). My daughter had to insist to her GP that she was added to the adverse reactions.
      Dr Peter McCullough in US and others sounding warnings such as American Frontline Doctors. 60 doctors have written to the UK Government saying that it is not safe to roll out to 12-15 year olds.

  13. Thanks for the links provided, Alan. If nothing else, the adverse events evidence shows how so appalling and conformist are the relevant actions of the Gafcon Prayer Network.

    • Chris. Thank you so much for posting this link. I was beginning to feel I was going mad. But I am not – it is as bad as I felt it would be. Both my children are double jabbed. I am ensuring my grandchildren are not jabbed and I want to stay alive as long as I can for them. My grandson would be devastated at the loss of his mother, as his dad died when he was 2 years old.

  14. Petition initiated by AFL Solicitors to request the TGA to disclose the information regarding the Covid vaccinations to the public. Please see below for the full information on this.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3179

    Petition Request
    We therefore ask the House to pass legislation, effective immediately, to release all documents held by the TGA in relation to any vaccines that have been approved (provisionally or fully) by them for products that have been paid for using public funds. This should start urgently with the release of all covid vaccine documents.

    Signature count: 2792
    Closing date for signatures: 22 September 2021 11:59 PM (AEST) (12 days left)

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rules