My reasons for non-attendance are as follows.

1. There have been some very wild press reports some containing implied threats of legal action against me. This may or may not be true, however my legal training leads me to be wary, and so I am only prepared at present to commit my opinions to writing and not to be lead into any situation which would compromise me later.

2. There has not been sufficient time for cooling down after the surprise/hurt of my actions to some of you. I have no wish to inflame such feelings by my presence.

3. I acted as a member of Forward in Faith Australia in consecrating Bishop Chislett and so, I believe, if there is to be any dialogue, I wish to do so in concert with them. This would not be possible if I attend the Conference.

Other points I wish to make to you all are:

I will not be entering into a media brawl over the consecrations. I have so far made only a simple statement to the press and will avoid interviews until after the Bishops' Conference and even then only to explain the terms of my statement.

In deciding to participate in the consecrations, I took the advice of my Chancellor who assured me I was breaking no canons of the Anglican Church of Australia in doing so.

I have granted both Bishop Chislett and Bishop Moyer of Pennsylvania General Licences to officiate in my Diocese. It would prove quite impossible to admit them to an office of Assistant Bishop under the Assistant Bishops' Canon without necessary consents. At present Bishop Stanley Goldsworthy holds my General Licence, so there is nothing odd in this regard. I am free under the Constitution of my Diocese to license whomever I wish. You are not obliged to recognize or licence any ordained person to whom I grant a Licence. Nothing has changed in this regard.

My participation in the consecrations was an act of desperation in light of the continued unwillingness of the Anglican Church of Australia to provide acceptable alternative episcopal oversight for traditional Anglicans. I believe the orders and ministry of the Traditional Anglican Communion to be valid and authentically Anglican, but there would be no need for them in Australia at all, if alternative oversight had been provided here as in the Church of England.

I remind you that Bishop Hazlewood of Ballarat entered into a concordat of Communion with the TAC in 1987. I have not done so but I do not see how the canons would prevent me from so doing if I chose that course. I also remind you that the Diocese of Sydney has consecrated for CESA and have consistently acted as if they are in communion with that church although it is not part of the Anglican Communion. What will it mean when we are in communion with the Lutheran Church of Australia - they will not be members of the Anglican Communion either? The use of the word schismatic is dangerous unless we are very sure of all our ecumenical relationships and their impact in the long term. When people are quick to label others schismatic I wonder how they view the beginnings of our Communion with the schism of the C of E by Act of Parliament from Rome?

C B Moss in 'The Christian Faith' defines schism as "departure of a group, large or small from catholic faith and/or order". On that definition I would quite clearly fail to be schismatic as does the TAC which has scrupulously continued catholic order and teaches catholic faith in its Anglican expression.

So I am sorry if my actions have given offence. I did not do them lightly but to demonstrate my solidarity with traditional Anglicans in whichever Communion they find themselves. I acted out of love and obedience to the Lord and after much prayer. There is no hidden agenda in my actions, which I believe were sincere and Godly. I hope that you will still find a place in your hearts to pray for me as I do for you all.

In Christ Jesus,

X Ross