AMPJP Council response to the AMPJP Review

1 September 2021 by

AMPJP Review – Report to Stakeholders


After five years of service, the AMPJP Council sought the comments of relevant Church leaders on:

  1. the impact and effectiveness of AMPJP’s past/current strategy and
  2. suggestions for the AMPJP’s future directions.

Consultant, Les Stahl was engaged to conduct this review involving a survey of 136 Church leaders, interviews and writing a report.


Response rate

Response rates were highest from those who have the greatest contact with AMPJP. The lowest response rate was from current Trustees/Canonical Stewards of Member MPJPs.


More than 50% of respondents were positive about the relationships, information and collaborative action that the AMPJP has fostered with MPJPs and were also positive in regard to AMPJP’s relationships with other bodies within the Church.

A majority of the remaining respondents also rated AMPJP positively in regard to AMPJP’s work in fostering formation and canonical excellence as well as in fostering collaborative action with other Church bodies.

Results indicate the more the respondent knew about the work and activities of AMPJP, the more positive their evaluation was of AMPJP.

Respondents were generally supportive of the work of AMPJP and consider it is on the right track.

Respondents’ suggestions can be grouped under the following strategies:

  1. Formation of current and future Canonical Stewards
  2. Support for MPJPs: information, resources, collaboration
  3. Articulation of positions on social/Church issues
  4. Information to the wider Church about MPJP and AMPJP
  5. Collaboration/Relationships with ACBC and CRA
  6. Engagement with applicable Church Initiatives

AMPJP Council was pleased to receive and consider the suggestions of Church leaders from within MPJPs and beyond. Some respondents seemed to have an inaccurate view of the AMPJP. The following clarifications might explain the AMPJP and its response to the Review.

  • AMPJP is a body for MPJPs and for the Canonical Stewards within MPJPs. We see our most appropriate collaborators as being similar bodies within the Church: CRA and ACBC.
  • AMPJP cannot direct MPJPs just as ACBC and CRA cannot direct their members.
  • AMPJP does not operate any ministries. Each MPJP is responsible for their ministries.
  • Relations with particular dioceses are issues for individual MPJPs and their ministries.


The AMPJP Council has endorsed the following actions which address respondents’ suggestions.

(Some existing AMPJP projects address suggestions. New AMPJP initiatives in response to suggestions by review respondents are shown in bold and italics).

1. Formation of current and future Canonical Stewards

a. Implement the AMPJP Formation Framework via an Action Plan to be developed by AMPJP Formation Committee.

b. Include a range of providers and a range of formats (accredited and informal) in the AMPJP Formation Action Plan.

c. AMPJP Formation Committee will be asked to consider:

  • including induction and mentoring as part of the Action Plan;
  • enabling MPJP Executive Officers and ministry executives to participate in relevant formation activities; and
  • commissioning a series of papers on key topics e.g., co-responsibility between lay and clergy and between MPJP Canonical Stewards and others.

d. AMPJP Council to consider developing the ‘Governance Principles Document’ into an integrated governance framework to assist with governance decision making.


2. Support for MPJPs: information, resources, collaboration

a. Support sponsors of education ministries via CORMSAA.

b. Support sponsors of health, aged care ministries via their specific AMPJP Focus Group.

c. Facilitate networking, consultation and formation via the Annual AGM-Canonical Stewards Forum.

d. Engage with MPJP Canonical Stewards in addition to their Member Representative via annual extended Council meeting.

e. Provide advice in MPJP governance via AMPJP Executive Officer and Council.

f. Support RI’s who are interested in forming a MPJP with information and by connecting them with MPJPs who have similar  ministries/size/structure/charism and by allowing potential MPJPs to participate in AMPJP events.

g. Facilitate AMPJP and MPJP discussions regarding long-term financial sustainability.

h. Engage directly with MPJP Canonical Stewards – providing information and resources.


3. Articulation of positions on social/Church issues

AMPJP’s preference would be to participate in joint statements with ACBC/CRA.

a. Develop a consultation process to guide AMPJP development of position statements.

4. Information to the wider Church about MPJP and AMPJP

a. Provide a library of MPJP resources on AMPJP website.

b. Develop a short video to explain MPJPs.

c. Share information via monthly e-newsletter.

5. Collaboration/Relationships with ACBC and CRA

a. Participate in regular (at least annual) joint meetings with ACBC, and CRA leaders.

b. Seek invitations to speak/be present at ACBC Plenary and CRA National Assembly.


6. Engagement with applicable Church Initiatives e.g., ACSL, governance and Plenary Council

a. Contribute to best practice Church governance via the proposed National Centre for Catholic Leadership and Governance.

b. Participate in the Plenary Council via the sole nominee granted to MPJPs

c. Explore the possibility that AMPJP and MPJPs support the principles of NRP but not the detailed procedures (which are inappropriate for MPJP ministries).

d. Provide nominees/representatives to appropriate ‘whole-of-Church’ bodies


As new opportunities and needs are manifest, AMPJP will discern the applicability of further refinements to its structure and activities.


Photo by AbsolutVision on Unsplash