Login
‘Disappointing’: Lawyers react to government response to Religious Freedom Review
Legal advocacy groups have responded strongly to the long-awaited release of the Philip Ruddock-led Religious Freedom Review, particularly the decision to refer five of the 20 recommendations to the Australian Law Reform Commission.
Jerome Doraisamy
In a statement last Thursday, Public Interest Advocacy Centre CEO Johnathon Hunyor said PIAC was “disappointed” by the government’s proposal to refer the issue of discrimination by religious schools against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teachers and students to ALRC.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
This is particularly so, he said, because in the past 12 months, the issues have already been considered by “the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review itself, the November Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Inquiry and the current Senate Inquiry into the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018”.
“It is deeply disappointing that LGBT students at religious schools are being made to wait for protection against discrimination. The solution to this issue is simple – remove the specific exception regarding students in religious schools, and make sure the general exception doesn’t apply either,” he argued.
“Nothing more is required, and religious schools will still be able to impose reasonable requirements on their students to uphold their values.”
Overall, PIAC “cautiously” welcomed the release of the Religious Freedom Review, and certain elements of the government’s response.
“We are pleased to see the government’s commitment to including religious belief as a protected attribute in anti-discrimination law. But the details of any Religious Discrimination Act will be crucial,” Mr Hunyor said.
“Better protection of the right to religious belief should not come at the expense of existing protections against discrimination. There is a significant difference between providing people of faith with a shield against discrimination and creating a sword to allow discrimination against others.”
The Law Council of Australia said the delicate balance between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination “would be better dealt with in comprehensive national anti-discrimination legislation”, especially on questions such as the right for private religious schools to discriminate against school children and teachers.
“A Religious Discrimination Act presents opportunities to consolidate and perhaps strengthen the protections against discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion at the federal level,” said LCA president Morry Bailes.
“The current protections for religious freedom in Australia at the federal level are fragmented and inconsistent. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has noted concerns regarding the ‘lack of direct protection against discrimination on the basis of religion at the federal level.”
What is needed, he continued, is a mechanism to protect our human rights in accordance with international human rights principles and a mechanism that appropriately balances competing rights such as freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.
“This can be best achieved via a National Human Rights Act, or alternatively, consolidated federal anti-discrimination legislation. While the right to freedom of religious belief is absolute, the manifestation of religion should not be protected at the expense of other rights and freedoms,” Mr Bailes said.
LCA is “extremely concerned” that the question of whether LGBTI+ students could be discriminated against has been referred for further review, he added.
“Children should not be discriminated against, period,” he said.
“Having a cloud of uncertainty over the heads of LGBTI+ children while the ALRC conducts its investigation has the potential to further traumatise or stigmatise them. It is certainly not in the best interests of the child, which should always be the primary consideration.”
“Questions around the employment of teachers are more complex and are more appropriate to be reviewed by the ALRC, but any discrimination against children cannot be countenanced.”
PIAC also noted that it is looking forward to further detail about other aspects of the government’s proposed Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill, including amending the Charities Act 2013 to protect organisations that advocate a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.
“These amendments appear unnecessary and have the potential to create adverse unintended consequences. It is not clear, for example, why charities who oppose marriage equality should have special rules apply. Once again the detail will be important,” Mr Hunyor said.
The commentary follows responses to the government’s second major announcement from last Thursday, regarding the establishment of a new Commonwealth Integrity Commission.
