The media headlines on this ReligiousDiscrimination Bill 2019 were, and continue to be pretty hard to miss; and so they
should be, because this Religious Discrimination Bill has the potential to
impact every part of our lives.
On realising this, thought it was
time to try and understand ‘The Bill’ – beyond the headlines, editorial and
opinion pieces. The reading ended up including some pretty diverse material, (but is not limited to): Exposure Draft
of The Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, including the, Explanatory Notes,
and other documents helpfully provided through the Attorney General’s
Department.
Then process of comparing, Exposure
Draft of The Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 against, Australian Human
Rights Commission Submission to the Expert Panel (Feb, 2018), Law Council of
Australia Religious Freedom Review (27/02/2018) and have also read the Anglican
Church's submission to the AHRC review.
In addition to these, and media
reporting, I have also looked at:
• 'Liberal
assumptions in section 116 cases and implication for Religious Freedom'
(Faculty of Law Queensland, University of Technology, Published Federal Law
Review, Vol 46, pp. 113-136).
• 'Freedom
of Religion as An Associational Right' (University of Queensland, Law Journal
2014 pp153-186).
• Protecting
Religious Freedom under Australian Law, by Dr Timothy Arnold-Moore (with
contributions from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Social Responsibilities
Committee), Zadock Papers, S229 & S230 Winter 2018.
Talk about disappearing down a rabbit hole! I have also read material, distributed by Freedom of Faith, and
Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), organisations and unfortunately the sticky
fingers of the ACL appear to be all over the bill itself – yet still the ACL are screaming it
doesn’t go far enough.
Now I am not a lawyer, just a
person of curious inclination and the more I read - the more the Religious Discrimination
Bill 2019, created concern and convinced me, The Bill isn’t needed at all.
Most religious rights and freedoms, being
already adequately covered under a variety of International, Commonwealth
and (most) State, anti-discrimination
laws (and Human Rights). What worries me most at this juncture; is any
potential for a Religious Discrimination Bill, to void or override existing
State laws.
In essence the Religious
Discrimination Bill is an attempt for solution, to a problem, which simply just
does not exist. It seems more likely this Bill is a reaction to a perceived,
political problem, (or culture wars). A point reinforced on reading,
“ 13.
The review was announced in response to the proposals for legislative reform to
protect freedom of religion during the debate on marriage equality…” (p3 Explanatory Notes)
It is also obvious that clause 8(3)
is a reaction to the Israel Folau case. The inclusion such of such clauses, are
questionable. Particularly, as this case has yet to been played out in court of
law. Which is the appropriate place, not a Religious Discrimination Bill.
The entire concept and proposed
Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 itself seems to be part of a growing trend
which sees Australian Parliamentarians tripping over themselves in a rush to
enact laws which they (and often we) don’t fully understanding the future
implications and repercussions of. Enacting laws without testing them, simply
leads to the erosion of freedoms, and not their protection.
Human Rights are inherent rights are not granted, by the state, but must be protected from the state.
These human rights include women’s
right to reproductive healthcare (and safe medical abortion). It is simply not
acceptable, nor ethical in any circumstances for a medical practitioner to
place his/her own religious beliefs above the healthcare requirements of a
patient.
At the very least, that healthcare provider must supply a referral to an alternate provider, particularly where they are in receipt of public monies (e.g. Medicare). All of this also applies to and has potential consequences for couples seeking IVF treatment, women seeking contraception, or men seeking vasectomy etc.or even blood transfusion or use of blood based treatments - not just women seeking safe medical abortions !
At the very least, that healthcare provider must supply a referral to an alternate provider, particularly where they are in receipt of public monies (e.g. Medicare). All of this also applies to and has potential consequences for couples seeking IVF treatment, women seeking contraception, or men seeking vasectomy etc.or even blood transfusion or use of blood based treatments - not just women seeking safe medical abortions !
Any legislation which, negates a
patient’s medical care in such a manner, must never be enacted. Nor any law,
which creates even the perception of licence to offensive views, marginalise or
discriminate on grounds such as: gender, sex, sexual orientation, race,
religion, non-religion, disability etc.
The potential impact of this bill is
also not compatible with a harmonious work place and the ramifications for both
employees and employees may well be a reduction of rights – not an increase.
Ultimately the proposed Religious
Discrimination Bill 2019, fails to balance competing rights. There must be no
room for Human Rights abuses in any legislation. Far better to ‘tweak’ existing
Commonwealth and State anti-discrimination laws, along with introducing a
‘Charter of Rights’ into Commonwealth Law.
The conclusion - the proposed Religious Discrimination
Bill 2019, is quite simply an insult to modern, plural Australian society and an
attack on existing anti discrimination laws – state, Commonwealth and
International (UN).
At the end of the day, tolerance and
compassion must always be more important than religious opinion.
How worried should we be? VERY !
How worried should we be? VERY !
