State and territory anti-discrimination commissions have revolted against the Coalition’s religious discrimination bill, warning it privileges religion over other rights and will cause “significant disruption” by overriding state laws.
State and territory anti-discrimination commissions have revolted against the Coalition’s religious discrimination bill, warning it privileges religion over other rights and will cause “significant disruption” by overriding state laws.
The Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities has accused the commonwealth of an “extraordinary incursion” into the states’ domain of healthcare by giving medical practitioners a right to refuse treatment and an “unprecedented step” of giving religious bodies standing to sue for discrimination.
The joint submission echoes human rights and LGBTI groups’ concerns the bill will license religious statements that breach other discrimination laws and employers’ concerns it will prevent them setting codes of conduct around religious speech.
The attorney general, Christian Porter, is working on amendments to the exposure draft before introducing it to parliament but has so far suggested only amendments to address concerns of religious aged care providers without making “massive or substantial” changes to the rest of the bill.
The state and territory bodies – which administer discrimination law and hear complaints based in state law – submitted that the bill “establishes religious belief as a protected attribute that will displace other rights and/or well established policy positions”.
The bill protects expression of religious speech by stating that it does not constitute discrimination under commonwealth, state or territory anti-discrimination law.
The anti-discrimination bodies noted the clause “explicitly rolls back protections afforded to Tasmanians”, because the ban on conduct that “offends, insults or humiliates” people based on protected attributes will no longer apply to religious speech.
They noted the clause “raises the real possibility that state tribunals will not have the jurisdiction to decide matters where [it] is used as a defence as tribunals cannot decide a federal question of law”.
“The test of vilification, harassment, maliciousness etc, is very high and unlikely to provide any practical protection for those that may be the subject matter of such statements.”
They warned the bill would cause “significant disruption and unintended consequences” for businesses and others who have sought to be compliant with local rules.
They argued the bill “privileges a health practitioner’s religious belief above patient rights”, undermining the states’ policies on conscientious objectors, which is likely to harm LGBTI and remote and regional patients.
The Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities agreed with the object of protecting religious people against discrimination but proposed referring “some of the novel features … [that] give rise to significant legal complexity” to the Australian Law Reform Commission.
In addition to co-signing the joint submission, Anti-Discrimination New South Wales noted that “ethno-religious” groups are already protected by its anti-discrimination laws.
It said it was “concerned” the bill does not strike the right balance between freedom of religion and other rights and is “very concerned” about features including the override of state law.
