A major Australian bill affecting religious discrimination is currently being scrutinised by two Parliamentary inquiries, with a report back expected in February.
The fate of the legislation is unclear, with three public hearings being held on 21 December, 13 and 14 January.
Alastair Lawrie from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) says the Religious Discrimination Bill will result in ‘more discrimination’ in Australia, not less.
He claimed: ‘It privileges the expression of religious views and encourages derogatory and harmful comments against others as long as they are motivated by religious belief.
But lawyer and legal academic Mark Fowler said he believed the protections for statements of belief proposed in the bill were neutral, providing identical protections for non-religious views, including atheistic or agnostic beliefs.
‘The most recent publicly released version of the bill does not permit discriminatory acts. It would not permit, for example, a taxi driver who refuses to provide a ride to a disabled person based on their religious belief,’ he said.
Mr Fowler said those who took part in drafting the bill anticipated the concerns of minority groups, and included a series of strict tests that any statement must satisfy to gain protection.
‘To pass muster any religious statement must be made in good faith; not be malicious or likely to harass, threaten, intimidate or vilify; or amount to the urging of a serious criminal offence,’ Fowler said.
Implications
An explanatory memorandum to the bill provides examples of how it is designed to function, although the bill is complex and there may be unconstitutional issues. Some scenarios where the proposed law might apply are:
1. An employee Tweets ‘gay people are going to hell’.
It depends on the code of conduct set by the employer as it relates to statements of belief. The Tweet could be grounds for the person to be fired, depending on the conduct permitted in their workplace.
2. A Christian baker who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Unless the bakery was a registered charity – even if it was operated as a not-for-profit entity involved in Christian social welfare activities – its owner would not be able to discriminate on the basis of religious belief in relation to whom they sell cakes, or whom they employ, because it is a business.
3. One of your colleagues tells you it’s ‘sinful’ for women to live with their partner unmarried.
If the workplace had a code of conduct that clearly defined acceptable behaviour, this could be grounds for disciplinary conduct.
If the colleague made several such comments after being told they were unwanted, it could be argued they were not made in good faith, and therefore not protected.
