SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY FOR THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS BILL 2021
SUMMARY
We oppose the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and contingent pieces of legislation being implemented in part or in whole. This bill does nothing to serve religious minorities who it is alleged to protect, and instead only entrenches discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people, women, sex workers, and disabled people.
Accordingly we believe it should be withdrawn entirely from parliament without amendment or further debate, and failing that our view is that every MP should be urged to vote down this bill. Any attempt to amend this bill would be a concession to bigotry that would harm LGBTIQ+ people, amongst other minorities.
BACKGROUND
On the 22nd of November 2017, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull set up the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel in the context of the debate around marriage equality at the urging of Scott Morrison, John Howard, Matt Canavan, Concetta Fierevanti-Wells, and other Liberal party members who believed religion was under attack by the campaign for marriage equality and a win would see opponents to gay rights subjected to supposedly vexatious anti-discrimination claims.
This Panel, which was led by Liberal party elder and former Attorney General Philip Ruddock finally concluded that religious freedom was not under threat in Australia, that they did not believe there were significant issues with the current anti-discrimination framework for people of faith, and recommended against a stand alone Religious Freedoms act as this would be out of step with guaranteeing the rights of other marginalised groups. The Panel further found that it was not necessary to implement a Religious Freedoms Commissioner, and also that there had been no rise in religious persecution with the implementation of marriage equality. Shamefully, the Panel did recommend that educational institutions be permitted to discriminate against staff and students on the basis of ‘sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation’.
Since that time the Scott Morrison government has prepared multiple drafts of a Religious Freedoms bill against the advice of its own Panel, and these have generally been met with scorn from stakeholders, skepticism from state governments with the potential for high court challenges, and opposition from crossbench MPs. It has also received minimal support from voters, with an Essential Poll indicating only 38% of voters would support a religious freedoms bill, meanwhile a YouGov poll commissioned by just.equal found that even fewer would support school teachers and students being discriminated against for their sexual orientation or gender identity. We have now arrived at the third draft of the bill despite the lack of support from almost any section of society beyond the Australian Christian Lobby.
THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS BILLS
There is an extensive history within legislation of religious exemptions to discrimination being implemented whenever there is an advance to LGBTIQ+ and/or women’s rights in order to placate the concerns of the religious right. The Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and its contingent pieces of legislation is no different except that it fails to guarantee any rights to marginalised groups, and offers only oppression.
LGBTIQ+ people experience disproportionate levels of suicide, mental health issues and psychological distress according to the 2021 update from LGBTIQ+ Health Australia. According to ‘Writing Themselves in 4’ the overwhelming majority of young trans people (78.9%) have experienced transphobia at educational institutions that leads to higher rates of self harm and distress, and two fifths (40.3%) of young trans people have felt unsafe at work. The development of the religious freedoms bill already correlates to a worsening of these statistics, with more than 80% of LGBTIQ+ people surveyed by just.equal saying they felt worse now during the religious freedoms debate than before marriage equality. This bill is widely and correctly understood by LGBTIQ+ people as ‘payback’ by the religious right, and is already causing harm to an already vulnerable population and if passed will directly endanger the lives of our most vulnerable members such as LGBTIQ+ youth and trans people.
The government justifies this by arguing that religious people require protection from discrimination, but rather than focus on protections for people significant parts of the Religious Discrimination Bill are dedicated to allowing for businesses and institutions to discriminate against others. It will have a severe impact upon the LGBTIQ+ community materially by entrenching the right of employers and service providers to vilify, dismiss and deny service to LGBTIQ+ people, and other minority groups.
Specifically, Part 2 of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 maintains that it is not discrimination for a religious educational institution to engage in conduct that upholds their doctrines or prevents their beliefs being undermined so long as this is part of publicly listed policy. This policy however can be particularly cruel to minority groups under the guise of religious freedoms, such as the following excerpt from the Shire Christian School’s ‘Statement of Faith’:
“God wonderfully and unchangeably creates each person as male or female at conception. Any effort to change or reject our biological sex at birth is a rejection of God’s purposes. (Genesis 1:27–28, 5:2; Psalm 139:13–14).”
This element of the legislation would allow for management to have the discretion to require that someone employed or enrolled at the school to oppose recognising the gender identity of a student or co-worker. This not only violates all concern for the wellbeing of students, but entrenches the ability of management to justify dismissal of a trans educator for not upholding the ethos of the institution.
While it is unacceptable that management at even one school has this discretion there are well over 100,000 educators teaching over 1.2 million students in religious schools in Australia most of which are in receipt of substantial amounts of government funding. Furthermore there are over 50,000 students and 5,000 staff in religious universities like ACU and Notre Dame, countless early learning centres with religious affiliation, and large charities such as the Salvation Army who are a large employer with retail stores, emergency services, and are part of the Job Search Provider (JSP) program.
This part of the legislation has wide ranging consequences that puts any LGBTIQ+ or pro-LGBTIQ+ student or worker in the religious sector at risk. It is misleading to consider the entrenchment of the right to discriminate by such a major service provider and employer to be in any way a protection for a persecuted religious individual, when there is no evidence that these exemptions have benefited religious persons. These exemptions only safeguards the right for an institution to be bigoted toward LGBTIQ+ people, and presumably other persons who have historically also been scapegoated by the religious right including women, sex workers, and disabled people.
Part 3 of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 is a watered down version of the ‘Folau clause’. Israel Folau, a wealthy celebrity footballer and property investor, shot to prominence when his contract was terminated after he publicly condemned gay people to hell on multiple occasions. Each subsequent draft of the bill has sought to implement a clause to prevent similar disciplinary action as part of stoking a culture war against LGBTIQ+ people and the bogeyman of ‘cancel culture’. The current wording narrowly focuses on qualifying bodies, such as the Medical Board of Australia or the Australian Association of Social Workers, but is at best superfluous and at worst serves to enshrine the right to homophobia and transphobia.
Pansy Lai, a doctor who advocates conversion therapy and a high profile No campaigner during the postal survey was subject to a spontaneous campaign for a review of her medical registration based on her homophobic and anti-scientific views — including that men in same-sexed marriages are 300 times more likely to contract and die from AIDS — making her unfit to practice. The Medical Board of Australia immediately dismissed the request of this grassroots campaign, and defended her right to hold this view. It is not clear if there is any evidence that qualifying authorities are generally restricting people from expressing their views, but it is likely that the passage of such a clause will embolden homophobes and transphobes to express these views more stridently while preventing qualifying authorities from ever taking action on the matter. Qualifying authorities like the Medical Board of Australia should be able to reserve the right to consider when and if they review the registration of a doctor on these grounds.
Under Section 12 of Part 2 of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 the political opinions of Pansy Lai and Israel Folau would simply be considered ‘Statements of Belief’ and be generally protected. This should be understood as nothing more than enshrining the right for bigots to vilify minorities under the pretext of religion — ‘Statements of Belief’ could amount to comments from a doctor to a patient that “disability is a punishment for sin” or a boss telling a queer worker they’re “going to hell for their sexuality’’ for example. These actions are severely harmful, but also should not be understood as a protection for freedom of speech but rather giving greater privilege to the religious for what is essentially political speech in a way that others cannot so easily exercise.
While the majority of the remaining Parts 4 through 9 seem comparatively innocuous, it’s not clear what protections it does offer people persecuted for their religion. The background of the Bill, the majority of its submissions, and the bulk of its content is about allowing Christian institutions — who make up almost all religious educational institutions, charities, health institutions etc. — to ignore the advance of LGBTIQ+ rights in broader society. There was no consultation with First Nations peoples in the original Panel let alone any measures or commitments to protecting sacred sites from desecration. There has also been no mention of providing asylum to those fleeing religious persecution as refugees.
These sections instead largely duplicate what is already provided in various state based anti-discrimination legislations without meaningfully extending to further defend religious minorities. Given these measures have been authored by a government and stakeholders who clearly sees anti-discrimination legislation as one of the key threats to certain religious values, then these parts of the Bill can only be seen as a narrow form of exceptionalism rather than a holistic safeguarding of rights.
CONCLUSION
As such this Bill should be considered nothing but the next step in a culture war against LGBTIQ+ people and other minorities, rather than a bill for religious freedom and we oppose it being voted up in any form.
This Bill is not about protecting the rights of religious individuals. It is a calculated attack against the LGBTIQ+ community by the Liberal government. We deserve the same rights and freedoms granted to cisgendered heterosexual people. We will continue to protest the Religious Discrimination Act because we are committed to advocating for the rights of our community.
