RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL AND RELATED LEGISLATION -SECOND DRAFT
Kindly accept this submission in relation to the second exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2019.
This submission should be read in conjunction with our submission in relation to the first exposure draft.
Our comments on the proposed amendments are as follows:
1. Clause 8(4) - this is a provision which is intended to prevent occupational licensing bodies from refusing to license a person because they have made statements of their religious belief. Once again, the position of the QCCL is that we support a broad free speech right. That right should be afforded to all Australians in the form of a Human Rights Act. Those holding religious beliefs should not be provided with a privileged position.
2. Clause 9 – this provision extends the operation of the anti-discrimination provisions, to prohibit discrimination against a person on the basis that they have an association with a religious person. We have no objection to this provision.
3. Clause 11 (2) – this clause provides that giving a preference to persons of the same religion, does not amount to discrimination. Clause 36 allows voluntary associations whose membership is restricted to religious groups to discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of religious belief. It is not clear to us that clause 11(2) is a necessary provision in the light of clause 36
4. Clause 11 (3)-This provision allows a religious body to discriminate against a person to avoid injury to the religious subjects susceptibilities of adherents of the same religion as the religious body. On the basis of our previous submission, we have no objection to this provision.
5. Clause 11 (5) –this is the definition of religious body. In the previous version charities were excluded where the charity engaged solely or primarily in commercial activities. We have previously expressed the view that once a religious body starts providing its services on a commercial basis, it must comply with anti-discrimination law. We therefore oppose this change to the Bill.
6. Clauses 32 (8)- (11) – these provisions allow religious bodies operating aged care facilities to discriminate on the basis of religion. We oppose these provisions, particularly given that in this country aged care facilities are financed by the public purse.
7. Clauses 33 (2) – (5) –these provisions enable religious bodies to discriminate in the provision of camp and conference facilities. We presume this provision is intended to apply to camps and conferences facilities that are used for the purposes of religious retreats, which is a common practice in many religions.
We can accept that there is a case, as there is in relation to churches, that such spaces are kept exclusively for the believers. Though it is our view, that the draft bill needs to be amended to make it clear that it is restricted to facilities dedicated to such spiritual purposes. Again, it is our position, that should the religious body make these facilities available on a commercial basis, they lose the right to avail themselves of this exception. We also make the comment, that it is not clear to us why this is not covered by clause 36.
In our view, the overall effect of the changes between the first and second drafts of this Bill is to make the legislation even less acceptable. The principal reason for this is the extension of the right to discriminate to charitable bodies that provide services on a commercial basis and to aged care facilities. To allow charities which provide services on a commercial basis to discriminate against other human beings on the basis for example, of their sexual preference or marital status must result in those individuals being further stigmatised and excluded from our society. This is entirely unacceptable.
We trust this is of assistance to you in your deliberations.