Share
Intro
You may or may not have heard a recent drama accompanying
a tabling of the Religious Discrimination Bill in Federal Parliament. It was a revealing faceoff as irreconcilable
values collided. 65 MPs comprising of Australia major Opposition party ALP, five
Government Coalition MPs and Crossbenchers amended the Sex Discrimination Act in
the Lower House so as to restrict religious schools in how they deal with matters
of gender identity, sexual orientation and marital status in running of
schools.
The Prime Minister original Bill failed to pass attracting
59 votes from his political side. Some of the Moderates in the Coalition
asserted that religious schools should provide environment that accommodates and
supports varied gender identities and sexual orientations regardless of
school’s faith values.
So what exactly is the content of the Bill tabled
by the PM that the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives could not
support unless it was amended? This is a summary of what the Bill aimed at:
the bill: prohibits discrimination on
the basis of a person’s religious belief or activity in a range of areas of
public life, including in relation to employment, education, access to premises
and the provision of goods, services and accommodation; establishes general and
specific exceptions from the prohibition of religious discrimination; provides
that certain statements of belief do not constitute discrimination for the
purposes of certain specified Commonwealth, state or territory
anti-discrimination laws; creates offences in relation to victimisation and
discriminatory advertisements;
(For more info see: Parliamentary info link)
After facing defeat on the House floor, it was widely
reported the Government is no longer pursuing this Bill – so the amended
version is not being sent to the Senate for approval.
Why is this a defining moment?
- Labor (an alternative
ruling Party) decisively departed from a longstanding position that previously
recognised in law that religious education institutions may “discriminate in
good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious
susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed” on matters of sexual
orientation, gender identity, marital relationship or status or pregnancy in
connection with employment (SDA, Sec 38). See Parliamentary source).
- Moderates within
Coalition Parties and many Crossbenchers are no longer willing to allow
religious institutions including schools to interpret notions of gender
identity, sexual orientation and marital status using traditional faith based
framework such as those drawn from the Bible.
- Based on this
decision it seems the majority of MPs in the Lower House no longer hold the
view that the ethos of a faith -based school should necessarily be defined by
beliefs of adherent (e.g. biblical beliefs).
- If ever the amended
Bill makes a way to the Senate and gains approval in the future, this Bill will
elevate the role of Parliament to make rules over certain belief systems in operation
of religious institutions (case in point - how religious schools should train
and socialise children on sensitive issues relating to sexual orientation,
gender identity in the process of conducting school based activities).
- Without Federal
legislative protections, pay attention to what rules are being made at State
level or by some employers that encroach on people’s religious rights that
exist under Australia’s Constitution (e.g. employment, education, etc.)
- In Australia
religious institutions invest massively in running private schools, major hospitals
centres of excellence, significant welfare institutions, to name some. These
are areas to watch in relation to whether or not rules being made at State and
Federal level are not encroaching on the religious sphere.
What does the Australia Constitution say?
The Constitution does not allow the Commonwealth to
put in place laws that prevent people from a free exercise of religion. Similarly,
it does not permit the Commonwealth to make laws that impose religious
observance on non-believers. Further, the Constitution prohibits the
Commonwealth from legislating laws that deny people work in public institutions
on basis of their religion. Have a look at how the Constitution puts it:
116. Commonwealth
not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth
shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,
and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or
public trust under the Commonwealth. (See Chapter 5, Sec 116) See Parliamentary source
Religious institutions in running schools would clearly
be one of the ways they express, support, maintain and reproduce faith and
values. Likely, at one level Government still exercise certain governance over these
schools through academic and curriculum standards, and funding regulation. And
this balance is probably to be expected, perhaps a case of “Give to Caesar what
is Caesar’s, give to God what is God’s”.
But if a Parliament decides that teachers in
religious schools should merely become secular; that in my view seems to go
against what even the Constitution had in mind.
Sex Discrimination Act recognises
areas of non-interference in religious schools
The Sex
Discrimination Act (sec 38) makes it possible for religious schools to exercise
choices about ethos/values that align with their beliefs. For example, you
would expect a range of Christianity schools to follow basic biblical teachings
to bring up children in ‘the discipline and instruction of the Lord’. And to ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is
old he will not depart from it.’
Contemporary Christian schools can be seen across
the spectrum. Some are more conservative than others on particular biblical
teachings about notions of gender identity and questions of sexual orientation.
So far, it would seem the Sex Discrimination Act has protected their operations
in good faith thus not causing “injury to the
religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed” (see Sec 38
of the Sex Discrimination Act).
So where some Christian schools are drawing from a
Bible in teaching kids “the way of the Lord”, if a State or Federal Government
challenges this and says they [the Government] have greater authority about how
the Bible should be taught to children – you can see where it’s going - a
collision course on core religious issues.
For some Christians these issues are NOT simply
cultural. They are spiritual – they are the stuff of life. While for MPs who
are non-believers or those holding flexible views about such biblical matters,
for them they can’t see what the fuss is about.
Some advocates say Christians are being selfish on
grounds that some religious schools want to stick to their Christian faith as
basis for guiding schooling practices. But the Constitution implies in such a
private sphere people are free to believe or not believe as long as this is not
imposed on others - religious schools are not owned by Governments. They are
not part of the public sector. They are not Government Enterprises or
Government Authorities.
It seems to me MPs who are seeking to do away with
sec 38 of Sex
Discrimination Act are overlooking separation indicated in Constitution
Chapt V (116).
But what would Jesus Say?
What would Jesus say? We know Jesus wanted (wants) children to be
welcomed in Christian settings to be sure – ‘whoever welcomes a child in my
name, welcomes me’. But we know those caregivers/parents are required to
socialise these kids in ‘the way of the Lord’. Doing contrary and causing ‘spiritual
injury’ to a child ‘it would be
better for him [the adult] to have a large millstone hung around his neck and
to be drowned in the depths of the sea’. Heavy stuff.
Is it really wise for the
Parliament to get tangled into adjudicating in this religious sphere? There is a difficulty
if some Christian schools are forced to abandon their ethos.
To this extent, it is just as well that the Morrison
Government shelved the Bill once a contentious amended version of the Bill passed
the Lower House. It would have been unworkable.
I have never been to private Christian school
myself, but I can see potential consequences of Governments telling people what
spiritual values they should believe. We have many law abiding communities
going about doing what they can to access education for their children in
keeping with their values. It’s not even clear if some of our law makers have
given thought to cohesion.
As Australia gears up for next election
Electioneering is on. Some believe at last
election believe PM SCOMO benefited from the religious migrant voters in places
like Western Sydney suburbs at the expense of Labor due to people wanting to
preserve freedoms in pursuit of their God.
At present from what has transpired it is clear
the Moderate faction in the Coalition Parties are closer to Labor and the
Crossbench. Where does the religious social conservative vote go this time?
Then there are also State Government gradually
legislating in areas that may impinge on the private religious sphere. Not to
mention some employers.
These matters are not some theory; they are
practical difficulty issues coming up in the public and private spheres. Having watched this drama unfold
I am left thinking God help us. For only God can help sort this one out.
**Disclosure:
The writer subscribes to a Christian faith.
Share
