The Pastor's Heart with Dominic Steele
Christian leaders join Dominic Steele for a deep end conversation about our hearts and different aspects of Christian ministry each Tuesday afternoon.
We share personally, pastorally and professionally about how we can best fulfill Jesus' mission to save the lost and serve the saints.
The discussion is broadcast live on Facebook then available in video on our website <u><b><a href="http://www.thepastorsheart.net">http://www.thepastorsheart.net</a></u></b> and via audio podcast.
The Pastor's Heart with Dominic Steele
From defensive to offensive in the religious freedom debate - with Mark Spencer, Mark Sneddon and Mike Southon
Religious Freedom leaders are calling on Australia's Government to quickly bring a Religious Discrimination Act to the parliament.
Mark Sneddon says the Religious Discrimination Act is not about granting unlimited freedoms, but about preventing adverse treatment of religious individuals and organizations.
He says there needs to be a fair compromise that the rights of all involved, which should be supported by both sides of politics.
Mark Sneddon from the Institute for Civil Society,
Mark Spencer from Christian Schools Australia,
and Mike Southon from Freedom for Faith bring this update on where the Australian Religious Freedom debate is up to, following this week's Freedom For Faith conference.
The Church Co
http://www.thechurchco.com is an excellent website and app platform built specifically for churches.
Financially Support The Pastor's Heart via our new tax deductible fund
Please financially support The Pastor's Heart via our new tax deductible giving page.
--
Become a regular financial supporter of The Pastor's Heart via Patreon.
it is the pastor's heart and dominic steel. And today, a pulse check on religious freedom. There are two major pieces of legislation coming up that will significantly impact faith communities and schools in australia the religious discrimination act and the sex discrimination amendment bill. We have three heavyweights here to discuss this with us today, joining us from Australia the Religious Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill. We have three heavyweights here to discuss this with us today, joining us from Melbourne, mark Sneddon, the Executive Director of the Institute for Civil Society. From Canberra, mark Spencer, the Director of Public Policy for Christian Schools Australia. And from Sydney, mike Southen, the Executive Director of Freedom for Faith. They are fresh from the big Freedom for Faith conference here in Sydney. Mike, let's start with the pastor's heart. And why is it? Whenever I think about religious freedom, I get anxious.
Speaker 2:There does seem to be a lot going on and historically over the past couple of years, it does feel like we have kept going backwards. Every time an issue, some other right conflicts with religious freedom, it just feels like we're the ones who have to compromise. We keep winding backwards, but encouragingly, that hasn't been the case. Over the past year or so there have been a number of cases where we have actually managed to speak out and be heard about religious freedom. So yeah, there is some anxiety out there, but I think there's also a lot of encouragement to be had.
Speaker 1:Mark Sneddon, you were saying we need to stop thinking about going backwards and actually try and prosecute the case positively in a forwards direction.
Speaker 3:Yes, Dominic. So, as Mike said, the history of the last 20 years has been whittle away, whittle away at this religious freedom or that right or so on. But there's now opportunity, I think, to go forward and say well, let's have a Religious Discrimination Act in Australia. The last government proposed it had failed just at the 11th hour, but the current government has promised it again. If we got a Religious Discrimination Act, that would allow all individuals and religious organisations in Australia not to be discriminated against. It's not a licence to do whatever they want, but it's a right not to be discriminated against by government, by landlords, by suppliers, by accreditation bodies, etc. We could achieve that on a bipartisan basis, I think, if the government got off its current resting position and moved forward.
Speaker 1:What's the difference between a Religious Discrimination Act and a Religious Freedom Act?
Speaker 3:Yes, religious Freedom Act is. There may be many different types of that, but the broad idea is it would allow a religious group to do whatever its religion wanted it to do without too much government interference. So it would be like a positive right to say we're going to be able to do this thing and the government can't stop us. Religious Discrimination Act is not that. It is saying that neither government nor private actors can treat a religious person or a religious organisation adversely when compared with a non-religious person or a non-religious person. Just like sex discrimination or age discrimination, you can't treat someone worse because they're over 60 or under 20. You can't treat someone worse because they're religious. That's the idea behind a Religious Discrimination Act. So it's a lesser protection but therefore a much less controversial type of protection than a Religious Freedom Act would give. But in the United States, for instance, there is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act which allows the courts to scrutinise government action that would burden the expression of religious practices by religions.
Speaker 1:So you're not asking for that. You're asking for something less than that. Well, going back, you might like that, but this stage.
Speaker 3:Going back. You may remember, dominic, after the same-sex marriage legislation was passed in Australia, both parties said oh, religious freedom is just as important, so we're going to look into it. They have an inquiry about that. That was the Ruddock inquiry that looked into religious liberty in Australia and a whole range of groups, including the ones present here at this conference, made submissions and asked for a Religious Freedom Act and religious discrimination protections and a range of things. That inquiry did not recommend a religious freedom act, but it did recommend a religious discrimination act. So to answer your question, yes, I think there are good reasons for having a religious freedom act if it's carefully drafted. But that's not on the table at the moment. What is on the table and what has been promised by both sides of politics is a religious discrimination act. So I say let's go for that. At the moment, what is on the table and what has been promised by both sides of politics is a Religious Discrimination Act. So I say let's go for that at the moment.
Speaker 1:Now, you were talking about both sides of Parliament getting off the fence, getting onto it. Do you think there's a chance of us getting there before the federal election?
Speaker 3:I think there's a chance and I think we should prosecute that chance. I say that for these reasons, that what's in the Religious Discrimination Act would be 90%. What was in the last government's religious discrimination bill, which was supported in its entirety well, almost in its entirety by the Labor Party in Parliament. So both parties have already voted in the House of Representatives 91 votes to 6 in favour of most of that bill. So they should be able to do it again.
Speaker 3:There are a couple of additions which faith leaders have written to the Prime Minister and asked for. Let's see what happens with them, but we'd like to see them. But we're very close to a yes, a bipartisan yes, on that bill, less so on issues that perhaps Mark Spencer might want to talk about schools. But on Religious Discrimination Act, I think we're very close to a bipartisan yes. What we need is the government to respond to religious leaders In the letter they sent to the government almost three months ago and have heard nothing back, and then to take it up with the opposition and get it done in this parliament.
Speaker 1:I think it can be done, I mean it was all brought to parliament in the dying days of the Morrison government and then spectacularly blew up in the face of that government.
Speaker 3:I'm presuming Mr Albanese doesn't want it to blow up in his face in the same kind of way, that's correct, but it blew up because it was, I think, improperly coupled with a different issue which was about religious schools and students and things like that. Mark can talk more about that but those two issues. There's no logical or principled reason why those two issues should be twinned. It but those two issues. There's no logical or principled reason why those two issues should be twinned. It's not relevant to. I mean, we've recently had an example where a Jewish man went to Officeworks, which is an office supply company, and asked for a page of the Jewish news to be laminated. He's wearing his kippah, so he's obviously Jewish, and he was refused service by someone who said I'm pro-Palestinian.
Speaker 1:So hang on. It wasn't a piece of paper advocating a march or a demonstration.
Speaker 3:No, it was just a page of the newspaper the Jewish News. Right, okay, yeah, yeah. And the office worker said sorry. The person at office work said I'm not going to do that because I'm pro-Palestinian, and he said this is actually recorded on his mobile phone so you can check it out in the Australian. I think he said wait on, you're here to do a lamination job. Political views are not really relevant, are they? She said no, we're allowed to refuse jobs and I'm going to refuse this job. Now, whether she was doing that on the grounds of his race, his religion or his political views, I don't know. We didn't get down to that level. The point is, if it was religion, there's no reason for that to be going on.
Speaker 1:And that issue of not being I mean, that's actually mind-boggling, it is. I can't get a piece of lamination done because I'm Jewish.
Speaker 3:Correct and there have been a couple of cases where Christians are doing a reading the Bible together in a cafe in Sydney, have been asked to leave by the cafe owner.
Speaker 1:But reading the Bible.
Speaker 3:Reading the Bible, that's right. In public. I mean, well, they're just reading it together, they're not yelling it out. No, you're just having quiet conversation, correct, and there is no protection for that sort of religious discrimination under New South Wales law at the moment, or in South Australia. So that's another reason why we need a national, federal religious discrimination bill in Australia, and we need it sooner rather than later.
Speaker 1:Okay, let's go to Mark Spencer. Mark the issues in schools. They're related but different.
Speaker 4:Related because they've been politically related in many ways. They are, as Mark said, quite separate issues and we could progress a religious discrimination act without making any other changes to the Sex Discrimination Act Act without making any other changes to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Speaker 4:But the politics of this is that it all got tied up together back in 2017, 2018, where there were a whole lot of false claims made about students being expelled from Christian schools on the basis of their sexual orientation. False claims, false claims. Never been any evidence of that happening, but the claims just gets repeated and repeated, and repeated and it's become part of the political narrative.
Speaker 1:So what happened with the? And we're sure of that, there have been no reports of bullying. There's been no evidence provided. No, yeah.
Speaker 4:There's been claims made by students who have been expelled. In some cases the schools didn't even know that they were gay and they were expelled for normal disciplinary work, normal discipline Right. Were gay and they were expelled for normal disciplinary, normal discipline right. So when it comes down to those claims, there's simply no evidence being provided that any student has ever been expelled simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So, putting that to one side, the politics of it is those claims have led to these issues being conflated where, with the last religious discrimination bill at 5am in the morning or whatever, it was not the best time to be making decisions We've actually had a series of crazy long late-night parliamentary debates and you think, how are we doing good government at 4 o'clock in the morning?
Speaker 4:It's a pretty sure sign that it's contentious legislation. They're just trying to ram through without any real debate. If they do all-night sittings this happened recently in New South Wales with the conversion practices banned legislation an all-night sitting bypassing normal committee process for legislation that doesn't take effect for 12 months. What's the rush if it's not going to take effect for 12 months? And with the religious discrimination Bill, as Mark said, it was overwhelmingly passed as the Religious Discrimination Bill, but the coupling with amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that were introduced. They had already been proposed to the government in 2018, rejected by Parliament at that time because they had unintended consequences and the solution was to refer it to the Law Reform Commission.
Speaker 1:They were again introduced without any real thought or consideration, and that's what and you had a couple of rounds of a report from the Law Reform Commission and then the faith leaders said that's crazy. And the report comes back saying basically the same thing. But the Law Reform Commission and the government seem to be on different pages at the moment. Is that right?
Speaker 4:Well, the Law Reform Commission and Justice Rossman, who head up the inquiry on different pages themselves. So the Australian Law Reform Commission report on exemptions for religious education institutions basically said scrap them effectively in any real way.
Speaker 1:Sc report on exemptions for religious education institutions.
Speaker 4:Basically, he said, scrap them effectively in any real way. Scrap the exemptions. Scrap the exemptions.
Speaker 1:Put in place provisions that have no real protection. That sounds like an ideological position rather than a political position.
Speaker 4:It's an ideological position and the head of that inquiry, Justice Rossman, spoke at a conference a couple of weeks later and talked about his view that faith-based schools needed a positive right to preference people on the basis of faith, the same thing that the previous Law Reform Commission President, justice Darrington, had said.
Speaker 4:So you've got two eminent jurists who have looked extensively at these issues coming up with the need for a positive right for religious education institutions, yet the Law Reform Commission's report came out with a recommendation that would effectively remove those rights to all intents and purposes.
Speaker 1:And the bit we're talking about is actually this controversial Section 38. What is Section 38?
Speaker 4:In the sex discrimination act. In the sex discrimination act it is a broad exemption that allows a religious educational institution operating in accordance with its doctrines, terms and beliefs to act in good faith, when it does so in accordance to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherence of that religion or creed. Now, that's a word salad, yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:Could you just give that to me in English?
Speaker 4:That's a 1984 version of balancing religious freedom with other protected rights.
Speaker 4:Right Now.
Speaker 4:Faith leaders have worked very hard to get rid of that word salad, to put in place or propose to the government alternative drafting Now faith leaders have worked very hard to get rid of that word salad, to put in place or propose to the government alternative drafting that makes it much clearer what we're actually looking for in faith-based schools the ability to teach what we believe, the ability to be able to employ staff who share our beliefs and the ability to make sure we can operate our schools in a way that we don't have people undermining our culture and the ability to make sure we can operate our schools in a way that we don't have people undermining our culture and ethos.
Speaker 4:That's fundamentally what we're trying to be to be authentic religious institutions, authentic Christian schools in our cases. Now, that's all we're looking for and all we've ever looked for, and we've put forward, as faith leaders, some drafting around that. It's carefully balanced, it complies with international law, it's been worked on and agreed to by a broad cross-section of faith groups. The government's had that since 9 May. All I need to do is actually put that in place, and we think we're very close to not only getting a Religious Discrimination Act but also sensible amendments to the Sixth Discrimination Act that protect properly students, staff and schools.
Speaker 1:What's been the reaction from the progressive sexuality groups to that suggestion that you've said has the support of a broad range of faith community groups. Mike, yeah, let's go to you.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean our proposal. We are in a closed, confidential consultation process with the government, and the government actually set this up so that they didn't. Their legislation has been seen by very few people. We've seen it and worked on it with them, but we're not invited to share that, which means our detailed proposals to the government are also well within that confidential process. So, on the very detail, I wouldn't have thought that other lobbies will actually have seen what we've written, unless it's been leaked. I am aware that the Catholic proposal has been leaked to a newspaper but again, it's not been released in detail. As for the broader call for positive rights for the faith-based schools, we have started to see the progressive lobby groups picking up on that language and starting to try and spin that as another excuse for being horrible, discriminatory people.
Speaker 4:And I was in a conversation at an event last week where there was a rapid backing away from the issue of expelling gay kids. Oh, it's not about that.
Speaker 1:It's about much more than that Because there's an acknowledgement that that's not happening, because there's no evidence that's happening. No evidence, yeah.
Speaker 4:So it seems, as Mike's indicated, this will be spun. There'll be hypotheticals raised, there'll be all these radical proposals that no one's envisaging, no one's contending will actually happen. They'll be put out there just to muddy the waters and to provide some sense of fear about these proposals, as if they don't meet international law, as if they don't properly balance rights, as if they don't protect staff and students adequately.
Speaker 1:But why would the government? I mean, as I understand it, Mr Albanese doesn't want to have a big culture war, and so that's why he's having these private conversations with groups like yours, and he doesn't want to take something to the parliament unless there's a consensus. Is that?
Speaker 2:That's what I've said.
Speaker 1:Bipartisan support with the opposition. Bipartisan support yes, and yet, in the end, will it be the case that you'll be unhappy at one end and the progressive groups will be unhappy at the other end.
Speaker 2:Well, we do have a commitment that the government is not going to go forward with legislation unless they have bipartisan support, and they won't go forward, according to the Prime Minister, with a bit of it.
Speaker 2:So they won't push forward the Sex Discrimination Act but leave the Registered Discrimination Bill behind. And they won't do any of this unless they've got bipartisan support, which is helpful for us, because it's very unlikely for them to get bipartisan support unless the faith communities of Australia backed it. So we're not necessarily in a situation that we're going to see bad legislation rammed through. Our situation is either we're going to see good legislation or no legislation, which we're not going to end up with this compromised legislation that we're reasonably unhappy with because we're just not going to accept that and that's unlikely to get bipartisan support. So we are a little bit safer than just waiting to see what kind of negotiated compromise comes out. The problem is there's no negotiation, there's no communication. We literally haven't heard from the government in two and a bit months since we've given them these proposals. No response, no, how about? This is just echoing silence.
Speaker 3:And Dominic, if I may, I think the idea of just waiting to the next election and saying nothing is a false hope, because this issue will not go away. If we get to the next election and nothing's been done, it will come up for the next parliament and whatever majorities are elected next time. So, for example, if we had a Labor government with a minority Labor government with green support, we could expect a more hostile reception next time. So there is a case, I think, for achieving what we can in this parliament, and that's why I'm suggesting it would be great if we get the change to the Sex Discrimination Act that faith leaders have put up, absolutely, but they are going to be a bit more contentious, I think, than the Religious Discrimination Act. So part of me is saying could we get the Religious Discrimination Act on a bipartisan basis, given that both sides have voted for most of it previously, and then, if we can get the SDA, that would be great, but otherwise SDA and the next parliament.
Speaker 4:You go on. I'm more adventurous. I'm working with schools.
Speaker 1:We've been on the coalface of this for at least five or six years now, and you've been doing some pretty big campaigning around the place, yeah, and we've got lots of people.
Speaker 4:We had 4,000 people supporting our registered for our events before we ran out of space and schools generally want a solution here. We've been trying hard to find a solution. Every time there's been genuine concerns raised we've sought to address them. So the proposals around the religious discrimination bill faith leaders have gone into these negotiations, gone into these discussions in good faith and trying to find a fair compromise, getting the best legal advice we can, trying to find solutions for every legitimate concern that's been raised. So we've already got draft legislation with the Legislative Discrimination Bill. We've got draft amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that do reflect not a perfect solution for us, but what we have been advised is a fair compromise consistent with international law, that meets all the government's election commitments, does provide better protections for students and staff, provides clearer protections about what we need as faith-based schools and we are so close after so much work over so long a period of time to getting a historic settlement on this that will be enduring.
Speaker 4:Yes, All we've got to do is get the government to push forward on this, to reach across Now. We've heard from the media that the relationship between the Attorney-General and the shadow seems to have gone pear-shaped. It really is now for the Prime Minister to step in, to show some leadership and to make arrangements with the opposition leader to get this bypass and support on the faith leader's proposals. It is a fair deal.
Speaker 2:And he doesn't really even need to make arrangements with the opposition leader. If the Labor government released legislation that the combined faith leaders of Australia supported, I dare the opposition to turn it down. If we have Catholic and Protestant and Muslim and Jewish all agreeing now this is a fair deal and that is who has been signed on to these proposals we've already got then the people that the government needs to negotiate with are the people who are the key stakeholders in religious discrimination bill. That's us, it's not the opposition. They can come and negotiate with us. We can land a bill in our wonderful closed consultation process, land a bill that we're happy with, and they will be able to put that through to Parliament easily When's the next conversation as soon as possible, but there's no doubt.
Speaker 1:I mean you'll be there if they say have a conversation, but they haven't actually said let's talk in two weeks or anything like that.
Speaker 4:No, no, we could meet tomorrow.
Speaker 1:I'd meet tonight if the opportunity came up, yep. We're ready to meet as soon as possible, all right. Well, thanks very much for coming in, sharing this dilemma with you and reducing my anxiety.
Speaker 1:My guests on the Pastor's Heart from Melbourne Mark Sneddon, the Executive Director of the Institute for Civil Society, from Canberra, mark Spencer, the Director of Public Policy for Christian Schools Australia, and Mike Southen is here from Sydney, the Executive Director of Freedom for Faith. My name's Dominic Steele. You've been with us on the Pastor's Heart and we will look forward to your company next Tuesday afternoon.
