PROPOSED changes to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act would be a “betrayal of all faith communities” in the state, an open letter from Queensland Churches Together warns.
Current Queensland law allows religious schools and organisations to make employment decisions to select and maintain a body of staff that broadly upholds their beliefs, practices and moral convictions.
The changes introduced by the Miles Government, in response to recommendations made by the Queensland Human Rights Commission, limit these powers.
Religious bodies would only be able to favour in their employment decisions “on the basis of religious belief or religious activity”, and only where religious belief and religious activity are a “genuine occupational requirement”.
Queensland Churches Together, to which Brisbane archdiocese is a signatory, argues in its submission to the inquiry it would come down to a secular court to decide which roles in a religious organisation have religious belief or activity as a “genuine occupational requirement”.
They argue this poses “a significant risk of imposing a secular perspective on a theological question, which would severely undermine the religious freedom of groups”.
In his submission to the inquiry, Queensland University of Technology Law Professor Alex Deagon said the narrow standard of “genuine occupational requirement” perpetuated the stereotype that “only a principal and chaplain need to be religious” in a religious school.
“A culture of faith requires a critical mass of staff who share the beliefs and practices which undergird the school,” he wrote.
“Furthermore, the explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of other attributes, such as sexuality attributes, ignores the fact that there are animating religious beliefs and practices around sex which can render persons inappropriate for employment in a religious context.”
Queensland Churches Together also say the changes are contrary to international law.
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR) which Australia has signed, declares that religious freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights, and should be preserved except where absolutely necessary; this is not upheld in the proposed Anti-Discrimination legislation,” they said in their letter.
“The proposed changes contravene Article 18.4 of the ICCPR, which affirms the rights of parents to ensure the faith and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”
Queensland Churches Together said, in their letter, the draft Bill “fails to respect the multicultural society we seek to uphold, where faith communities have generously played their part in building a harmonious Queensland”.
“We, a collective of faith communities across Queensland, believe the Bill should be reframed as positive associational rights.”
Professor Deagon argues for this in his submission, too.
“Positive associational rights would enable schools to select and preference staff consistent with their religious and institutional ethos, and to enforce generally applicable procedures and rules with regard to student advocacy, conduct, dress and so forth,” Queensland Churches Together said.
“An example would be to insert a provision to provide employment rights to organisations established for a particular religious purpose or social cause, which would legally affirm the freedom of religious communities to choose or prefer members who adhere to the ethos of the organisation in their beliefs and conduct.
“This would not excuse such bodies from taking appropriate and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment or any other form of harassment, vilification, or victimisation based on any protected characteristic among their employees.
“However, the law should acknowledge the right of such bodies to create and maintain a faith-based culture and ethos through their employment decisions.”
Queensland Churches Together said faith communities participated “in good faith” with the government’s review but their concerns had not been heard.
“We pointed out the necessity of protecting all human rights, and we proposed solutions,” they said.
“None of our concerns nor suggestions for a positive way forward are considered in this draft Bill.”
