Freedom from discrimination OK for progressives so why not for faith groups?

Despite this, so-called progressive critics have instigated a hostile campaign to oppose the Bill. They ignore the real stories of religious people who have faced hostile treatment and the moderate aims of the Bill to give religious belief equal protection, not privilege.

Equality Australiahas criticised protections for statements of religious belief set out in clause 12 of the Bill. This clause gives narrow and qualified protection to moderate expressions of faith against discrimination complaints made under State and Territory laws. This protection in clause 12 of the Bill is modest, limited and extensively qualified. The protection afforded by the clause is so narrow that it will not protect Christians from the real threat they face – pursuit under State-based vilification legislation which is often used to shut down religious speech that activists do not like.

In recent public campaigns against the Bill, activists have raised spurious hypotheticals about the Bill, such as the suggestion that it will allow a male employer to tell his female employee that as a woman, she should be home with the children rather than at work because the Bible says so.

This is simply not the case.

The modest speech protection in the Bill does not disturb existing workplace laws or the framework of policies, procedures, codes of conduct and other rules that regulate workplace behaviour.

The Bill also has its critics from within the Government backbenches faithfully doing the work of the Opposition Party for them.

One Coalition MP has voiced his concern that the Bill privileges religious rights over the rights of other minority groups already protected under anti-discrimination law. He cautions that parts of the Bill, like clause 11, may "open the door" to religious schools to discriminate against individuals based on their sexuality. This concern is unwarranted.

Clause 11 allows religious schools to preferentially hire staff who share the religious beliefs of the school. Fairly narrow protection is given against State or Territory laws that undermine this principle. But this protection has nothing to do with sexuality and gender, it allows a school to preserve its religious character in its staff. It is designed to ensure that an Orthodox Jewish school can prioritise hire of Orthodox Jewish teachers and not Christians. Clause 11 does not affect laws protecting sexuality and gender identity – these are protected by the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and remain unchanged by the Bill.

Another example of baseless scaremongering.

The idea that the Bill allows religious Australians to discriminate against other people by privileging religious rights above others is simply untrue and is part of a well-organised scare campaign.

Apart from these peripheral differences, the Religious Discrimination Bill looks very much like any other anti-discrimination Act.

The Religious Discrimination Bill represents the keeping of an unambitious election promise by the Coalition government and is a much needed first step to addressing a serious gap in protections for religious Australians. It is surprising that such a modest and lacklustre legislative proposal has attracted such hostile opposition. This is a general reflection of the increasing animosity towards religion from a small group of influential cultural voices and indeed the media.

The Bill may not be 'passed' before the election in 2022 which makes it an 'election' issue yet again. Whilst it is not a perfect piece of legislation, it represents a way forward towards better recognition of religious freedom in Australian law.

Overall, the Bill makes a significant contribution to the protection of religious freedom in Australia. It prohibits detrimental treatment of Australians generally on the grounds of their religion, recognises the important principle that usually religious organisations ought to be able to conduct their affairs in accordance with their faith commitments (while including clauses to balance other rights), and provides some protection against the worst excesses of State laws undermining the principles of freedom of religious speech and freedom of association. It establishes the role of an official "champion" of these important principles. While not perfect, it ought to be supported by all parties in Parliament.