I am delivering a paper to the Newcastle branch of the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia on Monday 21 September from 7 pm. A copy of the paper is here:
A brief update on my previous post on the COVID-19 rules applying to churches in NSW, where I referred to an “exemption” issued by the Minister for Health relating to weddings and “places of public worship” where there is more than one building on the premises.
The current Public Health Order governing “gatherings” has been formally amended with operation from Monday 14 September 2020 to implement this “exemption”. (For the amended text of the Public Health (COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order (No 4) 2020 see here.)
There is now a definition in cl 3(1) of the term “separate area” for “places of public worship”:
separate area, for a place of public worship, means a building— (a) that is separate from other buildings within the premises, and (b) has been designated as a separate building by the occupier of the premises, and (c) that is staffed by persons officiating or volunteers or other staff who provide services in that building only, and (d) that does not allow persons gathering in different buildings to mingle.
New cl 9 then sets out the rules concerning gatherings in places of public worship:
9 Directions of Minister about places of public worship
(1) The Minister directs that the occupier of a place of public worship must ensure—
(a) for a place of public worship with more than one separate area, the maximum number of persons in each of the areas is the lesser of—
(i) the number of persons that is equivalent to one person per 4 square
metres of space in the area, or
(ii) 100 persons, and
(b) for any other place of public worship, the maximum number of persons on the premises is the lesser of—
(i) the number of persons that is equivalent to one person per 4 square
metres of space on the premises, or
(ii) 100 persons.
(2) The Minister directs that the occupier of a place of public worship comprised of more than one separate area must ensure that a religious service, activity or event conducted in one separate area does not commence or end at the same time as another religious service, activity or event in another separate area in the place.
(3) Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to a wedding service or a gathering following a wedding service.
Note. Clause 14A(5) provides for the maximum number of persons for wedding services and gatherings following wedding services.
This rule allows a “place of public worship” (a formal “church building”) to allow different groups of up to 100 or the “4m2” number (whichever is the smaller) in separate buildings, so long as the events start and finish at different times. (Weddings are subject to a higher limit of 150, set out in cl 14A).
The only other change that may impact churches is that the residential gathering limit of 20 persons may now be enforced, not only against the occupier of the residence, but also against any visitors who join a meeting larger than 20- see new cl 11(1A). This reinforces the rule but will probably not have a major impact, given that most church home bible study groups would already be observing the 20 person limit anyway. Presumably it will make life easier for police in prosecuting persons who attend large parties at private houses.
Freedom for Faith have posted this submission on the provisions of a Private Member’s Bill (sponsored by the Hon Mark Latham) being considered in the NSW Parliament at the moment. The Bill would plug a gap in NSW discrimination law by making religious belief or activity a prohibited ground of discrimination in NSW. The Bill is one that ought to receive serious consideration from the Parliament, and the submission (prepared for Freedom for Faith by Dr Alex Deagon, Senior Lecturer in Law at the Queensland University of Technology) should be very helpful in that process.
Australia has seen two recent initiatives by local Parliaments aimed at what are often called “conversion therapy” practices. No-one supports coercive electro-shock or other oppressive practices imposed on someone without their consent, to change their sexual preferences or identity. But the problem with the recent legislative proposals is that the laws do not target these practices alone (as to which it is hard to find any evidence of them occurring in Australia in recent years), but seem to reach further and to prevent religious groups sharing the teaching of their faith.
The approach of the official end of the judicial term in the US Supreme Court has seen a number of important law and religion-related decisions handed down in the last week. We have seen decisions relating to access to abortion; to whether the US government can require religious bodies to fund abortion and contraception; to the provision of state funds for religious schools; and to the question of whether discrimination law can be applied to teachers of religion at religious schools. (And all of those are in addition to the other recent major decision in Bostock on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, which I have noted previously.)
Each of the four cases here would warrant (and no doubt will produce) detailed academic commentary. But here I will simply flag the case and the general outlines of the reasoning for those who want to read more.
Following earlier announcements by the Premier of NSW, the rules regarding public gatherings in the State have been amended with effect from 1 July 2020, in the Public Health (COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order (No 4) 2020 (“PHO No 4”). This post comments on matters that relate to churches and other religious bodies. For my previous post on the rules under PHO No 3, see here.
In a controversial decision, the United States Supreme Court has held by 6-3, in Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia (No. 17–1618; June 15, 2020), that the prohibition of “sex discrimination” in the workplace in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 means that an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. Both majority and minority focus strongly on the issues of how statutes should be interpreted. In my view the concerns expressed by the minority about the “literal” approach of the majority judgment are well-justified, as are the possible detrimental implications for religious freedom in the USA. I will also comment briefly on how similar issues would be resolved in Australia.
Further to my previous posts on the COVID-19 health rules affecting church services and activities (see here and here), and a paper I presented recently, the NSW Government has released amendments to the previous rules, which take effect today, June 13. This post provides a summary of the more important changes that will affect churches and other religious bodies.
I have previously commented on the rules concerning movement from home, gatherings in public places and opening of public premises which have been applied in Australia while we deal with the COVID-19 crisis. The NSW Minister for Health has just released the Public Health (COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order (No 3) 2020 (“RGM Order No 3”), which commences operation on Monday 1 June 2020 and repeals and replaces the previous orders. In this post I want to outline what the new rules will be in their effect on churches. (These comments will apply in similar ways to other religious groups, of course.)
In NSW a private member’s Bill designed to improve complaint handing procedures in relation to allegations of discrimination and vilification is being considered by a Committee of the Legislative Council. As a number of the issues have arisen in cases where comments have been made from a religious perspective, Freedom for Faith have made a submission on the Bill (the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Complaint Handling) Bill 2020). As a board member of Freedom for Faith I had some input into the submission, which for those interested can be downloaded here:
The Committee’s home page indicates that submissions closed today (April 26), but I suspect that if others wished to make submissions on the legislation and given the disruptions caused by the current situation, the Committee may be willing to accept late submissions.