Two pieces in the Australian online forum “The Conversation” today make misleading statements about the possible impacts of the recognition of same-sex marriage in Australia, and warrant some response. One article suggests that there is no doubt that churches will still be able to decline to solemnise same-sex marriages. The other is a “fact check” on assertions about the mandatory nature of “safe schools” programs following such a change. In my view both pieces are likely to mislead.
Uncategorized
Contractor dismissed due to views on same sex marriage
In the context of the current postal survey on changing the law of marriage in Australia, press reports in the last few days indicate that a contractor who had been working for an ACT-based children’s entertainment business has lost her position solely due to her indication of support for a “No” vote in the current postal survey on the issue being conducted in Australia. (See here for a detailed report on the incident quoting both sides.)
It seems worth commenting on the legal implications of the decision to terminate the contractor, especially in light of the “Safeguards” legislation that was recently passed by the Federal Parliament, and on which I recently posted.
Beer, Bibles and Free Speech
The debate on same sex marriage in Australia, and the debate on whether we can have a debate, took some interesting turns in the last week. I have a comment on Mercatornet where I discuss how beer and bibles led to questions about what can be said and who can say it: see “Beer, Bibles and free speech in Australia” .
Religious Free Speech in Australia: CDF v Gaynor
Can a reserve member of the Armed Forces make controversial, religiously motivated, political comments on a private website contrary to Defence Force policy? Sadly, the answer provided by the recent decision in Chief of the Defence Force v Gaynor [2017] FCAFC 41 (8 March 2017) is, No, not without having their service terminated.
I mentioned the earlier decision of a single judge of the Federal Court in these proceedings in a previous post over a year ago: see Free speech and religious freedom even for ADF members (Dec 10, 2015). In that earlier decision Buchanan J ruled that Major Bernard Gaynor’s termination was unlawful, because in applying the relevant regulations the Chief of the Defence Force had breached the implied “freedom of political communication” under the Commonwealth Constitution. Now the Full Court of the Federal Court (Perram, Mortimer & Gleeson JJ) has overturned that previous decision and upheld the termination. The decision and the way that the “freedom of political communication” is dealt with have disturbing possible consequences for free speech in Australia on controversial political topics, many of which are raised these days by religious beliefs which run contrary to “orthodox” opinions in society at large.
Special Religious Education in NSW and “grooming”
Over the course of three days the local Herald newspaper here in Newcastle (NSW) has been publishing a series of misleading and inflammatory articles designed to put pressure on the NSW Government to stop offering the Special Religious Education program (SRE, or sometimes popularly called “Scripture”) in public schools. Here I want to address a particularly inflammatory accusation implied or made in these articles, that SRE material somehow supports “grooming” of children for sexual purposes. These accusations are completely false and should not have been made in the first place.
Religious Freedom, transgender issues and abortion- overruling the US Health Department
The recent (31 Dec 2016) decision of US Federal District Court Judge O’Connor in Franciscan Alliance Inc v Burwell (ND TX, Case 7:16-cv-00108-O; Dec. 31, 2016) (thanks to “Religion Clause” for the report and information) is a significant one. In short, the Obama administration had used the prohibition on “sex discrimination” in US Federal law to enact an administrative regulation requiring Christian health care providers (and some State governments) to provide transgender “transition” procedures, and abortions, to all patients, arguing that denying this coverage amounted to sex discrimination.
This highly questionable interpretation has now been overturned by this very significant decision; even though only a Federal district court judge, it seems to be binding across the whole of the US unless overturned.
Protection of Religious Free Speech in Australia
I am presenting a paper on protection of free speech and connections with religious freedom at the Australasian Christian Legal Convention in Brisbane today. A full copy of the paper can be downloaded here: protection-of-religious-free-speech-in-australia . It is a fairly lengthy document but I hope it may be a useful resource for lawyers interested in protection of free speech on religious matters in Australia.
Litigation involving Churches in NSW
I was privileged to host a guest lecture in the “Law and Religion” course I teach, on Friday August 26, from Professor Keith Mason, former President of the NSW Court of Appeal and renowned legal scholar and jurist, on the topic of “Litigation involving churches in NSW”. Professor Mason is one of Australia’s leading experts on the law involving churches, having been involved as both counsel and on the bench in a number of important cases. His lecture was a fascinating tour of church litigation from the earliest days of the Colony up till the case involving the Bathurst Diocese just last year (for my earlier comments on that case see this previous post.)
Professor Mason has indicated that he is happy for me to share the audio of the talk, which can be listened to here:
For those who interested in reading the cases he refers to, the following provides the full citations (and links where available):
Cases mentioned in Professor Keith Mason’s lecture
- “Hotheads”
- R v Hall (No 1) [1829] NSWSupC 13 (12 March 1829) ; Hall v Scott [1830] NSWSupC 29; (1830) NSW Sel Cas (Dowling) 437 (6 April 1830)
- Ex parte Rev George King [1861] NSWLeggeSC 1; (1861) 2 Legge 1307 (9 February 1861)
- Attempts to control conscience by legal processes
- Wylde v Attorney-General (NSW) [1948] HCA 39; (1948) 78 CLR 224 (6 December 1948) (“the Red Book case”)
- Scandrett v Dowling (1992) 27 NSWLR 483 (not available freely online)
- Churches as defendants
- Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis & anor [2007] NSWCA 117 (24 May 2007)
- Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst v Palmer [2015] NSWSC 1856 (10 Dec 2015).
Religious Ethos and Open Membership at Sydney University
A report in the student newspaper from the University of Sydney (Honi Soit, March 13, 2016) records that
The University of Sydney Union (USU) has threatened to deregister the Sydney University Evangelical Union (EU) from the Clubs & Societies program over the latter’s requirement that all members must make a declaration of faith in Jesus Christ.
In other words, a student religious group is being told that they may no longer be registered to use University facilities or receive the financial support other groups receive, because they make it a requirement of membership that someone support that religion. This is a very disturbing development for religious freedom at the University of Sydney, and especially if it presages similar developments around Australia. What is going on here? And is this move lawful, or not?
ALRC Freedoms Inquiry on Religious Freedom- Part 1
Today the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report on Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 129). I am planning on providing some comments myself, but in the meantime I am grateful to my friend Mark Fowler, from Brisbane law firm Neumann & Turnour, who has agreed to provide a very speedy overview of chapter 5 (on “Freedom of Religion”) by way of a “guest post” on the blog. Over to Mark:
General Summary
This update focusses on the findings at Chapter 5 – Freedom of Religion, which concern the extent to which Commonwealth law encroaches upon religious freedom within Australia.
Whilst various submissions to the Inquiry argued for the limiting or total removal of existing exemptions from the operation of anti-discrimination law granted to religious institutions, at paragraph 5.123 of the Final Report, the Inquiry impliedly refuted such submissions. It did this by linking a finding of no significant encroachment upon religious freedom to the ongoing presence of exemptions:
[T]here is no obvious evidence that Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws significantly encroach on freedom of religion in Australia, especially given the existing exemptions for religious organisations.
The conclusion that there is no significant encroachment upon religious freedoms had been contested by various of the submissions made. However, the Report did note that there was a degree of community concern as to that encroachment and recommend that religious freedom protections be considered in any future reform efforts aimed at anti-discrimination laws (at paragraph 5.154):
[C]oncerns about freedom of religion should be considered in future initiatives directed towards the consolidation of Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws, or harmonisation of Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws. In particular, further consideration should be given to whether freedom of religion should be protected through a general limitations clause rather than exemptions.
General Limitations Clause
The ‘general limitations clause’ approach is summarised by the Commission in the following statement:
A broader concern of stakeholders is that freedom of religion may be vulnerable to erosion by anti-discrimination law if religious practice or observance is respected only through exemptions to general prohibitions on discrimination. An alternative approach would involve the enactment of general limitations clauses, under which legislative definitions of discrimination would recognise religious practice or observance as lawful discrimination, where the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving legitimate religious objectives.
Whether such a clause would operate as an effective protection of religious freedom (including as a means to effect the applicable international instruments to which Australia is a signatory, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) will of course turn on its precise terms. The Inquiry’s Final Report provides at paragraph 5.111 an example of a general limitations clause, as proposed by Professors Nicholas Aroney and Patrick Parkinson:
- A distinction, exclusion, restriction or condition does not constitute discrimination if:
- it is reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to achieve a legitimate objective; or
- it is made because of the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned; or
- it is not unlawful under any anti-discrimination law of any state or territory in the place where it occurs; or
- it is a special measure that is reasonably intended to help achieve substantive equality between a person with a protected attribute and other persons.
- The protection, advancement or exercise of another human right protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a legitimate objective within the meaning of subsection 2(a).
Harmonisation of Commonwealth, State and Territory Laws to Protect Religious Freedom
Making reference to the potential for harmonisation across Commonwealth, State and Territory anti-discrimination laws, the Report notes that at ‘present all states, except New South Wales and South Australia, and both territories, have legislation making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief. The definitions of religious discrimination and the scope of exemptions differ. Commonwealth law does not make discrimination on the basis of religion unlawful’. We agree that this is an area warranting further consideration in reform efforts into the future.
Further Information and Next Steps
We continue to analyse the report, but thought this brief summary would be helpful. Further details of the Inquiry’s Final Report can be found online and general links are provided below:
- Media release;
- Final Report;
- Summary Report; and
- Podcast(audio with transcript).
The Inquiry’s Final Report does not represent a Government commitment to reform the law, however, many of the Commission’s past reports have been influential in driving law reform. The Australian Government has not a set a time frame in which to respond to the Inquiry’s Final Report or implement the recommendations.
Mark Fowler | Director, Neumann & Turnour Lawyers