A spokesman for the Australian Catholic Bishops got stuck into the Government's 'failure' to protect religious freedoms on Thursday because its new human rights consolidation bill didn't give the Church new freedoms to discriminate. This was brave, because other commentators have asked why big church institutions should enjoy any exemptions at all.
Everyone has an opinion, and this is mine, as a workplace law practitioner for 40 years.
Anti-discrimination acts are meant to protect vulnerable and marginalised people, not corporations or dominant ideologies. The employers I represent reap the benefits of understanding that diversity and inclusion are brilliant for business and productivity. Equality of opportunity breeds respect for the rule of law and the common good.
The bill has missed simple opportunities for real improvement. It does not, for example, fix up the messily inadequate response to racial and religious vilification. I'd rather see a no-fault, taxpayer-funded, independently crafted media response in the victim's voice in response to vindictive, stupid or lazy misrepresentations about race and culture inflicted upon readers of the likes of Andrew Bolt or those who listen to the likes of Alan Jones.
Public trials, fines and injunctions don't change bigots' minds. We have moved past Reg Ansett's view in 1978 that equal opportunity for a woman pilot would be an impediment to business success, to the understanding that avoiding discrimination and fostering diversity is all about balance.
I would like to see three additions to this bill.
First, a provision to make religious institutions and schools accountable for their claim of privilege.
Just as we protect a person's right to hold or decline to believe in state-approved or unpopular or controversial religious or spiritual beliefs and practices, we set limits on it: that they don't interfere with the rights and liberties of other vulnerable people.
So, if a 'religious' school seeks to discriminate on the usual grounds against women and de factos and gays, I think they should:
(a) state in a very public way why this is a reasonable and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, the protection of religious freedoms
(b) only be entitled