Submissions

Thank the Attorney General and the Government for their work to secure religious freedom in Australia in proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2019. Religious people and organisations, including Christian churches, make an enormous contribution to the good of Australian society. We are concerned that attempts to protect freedom of religion by codification may prove counter-productive and urge the Government to allow maximal freedom with minimal regulation. We urge the Government to continue to improve the proposed legislation so that it best secures freedom of religion. We raise the following concerns about the exposure draft. 1) It is not clear that religious organisations who do not require employees to share their religious convictions will be able to prefer employees who share those convictions. This may inhibit the ministry of our schools, pre-schools, aged care facilities and hospitals. 2) Similarly, the definition of religious bodies may exclude schools, pre-schools, aged care facilities and hospitals, all of which we consider to be expressions of our ministry in Christ’s name. 3) It is not clear that the legislation would protect good faith expressions of moral teaching (such as on matters of sexuality, gender and marriage) which some might claim to be “vilification”. 4) The provision for employers to limit expression of opinion by employees on the basis of “unjustifiable financial hardship to the employer” seems to open the way for powerful commercial interests to censor reasonable private expressions. Download Original

The Presbyterian Church in Australia (PCA) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission about the draft Religious Discrimination Bill.

Who we are

The Presbyterian Church in Australia (PCA) consists of over 500 congregations meeting throughout all Australian States and Territories. It is a community of about 30,000 people, with congregations from at least nine different non-English speaking cultures. Beyond its congregational ministries, the PCA operates schools, aged care facilities and pre-schools, and provides social services and chaplaincy care in a wide range of communities throughout the nation. The Presbyterian Church has been part of Australian society since 1803 and formed as the PCA in 1901. It consists of six churches, in each State (with the the ACT as part of the Presbyterian Church of NSW and the Norther Territory part of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland). The six state churches are united in a federal arrangement. As such, some of the State churches have made their own submission on the Bill.

Endorsed submissions

In making our submission, we endorse submissions by:

• The Presbyterian Church of Victoria
• The Presbyterian Church of QueenslandFreedom for Faith
• Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney.

Our convictions

The Presbyterian Church is concerned that religious freedom be protected as fully as possible in our nation. Human beings are fundamentally religious and it is in their nature to seek the sense of wonder, mystery and meaning which comes from religion. Although, God has the proper claim on the worship of all people, he allows them freedom to seek and find him. Religious convictions and practices are thus an important part of culture for millions around the world and here in Australia. Allowing individuals and communities the freedom to express their religious convictions as fully as possible is an important way of treating them with dignity. Religious believers make a major contribution to the common good of our society, and it is to the benefit of the whole society that believers are able to give wide expression of their faith in word and action (recognising that religion should offer no protection to acts to acts of violence or abuse). Since its formation the PCA has been committed to freedom of religion. This is expressed in the Declaratory Statement adopted by the Church on its formation on July 24, 1901 wherein it states that the Church “disclaims …intolerant or persecuting principles” and upholds “the liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment”. This statement is an assertion of the Church’s support of freedom of religion in Australia. The PCA, along with other Christian churches, is a body of believers who are committed to a corporate, public and therefore institutional expression of our religious faith. The primary expression of this is in our congregations, though it extends to a range of other organisations which express the mission of the church. Freedom of religion requires churches and Christians to be able to co-operate in operating a range of institutional expressions of their faith. As Presbyterians in the protestant tradition, we understand each individual Christian to be a member of what Martin Luther called ‘the priesthood of all believers’. This understanding leads us to say that every Christian has a sacred duty to live and pursue their work from Christian convictions. The book of James, in the New Testament, teaches that faith that is not expressed in deeds is, in fact, ‘dead’. Christianity is not simply a private matter that can be left at the door of the home, or of the church, but a view of the world that shapes public life. Thus, there is in Presbyterian thought no clear sacred/secular divide. Every Christian — whether a cobbler, baker, or politician — should see their work informed by their faith. This view of religion stands in contrast to that presupposed in any claim that protection of religious freedoms is only necessary for clergy or churches determining. The PCA holds that freedom of religion must be extended to people of all religions, and that equivalent freedoms should be granted to those who hold no religious convictions. We are concerned that attempts to protect freedom of religion by codification may prove counter-productive and urge the Government to allow maximal freedom with minimal regulation.

Our concerns

We raise the following concerns about the exposure draft. 1) It is not clear Clause 10 (1) will allow religious organisations which do not require employees to share their religious convictions to prefer employees who share those convictions. This may inhibit the ministry of our schools, pre-schools, aged care facilities and hospitals. In many of those institutions the need to employ suitably qualified staff means that it has not been possible to have a policy in which all staff as required to have a Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is essential for the institutions to be able to prefer such staff, if they are to achieve their mission. 2) The definition of religious bodies in Clause 10(2) seems to exclude schools, pre-schools, aged care facilities and hospitals, all of which we consider to be expressions of our ministry in Christ’s name. The Presbyterian Church runs several such institutions in various states. In order for these institutions to be sustainable, they have a commercial aspect to their work. That does not exclude them from being legitimate expressions of the mission of the church. As argued in the submission by the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, there is no reason why an organisation which receives payment for goods or services cannot have a religious purpose. Such a commercial activities test should be removed from the Bill. 3) It is not clear that the legislation would protect good faith expressions of moral teaching (such as on matters of sexuality, gender and marriage) which some might claim to be “vilification”, since Clause 41(2) does not define vilification. The Bill would be improved by having this term removed. The provisions to prohibit expression which “harass or incite hatred or violence” would sufficiently cover the necessary ground without risking unintended consequences. Both in Australia and in other jurisdictions we have seen cases of complaints made against Christians for legitimate expression of Christian moral teaching. A case in point is that of a minister Campbell Markham and pastoral worker Andrew Gee in the Presbyterian Church of Tasmania who have faced action under the Anti-Discrimination Act (1998) in relation to blog posts and public preaching. Each incident involved expressions of traditional Christian sexual morality. While the complaint was eventually dropped, it is not clear what the outcome would have been if the complaint had been continued. It should not be necessary for people to defend legitimate expressions of religious views before tribunals, not should they have to face the significant cost of doing so. The Federal Legislation should ensure that similar complaints will not be entertained. 4) The provision in Clause 8(3) for employers to limit expression of opinion by employees on the basis of “unjustifiable financial hardship to the employer” opens the way for powerful commercial interests to censor reasonable private expressions. The case of Israel Folau is only too well known. We are more concerned about the possible impact on employees with far less profile who may find that they are instructed to refrain from expression of religious belief in public because an employer judges this to be a risk to the business. Download Original

Summary of Our Position

In this submission, we detail our responses to the following issues for consideration:

Question 21 – How can the delivery of palliative care and end-of-life care services in Queensland be improved? We support Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA) recommendations in their submission to the committee that increased provision of palliative care services be funded, particularly for those dying in residential care services and in their own homes.

Question 25 – Should voluntary assisted dying (VAD) be allowed in Queensland? We urge the Committee to recommend that Voluntary Assisted Dying not be allowed in Queensland. We urge this in order to safeguard compassionate care for the suffering and vulnerable in our community. Instead, we ask the committee to recommend increased provision and access to high quality palliative care services.

Question 37 – Should medical practitioners be allowed to hold a conscientious objection against VAD? We argue that medical practitioners should be not only allowed to hold a conscientious objection against VAD but should be supported and protected in their stance.

Question 38 – If practitioners hold a conscientious objection to VAD, should they be legally required to refer a patient to a practitioner that they know does not hold a conscientious objection or to a service provider that offer such a service? We argue that if practitioners hold a conscientious objection to VAD, they should not be legally required to refer a patient to a practitioner that they know does not hold a conscientious objection or to a service provider that offers such a service.

Download the entire submission to continue reading…

Download

Summary of Our Position

We strongly urge the Committee to recommend that the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018 be amended in the following ways:

1. There be very limited grounds for lawfully undertaking termination of pregnancy in Queensland, regardless of gestational age. We recognise that there are occasional instances where a medical condition clearly threatens the life of the mother at a time when the foetus is clearly not yet viable; all other avenues of treatment suitable for use until the foetus reaches viability have been considered; and two or more medical practitioners reasonably agree that abortion would at least save the life of the mother. We acknowledge that women and families as well as the doctors involved in this tragic situation should be legally protected and offered support. However, we ask that the law only allow for termination of pregnancy in these kind of most exceptional circumstances.
2. We urge the Committee to, in those circumstances in which lawful requests for termination may be made, make full provision for conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy by doctors, nurses and pharmacists. This includes removing the requirement that the practitioner refer to another practitioner or provider who can provide the termination of pregnancy service.
3. We urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill ensures counselling, independent of abortion providers, is clearly offered to all women considering termination. This counselling should genuinely offer women, and those around them, the choice to continue pregnancy with adequate support, alongside other options they may wish to consider.

Download the entire submission to continue reading…

Download

Summary of Our Position

1. We strongly urge the Commission to recommend that there be very limited grounds for lawfully undertaking termination of pregnancy in Queensland. However, we recognise that there are occasional instances where a medical condition clearly threatens the life of the mother at a time when the foetus is clearly not yet viable, all other avenues of treatment suitable for use until the foetus reaches viability have been considered, and two or more medical practitioners reasonably agree that abortion would at least save the life of the mother. We acknowledge that women and families as well as the doctors involved in this tragic situation should be legally protected and offered support. However, we ask that the law make provision for this only under the most exceptional circumstances.
2. We urge the Commission to recommend termination of pregnancy law reform that ensures counselling, independent of abortion providers, is clearly offered to all women considering termination. This counselling should genuinely offer women, and those around them, the choice to continue pregnancy with adequate support alongside other options they may wish to consider.
3. We urge the Commission to, in those circumstances in which lawful requests for termination may be made, make full provision for conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy by doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

Download the entire submission to continue reading…

Download

This submission has been prepared by the Gospel in Society Today team (GiST) on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland (PCQ). Approximately 7500 people attend PCQ churches across Queensland each week. PCQ has faithfully served the Queensland community in many ways for over a century, and is directly involved in providing health care, aged care, community and chaplaincy care as well as school and tertiary education.

For further information regarding the position of the GiST team and PCQ, please contact the convenor of the committee

Dr Robyn Bain
Presbyterian Church of Queensland Offices
Level 4, 19 Lang Parade
Milton QLD 4064
Ph: 07 3716 2800
Email: rbain@qtc.edu.au

Summary of Our Position

PCQ urges the review panel to propose recommendations which maximise freedom of religion. Our position is that the positive legal right to freedom of religion serves the best interests of nurturing a diverse and tolerant Australian community. Given the important role of the law in both reflecting and shaping our culture, we recommend that religious conscience and expression, and the associated rights of freedom of speech and of association, needs to be both more soundly encouraged and protected in law. Such legal protection is particularly important at this time when the religious freedom of parents in the educational context and religious institutions such as schools and charities are under question. We urge the panel to recommend, therefore, that there are compelling reasons for taking greater measures to protect religious freedom under federal law, and that laws should be enacted that protect both individuals and organisations from discrimination or detriment due to their religious beliefs.

Our submission affirms and reiterates the PCQ Submission to the Australian Commonwealth Parliament Human Rights Sub-Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right of Freedom of Religion or Belief.

Download the entire submission to continue reading…

Download

Our Position

The Presbyterian Church of Australia (PCA) urges the Panel to propose recommendations which maximize freedom of religion in Australia, and we draw attention to a variety of current and likely future threats to this freedom. The PCA endorses the report submitted by the organization Freedom for Faith, with one reservation in regard to that submission’s proposal for a Religious Freedom Commissioner (see in section 9, below).

Our commitment to a general freedom of religion arises out of our Christian convictions and our desire to pursue the good of Australian society. We note that religion remains a very important – indeed, foundational – element in the cultural life of many Australians. There is, therefore, a demonstrable need to strengthen the protection of freedom of religion in Australia.

We have particular concerns in the following areas (each of which is developed in this submission)

• freedom of parents in the education of their children;
• access to public space by religious groups;
• implications of the introduction of same sex marriage;
• the impact of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (Cth) and various Anti-discrimination legislation on the function of churches and their agencies, and other independent Christian agencies;
• implications of some provisions anti-vilification legislation.

Download the entire submission to continue reading…

Download