At the meeting, Comensoli expressed that religious schools should be allowed the right to hire staff that exhibits the ethos the school is looking for, “in any organisation, whether it’s a religious one or not.”
He argued that regardless of the service, “we approach that from the perspective of what our understanding of the human person is.
“That’s informed by our beliefs, informed by our teachings, informed by cultural practices.”
Comensoli stated that religious schools and organisations should not only be wanting to do so but are also free to do so.
The amendment introduced on Oct. 27 prevents staff at religious organisations and schools from discrimination based on their sexuality, marital status, gender identity or other attributes that are protected.
Additionally, religious bodies that receive government funding will also not be able to refuse to provide services to people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This amendment opposes Comensoli’s assertion for schools to be able to hire staff based on the school’s own policy statement, with all other discrimination acts still applying.
More Amendments Needed
Stephen Smith, Head of National Workplace Relations Policy of the Australian Industry (AI) Group, also asked for the bill to be amended along with Catherine Brown and Lisa Annese from Diversity Council Australia (DCA).Currently, on the bill, statements of belief are not constituted as discrimination, giving people of faith a level of protection.
Statement of beliefs can be a religious belief held by a person in good faith and made according to the religion’s doctrines, beliefs, or teachings.
For someone who does not hold a religious belief, their statement of belief must be made in good faith and is something someone who has no religious faith can relate to.
However, this excludes statements that “would, or is likely to, harass, threaten, seriously intimidate or vilify another person or group of persons” and are therefore not protected under statements of good faith.
Smith argued that exclusions for the statements of belief are too narrow.
He expressed that “it is a very high bar, and there may well be a whole host of other statements, which are defined broadly, which are highly offensive and inappropriate that wouldn’t meet those definitions.”
“It is essential that a religious activity at work can be subject to the relevant remedial action an employer may be required to take, or reasonably wish to take, to prevent harm to others and the employer’s business,” the statement read.
Annese from DCA reasoned that the “statement of belief” in the bill gave people of faith rights that overrode other anti-discriminatory acts.
The representatives for both the DCA and the AI Group argued that “Australians will lose discrimination protections in the workplace to accommodate the religious beliefs of people who may make discriminatory statements against them.”
However, Reynolds from ACU expressed that the exclusions gave the protection of statement of belief a suitable balance.
“It [the exclusions] does get rid of the provision about offensive,” she said.
“Because, as you know, religion can have hard truths.”
“Non-religious statements against religions can also have hard truths against people, and people may find them offensive, but people don’t find them intimidating or threatening.”
