Submission on QLD Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024
Executive Summary
The proposed changes to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act seek to narrow religious exceptions even
further, which is concerning for many religious organizations. These changes are the most restrictive regime
for regulating religious bodies in Australia and will significantly undermine the ability of religious
organizations to employ persons in accordance with their faith.
The proposed ‘reasonable and proportionate’ standard is inappropriate because Article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires any restrictions on religious freedom
to be ‘necessary’, not merely reasonable. The same exception clause also requires a secular court to impose
a theological definition of what is a genuine occupational requirement on the basis of religion, which is a
disturbing intrusion of the state into religion.
Imposing a ‘genuine occupational requirement’ standard and reasonableness inquiry are not necessary
restrictions on religious freedom. Many religious organizations are seeking to create and maintain a faith-
based culture and ethos, which necessitates employment of persons who fit in that culture by believing and
acting consistently with the requirements of the faith, including in matters of personal morality, and not
merely by having technical proficiency in the role. We urge the Queensland Government to thoroughly
reconsider clause 29.
The proposed exceptions should be reframed to continue the exemption for religious bodies, including
religious schools while clarifying that it is for protecting the freedom to manifest religion or belief,
individually or in community with others. This includes the right to worship, observe, practice, teach, and
enable a parent’s right to choose a school that conforms with their religious and moral convictions under
Article 18.4 of the ICCPR.
Additionally, religious bodies have the right to select and maintain a body of staff that upholds their beliefs,
practices and moral convictions. Of course, this does not excuse such bodies from taking reasonable and
proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment or any other form of harassment, vilification, or
victimization based on any protected characteristic among their employees. However, the law should
acknowledge the right of such bodies to create and maintain a faith-based culture and ethos through their
employment decisions.
The freedom to practice religion can be restricted, but only if the restriction is lawful, necessary, and
supported by evidence. The restriction must be based on a valid reason, address a pressing public or social
issue, seek a legitimate aim, and be proportional to the goal. The need for the restriction must be evaluated
objectively.
This bill limits religious freedom to promote equality, prevent discrimination, sexual harassment,
vilification, and other unlawful conduct. It aims to identify and eliminate systemic causes of discrimination,
sexual harassment, vilification, and victimization. These goals are pressing and align with international law.
However, the proposed narrowing of the religious exception is not proportionate to these aims. According
to the Siracusa Principles, a state should use no more restrictive means than required.
Human rights-based frameworks should aim to maximize all human rights and freedoms, rather than pit
them against each other. Governments have often used religious exception clauses within an antidiscrimination framework. Recent Victorian reforms have alarmed and isolated many faith communities.
Queensland should not be forced to repeat the same problematic approaches used elsewhere. Rather, it
should lead the way in innovative law reform to maximize all human rights and freedoms.
The principle of religious liberty extends beyond private belief and acts of worship to public and
associational contexts such as propagation, social and business interactions, employment, cultural and
charitable activities, education, and so on. For many religious believers these external manifestations of
religion are just as central and important to them as private belief, prayer and worship.
Article 18 of the ICCPR reflects this, stating that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his
choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief
of his choice. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others.
The States Parties to the ICCPR, including Australia, have also undertaken to have respect for the liberty
of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children
in conformity with their own convictions.
In conclusion, the proposed changes to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act are overly restrictive and
will undermine the ability of religious organizations to employ persons in accordance with their faith. The
proposed ‘reasonable and proportionate’ standard is inappropriate because it does not align with
international human rights law. Instead, the proposed exceptions should be reframed to continue the
exemption for religious bodies while clarifying that it is for protecting the freedom to manifest religion or
belief, individually or in community with others. Obligations on religious organizations that are already
well defined at law, such as taking appropriate and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment,
vilification, and victimization based on protected attributes are appropriate, and religious bodies should not
be exempt from such obligations.
We believe it is Government’s duty to facilitate a truly inclusive society by leading the way in innovative
law reform to maximize all human rights and freedoms and not just pit them against each other.
