The Internal Contradiction of the Morrison Government’s Religious Discrimination Bill

On Saturday 30 November, Prime Minister Scott Morrison revealed that his Government would not meet its commitment to introduce the Religious Discrimination Bill into Parliament before the end of the year.


Instead, he announced they would be releasing ‘a revised and further exposure draft of the RDA Bill to reflect the Government’s response to the consultation to date and provide further opportunity for engagement.’ [i]


On an optimistic reading, this means there is more opportunity for the Government to listen to all of the criticisms of this legislation, from women, LGBTI people, legal organisations and the Australian Human Rights Commission, that the Religious Discrimination Bill requires substantial amendment because it authorises discrimination against large sections of the Australian community.


Unfortunately, based on all evidence to date, we have more reason to be pessimistic, and instead fear that the Government will only listen to religious fundamentalists demanding even more special privileges to discriminate.


The only change to the Bill which Attorney-General Christian Porter highlighted at the National Press Club on 20 November[ii] was an amendment to ensure that ‘religious hospitals and aged-care providers will be given protections equivalent to those given to other religious bodies, in relation to employment of staff’ (in other words, allowing them to discriminate).


There have been no indications of positive changes to the Bill, to reduce its adverse impact on women, LGBTI people, single parents, divorced people, people in de facto relationships, people with disability and others. Nor was there any reason to be hopeful in the Prime Minister’s media release confirming the delay.


However, what I really want to highlight here is the inconsistency of two of Morrison’s statements in that release.


Specifically, he criticises Labor for ‘a lack of genuine commitment … to the principle that Australians who hold sincere religious beliefs in this country deserve the same legal protections that are rightly provided in other areas such as gender and race.’


But then later the Prime Minister also says ‘Our Government will continue to proceed on the basis of good faith with a view to having a balanced and common sense Bill that protects the important religious freedoms that Australians can sadly no longer take for granted.’


Except these two concepts – a Religious Discrimination Bill, and religious freedom laws – are very, very different things.


Had Morrison actually delivered the former, legislation that simply protects people of faith, and no faith, against discrimination on the same basis as gender, race and other attributes, then not only would Labor have likely welcomed it, but so too would the majority of Australians, including LGBTI people. After all, we know what discrimination is like, and don’t want other people to experience it.


Instead, his Government has produced a ‘Religious Discrimination Bill’ in name, but a religious freedom law in substance. The most problematic elements of the Exposure Draft – re statements of belief, large employer codes of conduct, conscientious objections by health practitioners and the general ‘religious exception’ in clause 10[iii] – all purport to protect ‘religious freedom’ rather than the right to non-discrimination.


Obviously, a lot has been written about the serious flaws of these provisions (including by the author), and particularly about the discrimination they permit against other groups.


Perhaps one consequence that hasn’t received as much attention is that they actually make this legislation not just inconsistent in its objectives, but internally contradictory as well.


That’s because these same provisions also allow discrimination against people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or lack of belief – making it a Religious Discrimination Bill that perversely encourages religious discrimination.


For example, the protections for ‘statements of belief’ in clause 41 – which effectively render them exempt from all Commonwealth, state and territory discrimination laws – don’t just apply to comments that discriminate against women, LGBTI people, single parents, divorced people, people in de facto relationships and people with disability.


Clause 41 also protects statements of belief that discriminate on the basis of religion. This includes, for example, saying the followers of other religions are ‘unclean heathens destined for eternal damnation’. Just like sexist, homophobic, transphobic and ableist statements, these derogatory comments will be protected irrespective of where they occur, including in the workplace, in education, in health, and in the provision of goods and services.


In the same way, clauses 8(3) and (4) won’t just protect a certain footballer telling gay and trans people they are going to hell – it will protect any religious employee who, outside ordinary work hours, tells people from other religions they’re going to hell, too.


The conscientious objection provisions, in clauses 8(5) and (6), are an even bigger threat. As well as allowing health practitioners, from GPs and pharmacists through to optometrists, physiotherapists and even podiatrists, to refuse to serve women, or LGBTI people, they could potentially be (ab)used by a health practitioner to refuse to serve Jewish people, or Muslims, or people from other minority faiths.


But the biggest threat of all – especially to minority religions – is found in clause 10. It allows religious schools and universities, charities and ‘any other body that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion (other than a body that engages solely or primarily in commercial activities)’,[iv] to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.


This clause therefore permits discrimination against teachers and students, as well as the employees of – and even people accessing – charities and community services. And, as we have already seen, Attorney-General Porter plans to expand this clause even further to allow religious hospitals and aged care services to discriminate in relation to employment (at the very least).


Technically, clause 10 protects all religious organisations equally – they will each be able to discriminate in terms of who they employ (or refuse to employ), and provide services to (and who they exclude).


Practically, this clause will primarily benefit the largest religious organisations – including the Catholic and Sydney Anglican[v] churches and related education, health and community services organisations – at the expense of everyone else.


With the massive outsourcing of public services to these bodies over the past two to three decades, they now receive billions and billions of dollars each and every year, and will be explicitly permitted to use that public funding to discriminate.


Not just in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (which is sadly already allowed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and which the Morrison Government steadfastly refuses to change), but also in relation to religious belief, or lack of belief.


That means a professor being denied a job because they are Jewish.


A doctor refused employment at a hospital because they are Muslim.


A school student expelled because they are atheist.


A homeless person missing out a bed in a shelter because they are Hindu.


A charity worker rejected for promotion because they are Buddhist.


An aged care employee losing shifts because they are agnostic.


All these scenarios could be legal under the Religious Discrimination Bill, as long as it was a religious organisation doing the discriminating. And they would be using taxpayers’ money – your money, my money, our money – to do so.


This outcome – entrenching the power and privilege of the major churches, namely the Catholics and Sydney Anglicans, over and above the rest of us – is the inevitable consequence of the internal contradiction of this legislation.


The Morrison Government has chosen to undermine what could and should have been a standard Religious Discrimination Bill – one that would have prohibited most, if not all, of the scenarios described above – with provisions that instead promote ‘religious freedom’.


With their decision to release a second Exposure Draft for public consultation, the Government now has the opportunity to make a better, and more informed, choice, and to prepare legislation that reduces religious discrimination rather than increasing it.


Unfortunately, I can’t seem to suspend my disbelief that they will choose the right option. Based on everything leading to this point, I have no faith the Government’s ‘revised and further exposure draft’ Bill will be any less of a threat to women, LGBTI people, single parents, divorced people, people in de facto relationships and people with disability.


But we must not forget it is also a threat to minority religions, to Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostic people alike. They too will be subjected to discriminatory statements of belief, and potentially denied access to health care, just because of who they are. And they will be refused employment, and discriminated against in education, health, aged care and community services, all by ‘mainstream’ religious organisations using public monies to do so.


Hopefully, they – as well as the many decent Catholic and Anglican people of good faith who oppose new special rights to discriminate – will join us in demanding genuine religious anti-discrimination laws, to replace Morrison’s badly botched Bill.




By choosing to include expansive ‘religious freedom’ provisions, Scott Morrison has undermined the ability of the Religious Discrimination Bill to actually prohibit religious discrimination.



[i] Media Release, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Government will Protect Religious Freedoms by Getting Law Right, 30 November 2019.

[ii] Transcript, Attorney-General Christian Porter, Address to National Press Club, 20 November 2019.

[iii] The Growing List of Problems with the Religious Discrimination Bill.

[iv] Clause 10(2)(c).

[v] Noting Anglicare Victoria have joined other religious bodies, including Vincent Care Victoria and Uniting Vic.Tas, in criticising the special rights to discriminate contained in the Bill. ‘Religious discrimination bill: Faith-based groups and equality advocates welcome delay’, Guardian Australia, 1 December 2019.

11 thoughts on “The Internal Contradiction of the Morrison Government’s Religious Discrimination Bill

  1. Standards of care would also, potentially, fall in hospitals etc., that insist on prioritising faith in the hiring process. This is already what happens in the school chaplaincy program, where faith will trump better qualifications and experience in the selection process (non-religious people don’t even get a foot in the door because of the federal government’s stipulation that funding only be used to hire people of faith).

    Would insurance companies really cover a hospital that, at least sometimes, hires religious candidates who are less qualified/experienced than non-religious candidates with better qualifications/experience?

    Can medical institutions who avail themselves of such a policy really claim to provide best practice services if they limit their pool of job applicants to those who are deemed to be suitable in upholding their particular religious ethos? We know Catholic hospitals already put dogma over best practice when it comes to women’s reproductive health.

    Not one cent of public funding should go to institutions that impose their faith on people in such a way.


    • Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why my submission to the aged care royal commission focused on the current SDA exception allowing publicly funded religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT employees – because it denies people accessing aged care services the best qualified person for the job.


  2. Yes any redraft can only be to establish even worse segregation’s between communities. Enter an Australian theocracy. There is zero evidence that a redraft will be like a normal discrimination Act. These Bills harm anyone and everyone in our a multifaith and multicultural Australia. They create unnecessary artificial chasms between us. One implicit assumption of the Bills is that people are able to live within ‘ghettos’ of their religious or secular beliefs. By that I mean they supposedly can get all needs met from religious or secular providers of their own particular faith group. This is patently absurd and completely impossible. Many people do not understand this reality and flippantly say ‘well just go to another hospital, school, aged care provider etc’. This is impossible because successive governments have outsourced education, hospitals, aged care and a vast array of community services to providers with explicit and implicit religious links. They receive large amounts of government funding and are regarded as ‘public services’ for the purposes of government policy and planning. Governments ‘do not duplicate’ these religious operated public services by establishing parallel services delivered by other public providers.

    If this government establishes a Law like the draft one then it would need to fund a new array of parallel hospital, schools, aged care and community services to meet the needs of people of secular belief and those of small religious groups because the dominant catholic providers would be licensed to exclude them. And no government will ever duplicate their funding by setting up parallel services.

    These Bills must never become law.


  3. A further thought to my comment above. The existing antidiscrimination laws have exemptions for religious bodies to exclude people and the new draft Bills go very much further. So government has and is sanctioning religious groups to discriminate. However, a finer point is that government itself is ‘directly discriminating against Australians seeking public services’ from religious operators funded with public money, it is directly discriminating against citizens seeking public services eg at a catholic operated hospital because in government policy these services are regarded as being part of the public suite of services. So the discrimination is not indirect but ‘direct from government’.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Why is the schools chaplaincy program even allowed to continue?

    The Federal Cinstitution states that the Government shall not impose a religious test, yet in stipulating that only followers of a recognised religion can be cincidered, they are doing precisely that. By sleight of hand the get away with it by arguing:
    a) they are not the employer, and
    b) they haven’t specified a partucular sect.

    Either way, the legislation discriminates by imposing a requirement of religion. If that isn’t a test, what is it.


    • My understanding is that there was an anti-discrimination complaint in Victoria arguing exactly that – that the national school chaplaincy program guidelines discriminated on the basis of religious belief. Although I’m not sure where that complaint is currently at.


  5. Great post, Alastair. I’ve been arguing exactly this since the original Ruddock inquiry.

    Religious extremists hate us, but they hate each other even more. As recently as when my parents were kids Catholics and Protestants were killing each other here in Australia. And when I was a kid in the 1960s they were shooting and bombing each other in Ireland. When you consider all the hate from extremists toward Muslims, Jewish folk, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Sikhs, and others it is difficult to believe this bill will be anything but disastrous.

    The only good thing that might come out of it is that by setting back the cause of social peace by about a century it might finally galvanise moves to strengthen the constitutional requirement for separation between church and state. At the very least, every time religious extremists cause more problems it increases the rate at which religion loses adherents.

    Just one request: can you avoid double-spacing your paragraphs? It makes your articles slightly more difficult to read and makes them appear to be longer than they are, discouraging people from reading them.

    Keep up the good work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s