Introduction of the Religious Freedom Roundtable
Rights and Freedoms
Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Thursday 5 November 2015
Introduction
Thank you.
Thank you to the Attorney-General for his presence this morning. I know he has to run because he has commitments in Canberra, but I greatly appreciate his efforts to come this morning to support the discussions we are about to have.
I’d also like to thank the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, who will be present for part of this morning as an observer.
Direction and purpose
Throughout 2014 the Australian Human Rights Commission ran a nation-wide consultation looking at fundamental freedoms in contemporary Australia.
During those consultations we canvassed many themes, looking at issues of freedom of speech, association, property rights, and equality before the law, among others. But one of the most consistent human rights that was raised was religious freedom.
It was clear in public meetings, submissions, conversations and online surveys that there was a need to bring together those who are prepared to have a constructive dialogue and consider options for a settlement that doesn't pitch religious freedom against the rights of others, but instead focuses on common and uniting principles that ensure that laws can respect and advance the rights of all.
Concerns about religious freedom were raised across the board:
- From religious communities that felt increasingly unable to express their opinions or faith in the public square, and felt that law increasingly didn’t accommodate their capacity to act consistent with their conscience.
- From those without belief who felt that religious freedom is already given too many privileges in law, especially when religious freedom includes not having a belief.
- From individuals and communities who felt they were exposed to, predominantly negative, consequences from people exercising their religious freedom, particularly the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities.
There were many concerns:
- The right of Muslims to freely exercise their property rights and develop houses of worship.
- The role of anti-discrimination law and its relationship with religious freedom.
- Whether religion should be covered under Federal anti-discrimination law.
- The freedom that should be provided for religious employers to choose their staff for those acting consistent with their faith.
- The extent that those same standards apply to children, adults and older Australians who are vulnerable.
- The extent that religion is accommodated in the workplace.
- Public-funding for school chaplain’s program.
- The role of religious freedom in the debate around marriage for same-sex couples.
- Whether secular strings should be attached to taxpayer-funded services delivered by religious institutions.
- Whether taxpayer’s money should allow religious institutions to provide services on behalf of the taxpayer.
- The legal consequences of harassment and intimidation against people of religion.
These are just a few examples.
It was out of this consultation that we decided to establish a Religious Freedom Roundtable to start a conversation about these issues and how they are playing out in 21st Century Australia.
The challenge faced by religious freedom
Those of different beliefs need to be active partners in reshaping the conversation about religious freedom if it is to be preserved in law.
That conversation is particularly topical.
The role and authority of religion has constantly changed. Religion was once one of the most powerful sources of authority outside government. Today that isn't the case.
There have been many drivers for this change.
One driver is Australia’s changing religious mix. In 1911 around 95 per cent of Australians identified as Christian. Today it is around 60 per cent.[1]
There has been a rising share of people identifying with other beliefs, particularly resulting from immigration.
Another contributor has been the rise of a cultural attachment to belief. The 2013 Australian Social Trends data found only 15 per cent of men and 22 per cent of women "actively participated in a religious or spiritual group".[2]
There has also been a rise in other sources of authority, beliefs and values ranging from science and environmentalism through to social justice causes.
Religious freedom isn't just about those with belief.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, "the number of people reporting no religion...has increased substantially over the past hundred years, from one in 250 people to one in five".[3]
The consequence of this change is that preserving and respecting religious freedom in law is becoming more complex in a pluralistic, multi-faith society.
The Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into Traditional Rights and Freedoms rightly found that "generally speaking, Australians enjoy significant religious freedom, particularly by comparison to other jurisdictions".[4]
Yet, increasingly non-faith groups are calling for freedom from religion.
And religious communities have raised concerns about the declining respect for religious freedom as part of the human rights discussion.
They were also concerned about the extent of protection for religion for individuals and institutions in current laws and also in future legislative changes at a State and Federal level.
We saw these tensions in full reality only last week in Western Australia when the Principal of Foundation College in Mandurah told a seven year old that she was not welcome at the school because her father was in a relationship with another man - a relationship inconsistent with the school's doctrinal position.
To many, including myself, it is hard to reconcile the acts of the Principal with creating a culture where mutual respect is extended to religious freedom when it doesn't seem to respect the rights of others. For some the acts are about preserving the integrity of religious community. And everyone's views are blurred because the school receives taxpayer's money to teach the child.
Similar debates have emerged in Victoria surrounding adoption law reform. Traditional protections for religious institutions to act consistent with their faith are being removed on the grounds of advancing equality and non-discrimination.
Nation-wide there are ongoing debates about whether local Muslim communities can exercise their property rights and develop houses of worship; and there are many others.
Like all rights and freedoms, religious freedom sits within a much broader political context of evolving attitudes towards fairness, justice and responsibility.
To many, preserving their religious freedom is closely associated with their culture and ethnic background and goes to the heart of individual identity and people’s sense of safety and security in a free society.
But the same is also true of those without a belief, and those that feel religious freedom often gives license for those with belief to make decisions that impact on their lives.
As a consequence it is easy for discussions to quickly resort to uncompromising positions and zero-sum solutions.
That isn't a constructive way forward.
True pluralism requires respecting the importance of religion in a multi-faith society. The challenge is how.
First, we need to reassert the importance of religious freedom as part of the nation’s human rights discussion.
Second, those with belief need to step-up and recognise that if they want others to respect their religious freedom, then they need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. We are looking for willing partners in this exercise.
Contemporary debates like forthcoming reform of the Marriage Act provide an opportunity and a litmus test for how religious freedom will be treated in the future. But equally, they provide a litmus test for how religious communities want their rights to be treated by others: as part of an active discussion or tacked on at the end after the debate has largely ended.
In many ways the future of religious freedom is in the hands of those of belief.
Third, there needs to be a trust-based and constructive avenue for engagement to discuss these issues, and in many cases be active participants in discussion.
That is the discussion we are attempting to start today.
Attendees
We had many requests for observers to attend this roundtable. Equally, the feedback we have got from participants is that they were looking forward to a space to have an honest and respectful discussion. Therefore the roundtable will be a closed discussion after my speech. Chatham House rules will apply where people are free to discuss the ideas and opinions that were raised, but not to attribute them to any individual or organisation.
Selecting participants was a monumental challenge.
We attempted to create a list on a number of different parameters in the hope of having a constructive discussion.
In the end invitations were primarily decided based on census data of the share of self-identified followers. But that share only amounted to a total of two representatives. For example, the Catholic Church is the largest religious faith and they were given the option to send two people. By comparison, Hindus were given that same option. We invited four different atheist, humanist, rationalist and secularist representatives for those who identify as having no belief. There were some religious groups that were not initially invited who reached out to us and we accepted their interest in good faith.
As you can tell from the practicality of this room, we have squeezed in as many people as we could.
We have also had a number of lobby groups, umbrella organizations and academics request to attend. We decided not to invite them on practical grounds and also in recognition that we are having an exploratory discussion today, rather than focusing immediately on how public policy should be reformed.
We recognize that issues of religious freedom can take on different tones depending on a person’s gender. Therefore we invited both men and women in the hope of achieving some gender balance.
We have had a number of requests for lists of attendees from the media and other interested parties. We have not provided a list of names, however, we have provided a list of the names of organizations that have representatives.
A number of groups have raised concern that they do not feel their interests will be sufficiently represented in the room today. We have made it clear that this is only an initial roundtable to start a conversation. To address their concerns we have already announced a specific atheist, secularist, rationalist and humanist roundtable and a roundtable focused on the issues of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities in February 2016. Other roundtables will also be scheduled.
The good news is that there is a lot of interest in the roundtable as part of an ongoing dialogue about religious freedom in contemporary Australia.
Housekeeping matters
If everyone could please turn their mobile phones to silent, that would be appreciated. I realise that people need to make phone calls throughout the day, so we have left sufficient time in the breaks as well as lunch.
The women’s toilets are immediately outside the room and to the left. The men’s toilets are down the corridor, past the lifts and to the left.
If you want to speak throughout the day you should place your name card vertically. I will keep track and invite each person to speak in order.
Following my address we will have a closed session, which, for the remaining media, means I’m politely asking that you leave.
The Agenda
First, we will have a discussion and seek confirmation that everyone is broadly happy with the statement of guiding principles.
The purpose of the statement of guiding principles is to provide clear parameters of conduct expected of participants and the tone of discussion. We are a diverse group with different issues and perspectives. There is no expectation for anyone to agree. But there is a clear expectation that everyone will engage in a respectful way. The denigration of others or their beliefs or absence of beliefs will not be tolerated.
I will also invite discussion about the objectives of today and the opportunity to add issues to the agenda. We have kept the themes broad to ensure the discussion is open but directed.
At 10.30 we will break for morning tea.
After morning tea I’ll invite discussion on the challenges facing religious freedom.
Lunch will be from 12.30 – 13.30.
After lunch we will continue that conversation until 14.30, when we will look at how we advance religious freedom in a society seeking to preserve social cohesion.
At 15.30 we will have afternoon tea. Following afternoon tea we will tie the day’s discussion together and invite ideas and proposals for how we can move this discussion forward in a constructive way.
Conclusions from today
As already mentioned, today is an opportunity to discuss the role of religious freedom in contemporary Australia. It is the start of a conversation.
We have not brought you together to legitimize a reform program and do not have a firm outcome in mind.
We are very open to ideas about how discussions on the role of religious freedom can be taken forward in a constructive way.
But I will proffer my thoughts about where I think a constructive conversation could head.
Having consulted very widely and extensively it is clear that there are concerns across the community about religious freedom.
There’s a need for a new settlement for religious freedom that works for those of a belief, those without a belief, and those that feel they may be impacted by others exercising their religious freedom.
In a constantly changing policy environment I think it would be wise to establish a framework or principles about how we constructively manage the issues that will be raised today, especially when we are talking about accommodating rights that may come into tension between differing individuals and groups.
If we are to head toward such a settlement it won’t be achieved by having groups throw spears in public debate. It is difficult to achieve in a partisan political framework.
It will be held by having a constructive and ongoing dialogue about the issues and concerns that underpin different perspectives.
It is the role of the Commission to facilitate that dialogue with an understanding that any process and resolution has to advance the rights and freedoms of all.
The good news is that there is fertile ground for the discussions. The submissions process we held before today highlighted a lot of common ground between differing opinions. For example, while there was disquiet between groups about current laws, there was a common interest in reform of anti-discrimination law toward a general limitation clause to allow for restrictions on rights when it is proscribed by law and is justified for a legitimate purpose in a liberal democratic society. There were many others.
If communities decide they want to go down that path, then a new settlement cannot be struck today. It has to be part of a process that brings willing and interested parties together over time to discuss the issues faced from the diversity of perspectives, an improvement in the understanding of different groups about their perspectives and then a commitment from to engage in that dialogue.
I look forward to your constructive contributions.
Thank you.
[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Losing My Religion? (November 2013). At http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Nov+2013 (viewed 4 November 2015).
[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, above.
[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics, above.
[4] Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms – Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws Interim Report, Australian Government (August 2015), p 97. At http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc127 (viewed 4 November 2015).