Recently I made a submission concerning human rights and anti-discrimination to the Attorney General’s Department of the Commonwealth of Australia’s discussion paper, Consolidation of Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws. Under “General Comments” I wrote:
Consolidating federal anti-discrimination legislation would be of benefit if and only if it can achieve increased efficiency and consistency, and thereby relieve unnecessary burden on organisations and the general public.
The cost of consolidation should also be weighed. The main potential cost is that of uncertainty. Anti-discrimination law must interact with the realities of society, with their attendant grey areas, competing valid assertions, and hard-to-define senses of value and reasonableness. Precedent has allowed the current legislation to become settled around these realities; a significant adjustment in the structure of the legislation is likely to require costly legal processes to clarify. The impact of this on the protections and freedoms of Australian society needs to be taken into account.
This submission is made as a response to a number of the discussion paper questions. The answers are informed by a position based on the following understanding:
1. Anti-discrimination law is a necessary component in the mechanisms of a decent, civil society. The Christian ethic includes a fundamental understanding of equality. The application of the gospel undoes inequality as the writings of Paul teach: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
2. Anti-discrimination law is necessarily an assertion, indeed often a positive imposition, of values. Ideally the legislation should reflect widely-held and justifiable values in society in determining what attributes should be protected, and how they should be protected.
3. As the class of attribute described as “protected” is extended it becomes less simple and less uniformly absolute. This increases complexity, but it is a complexity that must be recognised and embraced if anti-discrimination law is not to be misapplied.
4. In particular, protections must be adequately balanced with freedoms otherwise the protections themselves can become unjustifiably discriminatory.
5. Certain freedoms must be clearly recognised and accommodated in the legislation. For instance, and in particular:
a) Freedom of speech.
b) Freedom of religion. Including the freedom to change religion, practice religion both individually and corporately, and espouse religious thought publicly.
c) Freedom of association.
You may read my full submission here.
Many other submissions on their website.
