Victoria - Equal Opportunity Bill - SARC submissions

Victoria's Attorney-General Rob Hulls introduced a bill to amend Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (EOA) into the Parliament last week on 10 March. It is called the Equal Opportunity Bill 2010.

The Bill will restricts the freedom for religious bodies and schools to act according to their beliefs. Religious bodies and schools will have to justify - to the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission - as to why it is 'reasonably necessary' for them to discriminate in order to "avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of the religion".

Religious schools will be further restricted by the inclusion an 'inherent requirement' clause - if passed, schools would have to justify - to VCAT - why they insisted on a staff member being a Christian, not being a homosexual, etc.

The proposed changes also give much more power to the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to "conduct investigations" - even when a complaint hasn't been made - and have their 'compliance notice' enforced by VCAT!

Mr Hulls refused to allow more than the standard two weeks for public consultation, and the bill is expected to be debated in the Legislative Assembly as early as 24 March 2010.

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) now has to evaluate the Bill to see if it meets 'human rights' standards.
SARC is asking for submissions - so we MUST help oppose the proposed changes by telling SARC about our concerns!

Submissions close on March 18, 2010 - 2 days time - so please act NOW!
Send your 'submission' to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

How to write your submission . . .

The submission must address particular points... 

SARC has said that they cannot investigate matters of 'policy' or content at this point. They are only able to investigate legal matters to see if the proposed legislation infringes or goes against human rights or the 'rights' specified in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 
For a description of the role of SARC, click here.

We don't support the notion of 'human rights' laws or Charters... however these proposals in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 contradict the very 'human rights' that the Victorian government has legislated to protect in the Charter.  

So we need to write our submissions in those terms.

Here is a draft submission. Write the introduction at least in your own words - then include the points below by copying and pasting...

Draft submission:

I want to express my concern about the proposed Equal Opportunity Bill 2010.

In particular, I am concerned about the restrictions relating to religious freedom (Section 81-84) and the extension of powers to the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission in part 9 of the Bill.

Both of these proposals infringe on human rights and freedoms to the extent that they cannot be otherwise justified under section 7(2) of the Charter as a reasonable limitation.

Regarding the restriction of religious beliefs:

1. The proposals regarding restricting religious freedom, as outlined in Sections 81 to 84 of the Equal Opportunity Bill 2010, restrict religious freedom and the freedom of expression and thus infringe on and restrict human rights.

In Sections 82 (2), 83 (2) and 84 the requirement to prove that the discrimination "is reasonably necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of the religion" is an onerous requirement.

In such situations, groups would be required to justify to the Commission or Tribunal why they should be allowed to discriminate, which will place undue burdens on the groups including large legal costs. This has already occurred in the case of Wesley Mission regarding foster care in NSW.
Requiring religious bodies and schools to justify their 'doctrine' to secular tribunals is inappropriate.

In Sections 82 (3) and 83 (4) the 'inherent requirement' clause for employment in a religious body or a religious school is unreasonable and onerous. All employees in a Christian school, for example, need to follow the beliefs and doctrine of the school. Since all staff participate in a range of activities in the school, it is impossible to have non-Christian staff or staff whose behaviour and practice does not conform with Christianity as spelt out by that school. It is not the role of courts and tribunal to determine doctrine matters.

2. The Charter guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. The restrictions placed on the practice of religion in Sections of the Equal Opportunity Bill 2010 are against the right to freedom of religion in the Charter. Religious organisations and schools must be able to act without having to justify every action to a Tribunal which would decide on what constitutes 'doctrine' and what is 'reasonably necessary' discrimination.

Section 14 - Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
14. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including- 
   (a)  the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and
   (b)  the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.

3. The Bill restricts and places an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of expression - as outlined in Section 15 of the Charter. "Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and every person has the right to freedom of expression .  . ."

4. Freedom of association is guaranteed in Section 16 of the Charter. When religious schools employ staff they operate under the freedom of association - for religious schools this is the ability to employ staff who have a particular belief system and practice.

The proposal relating to the 'inherent requirement' test on employment for religious bodies and religious schools is an unreasonable limitation of the freedom of association.

Regarding the granting of additional powers to the EOHRC to conduct their own investigations

These powers are outlined in Part 9 - Section 127 and following (Page 108 of Bill) .

These powers are excessive and allow the EOHRC to interfere in society in a way that infringes on the rights of organisations, companies and individuals.

1. The power proposed to allow the EOHRC to conduct its own investigations would infringe on the right to freedom of expression. See  Section 15 of the Charter. This would impose an unwarranted limitation on human rights.

2. The proposal restricts the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion and belief of individuals and organisations.

Comment:

If this additional power was given to the EOHRC, companies would be constantly fearful of having the EOHRC, acting as 'thought police', investigating their operations, even when a complaint had not been made against the company.

Groups or organisations conducting meetings or running websites would be constantly looking over their shoulder to see if the EOHRC is monitoring and investigating their activities.

One scenario could be similar to the one where May Helou, an employee of the EOC who was responsible for helping implement the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, and who was also on the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, organised for three Muslim converts to attend the seminar on Islam that was given by Daniel Scot - and then encouraged the complainants to make a complaint to the EOC!

The ability to conduct such investigations is not a function that belongs in a democracy - indeed this is what one would expect to find in nations that suffer severe limitations on their human rights!