QLD
What is in
the "Respect at Work" Bill?
The bill is scheduled to be voted on September 10th.
Write to your MP now!
The Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2024 was introduced to implement recommendations from the Federal “Respect@Work” report. However, there are sections where the bill has gone beyond the terms and recommendations of the original report, and these risk significant impact on religious communities.
The Bill would:
Make anti-vilification easily weaponised by one minority group against another, to silence speech that they consider “hateful” – with no protection for good-faith religious discussion.
Ban “harassment on the basis of sex” on the possibility that staff or volunteers might be offended, this could threaten practices including:
- Teaching religious beliefs about gender and sexuality
- Having separate ministry roles, or places of worship, for men and women
- Requiring staff and volunteers to live according to their faith in regards to sex and sexuality
Authorise the Anti-Discrimination Commission to investigate churches, mosques and synagogues to enforce compliance.
We support the wider purpose of the bill and the intention to ban work-place sexual harassment. However, the unintended consequences of the current drafting are too severe to ignore.
The Bill cannot be supported in its current form and must not be rushed through Parliament.
Vilification sections threaten reasonable speech
Section 124C introduces a vilification measure with an incredibly low bar: behaviour that a reasonable person would consider hateful towards, reviling, seriously contemptuous of, or seriously ridiculing of a person based on a range of characteristics. A “reasonable person” is defined as a reasonable person with the same characteristic as the person offended.
“Hateful” conduct
This section introduces the concept of “hateful” conduct. However, there is no definition given for “hateful” apart from conduct that a “reasonable person” of the offended category would “consider hateful towards” them. The word “hateful” is novel to Australian vilification law – it is not used in any other current prohibition on vilification.
The ordinary English meaning of “hateful” includes:
- arouses hate
- deserves to be hated
- full of or expressing hate
- unpleasant; dislikable; distasteful
The terms “hate” and “hateful” do not appear in the Respect@Work report. Including this term goes well beyond implementing the recommendations of the report.
“Reasonable person”
The definition of a “reasonable person” is shifted to only include members of the affected category. This is a significant change, as what an average Australian, or even a judge, may find “reasonable” is not relevant. Only the offended category gets to decide what is “reasonable”.
In addition, actual harm does not need to have occurred. It is enough that a “reasonable” member of the category would consider the conduct hateful, reviling, seriously contemptuous, or seriously ridiculing. The scope of what is considered to be hateful etc. varies dramatically between sections of society.
The proposed prohibition puts the power entirely in the hands of the group claiming offence. This fundamentally alters the meaning of the “reasonable person” test in other laws, which was created to ensure that neither side in a dispute is favoured and to ensure that the law will operate as fairly and objectively as possible between two parties. The new S 124 C introduce a test that depends on the perspective of a person or group with a particular identity. This would be the first time that this test has been introduced in an Australian statute.
This clause poses real risks of being weaponized by one minority group against another. Would a reasonable Christian person consider a Muslim teaching that “Christians are wrong and risk going to hell” to be “hateful” or “seriously contemptuous” – or vice versa? A judge will have to determine the answer, leaving faith groups uncertain as to what is permitted religious speech.
This law will not be a protection for minorities. Instead of being a shield, it creates a sword for one group to use against another.
No religious protections
The new legislation provides no protection for good-faith religious discussion and debate. Sections 124C and 124D include exceptions for:
a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including public discussion or debate about, and expositions of, any act or matter.
Religious purposes are not included in this exemption, although they are included in comparable legislation in other States – e.g. Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s49ZE
The exemptions currently provided in the Anti-Discrimination Act provide very few protections. The exemption in s 109 would only cover actions by a religious body, not individuals in public discussion and debate.
Harassment on basis of sex
Section 120 defines “harassment on the basis of sex” as unwelcome conduct of a demeaning nature on the basis of the person’s sex or, (uniquely to Queensland) other characteristics, including “a sex the other person is presumed to be” and “a sex the other person has been”. It makes it illegal to engage in conduct “where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated”.
Section 124E makes it illegal to create a work environment that is “hostile on the basis of sex”. This is broadly where a “reasonable person” would have “anticipated the possibility” that the conduct would create a work environment that would be offensive, humiliating or intimidating to a person on the basis of their sex.
Section 131 outlines a positive duty for employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate discrimination, including harassment on the basis of sex, as far as possible. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is empowered to investigate any organisation that they suspect is not carrying out the positive duty and to enforce that duty through a tribunal. Representative complaints may also be made by activist groups on behalf of others.
No religious protections
There is an existing exemption (s109(1)(a)-(c)) that protects the ordination, appointment or training of ministers of religion and participation in religious observances or practices. It does not otherwise expressly cover post-appointment requirements. Section 109(1)(d) protects other acts by religious bodies, however, that exemption says that it “does not apply in the work or work-related area or in the education area”. Under the Act, ‘work’ includes ‘work on a voluntary or unpaid basis’ (sch 1).
The result is that the section 109 exemption does not cover many employees and volunteers in faith organisations (including churches, mosques etc). The exemption also does not cover faith-based schools, universities, or theological colleges if they don’t exclusively teach students for ordination.
Together, these sections require all faith-based institutions that have non-ministry employees, or any volunteers, to actively prevent scenarios where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that another person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated based on their sex.
Extremely low bar covers common religious practices
Offence and humiliation are very low, and subjective, tests. In the realm of religion, it is easy to find people who will claim to be offended or humiliated because of beliefs that they do not agree with. A wide range of religious practices could be considered by some people to be offensive or humiliating based on their sex, these include:
- Having a men’s section and a women’s section for worship (e.g. some mosques, temples and synagogues)
- Teaching that men’s roles and women’s roles are different
- Keeping some leadership roles only for one sex
- Expecting adherents to remain as their biological sex
- Teaching that sex belongs within heterosexual marriage
Any faith based organisation that does these things could be considered to be “harassing on the basis of sex”. If they have staff or volunteers who might be offended by these theological beliefs then they would be in violation of this new “positive requirement”.
No complaint needs to be made; the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is empowered to seek out such organisations and schools and to force them to comply. On top of this, the Bill proposes that representative complaints may be made against religious organisations by activists.
NOW is the time act!
Faith leaders:
Get announcements, slides, hand outs, and newsletter text
to encourage your members to write