‘We’re falling behind on religious freedom’

Australia is trailing behind much of the world in protecting ­religious freedoms, according to an ­independent study.

The report by the CIS says current religious protections in Australia are ‘ineffective’ and contestable because they haven’t been enshrined in law.

Australia is trailing behind much of the world in protecting ­religious freedoms, with current provisions open to contest ­because they haven’t been enshrined in law, according to an ­independent study.

The study, commissioned by the Centre for Independent Studies, comes as the government awaits a final review report from the Australian Law Reform Commission this month into proposed religious discrimination laws.

The ALRC earlier this year sparked a backlash from Catholic schools when it released a discussion paper that proposed removing exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that would undermine schools’ ability to hire staff based on their faith.

Anthony Albanese was forced to step in and assure faith-based schools that this right would be protected in the formulation of the government’s bill expected by the middle of the year.

The report by the CIS, conducted by historian Elisabeth Taylor, says current religious protections in Australia are “ineffective” and contestable because they haven’t been enshrined in law.

Australia was also failing to meet its obligations under United Nations conventions.

Dr Taylor said that despite Australia ratifying the UN’s International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), “our track record in meeting these obligations trails behind much of the rest of the world”.

“The reason for this is because laws necessary to give effect to freedom of thought, conscience and religion described in article 18 of the ICCPR have not been ­implemented in Australia,” the report says. “A patchwork of laws at federal, state and territory level offers only incomplete religious protection, and this is increas­ingly susceptible to encroachment by legislation restricting the freedom without proper regard for ICCPR.

“It should simply be a matter of meeting international obligations for reasons which tower above parochial, partisan or cultural pressures.”

The CIS study found that Australia’s approach to the protection of human rights prioritised anti-discrimination and approached positive protections only through exemptions to state and federal laws.

“Instead of being positively enshrined in law, which declares its societal value, freedom of religion is the subject of continual political contest because of competing rights,” Dr Taylor said.

“When advocating the correction of legislative imbalances, those who hold religious beliefs often are derided for seeking the removal of the rights of others.

“The principle that the law should provide equal protection to all is undermined by laws which embed ideals which are antithetical to traditional ­religious beliefs.”

Dr Taylor’s study concluded that “detrimental consequences of not having these protections are now affecting the lives of all Australians, whether they profess a religious faith or not”.

She said the ALRC proposed amendments to discrimination exemptions would have the effect of narrowing the rights of schools to “extinction”. “Proposals such as this bear witness to the reality that until freedom of religion is given substantive, positive legal effect in Australian law … the freedom can continue to be eroded.”