MEDIA RELEASE



5 May 2016



The Australian Christian Lobby welcomes news that a complaint against Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has been dropped today by the complainant, Greens candidate Martine Delaney.



However, Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said it was a travesty of justice that Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner believed the Archbishop had a case to answer simply for distributing the Catholic Church marriage booklet “Don’t Mess with Marriage.”



“What Archbishop Porteous did was completely reasonable and he should have the right to express a point of view on marriage,” Mr Shelton said.



“This was an example of where State-based Human Rights Commissions are often being weaponised by activists against those with different views.



“A complaint does not even have to be legally defensible for process to start, for lawyers to be engaged, mediation to be required and for intimidation to be achieved. This is ripe for abuse by activists on legally spurious grounds.



“Being taken to law is extremely intimidating for laypeople who express reasonable views in debates. They have watched the case of Archbishop Julian Porteous and they are being silenced for fear of retribution.



“This is how misguided laws and legal processes are silencing the community.”



Mr Shelton said it would not be an unprecedented move to temporarily set-aside the anti-discrimination laws.



“This is not a new idea. In the UK a speech protection exists in s29J of the Public Order Act 1986 which states in part, ‘any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred’,” Mr Shelton said. 



“This is a genuine need so that activists don’t abuse the law as Rodney Croome of Australian Marriage Equality did when he urged supporters to report Archbishop Porteous to the Human Rights Commission for completely benign and reasonable comments about marriage.

“When the law stops decent people from saying reasonable things, it is defective.”



ENDS



Media Contact: 02 6259 0431

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Wednesday April 16, 2014



A dissenting judge in an anti-discrimination case against a Christian youth camp has warned that religious freedom is being eroded.



The Victorian Court of Appeal today dismissed an Appeal from a VCAT decision in 2010 which ruled that Christian Youth Camps had discriminated against Cobaw, a group for same-sex attracted youth, in the provision of accommodation. The Victorian Court of Appeal President Chris Maxwell & Justice Marcia Neave (the majority) ruled that discrimination (pursuant to Part 3 of The Equal Opportunity Act 2010) had taken place and that the refusal by CYC to provide the accommodation was not covered by any of the religious exemptions to the EOA.



However, Section 77 of the EOA provides that:

Nothing in part 3 applies to discrimination by a person against another person if the discrimination is necessary for the first person to comply with the person’s genuine religious beliefs or principles

Contrary to the approach taken by VCAT & the majority, Justice Robert Redlich decided that s.77 is an exemption available to a corporation and that CYC and its employee Mark Rowe, who refused the booking, were taking steps necessary to comply with their genuine religious beliefs that promotion of homosexuality was wrong.



The Australian Christian Lobby’s Victorian Director Dan Flynn welcomed Justice Redlich’s dissenting judgement saying it was important religious organisations retained the freedom to protect their ethos.



“The dissenting judgement of Justice Redlich correctly states the balance between the competing rights of equal opportunity and religious freedom. His judgement emphasises that if the scope of the religious exemption is read down by judges this frustrates the very purpose of the exemption – which is to protect religious freedom,” Mr Flynn said.



“Justice Redlich has made a critical contribution to Victorian human rights jurisprudence by articulating the principle that religious belief may give rise to an obligation of obedience to that principle in the commercial sphere.



“The clear sighted conclusion that once CYC became aware of the particular purpose for which the campsite was to be used was contrary to their beliefs or principles, they were compelled by those beliefs to refuse to allow their camp site to facilitate such a purpose.”Mr Flynn said that he hoped human rights lawyers in Australia would study the decision of Justice Redlich to better understand the intended scope of section 77 of the Act.

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Saturday March 15, 2014



The Australian Christian Lobby has congratulated the Liberal Party on its resounding win in the Tasmanian election and looks forward to working constructively with the new government.



ACL Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said the enormous amount of time the State Parliament spent debating contentious social issues such as same-sex marriage (twice), abortion and euthanasia had proven unattractive to mainstream voters.



Mr Brown said Christian voters had also been disappointed with the lack of engagement by Labor during the election campaign.



Premier-elect Will Hodgman and a large number of his candidates had participated in ACL election activities.



Mr Hodgman had participated in an election interview where he committed to amend anti-discrimination laws to provide a general exemption to Christian schools when it comes to enrolling students and hiring staff.



“This was a welcome announcement which means Christian schools will be able to enrol students and employ staff who share the ethos and values of the school without being in breach of anti-discrimination laws,” he said.



Mr Brown said the ALP’s lack of engagement with the Christian community may well have contributed to its election loss.



“Only one sitting Labor MP participated in the five Meet Your Candidate Forums conducted by the lobby throughout the state. This was in comparison with seven sitting Liberal MPs and three sitting Greens MPs who attended,” he said.



“The ALP’s poor result should make for some serious soul searching regarding the future direction of the party. Many Tasmanian Christian Labor voters were disappointed with the party’s lack of engagement with the constituency,” Mr Brown said.



Mr Brown said it was time for Labor to move back to the political centre to ensure its appeal to mainstream Tasmanians.



The disproportionate amount of time spent working with the Greens on a radical social reform agenda at the expense of front and centre issues like jobs and the economy has contributed significantly to tonight’s result. This sentiment was confirmed by former ALP Premier Paul Lennon who on last night’s ABC 7.30 Report stated “it was the preoccupation with the social issues in Parliament rather than the basic issues of health and education and job development”.



Mr Brown said Labor had much to commend to Christian voters and he hoped it would not give up on this constituency as it sought to rebuild.



“Labor has proud historical roots in Christianity amongst Irish Catholic workers and Protestant Methodists who were at the forefront of the creation of the trade union movement. The ALP in its rebuilding process should not ignore these important foundations and ensure its appeal encompasses the large Tasmanian Christian constituency,” he said.

MEDIA RELEASE



Monday, 24th February 2014



ACL has released an exclusive video interview with Tasmanian Liberal Leader Will Hodgman about his position on issues of concern to Christians in the lead up to the state election.



ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said Labor Premier Lara Giddings declined the opportunity to be interviewed but has said she would supply a written response to the questions.



Mr Brown said the 20 minute interview is available to watch on www.tasvotes.org.au.



“Mr Hodgman gives his position on a number of issues including unemployment, education, abortion, marriage, anti-discrimination, gambling, sexualisation of society and health,” he said.



If elected in March, Mr Hodgman gave an undertaking to amend anti-discrimination legislation to allow for a general exemption so faith-based schools would have the freedom to select staff and students who shared their ethos.



“On the issue of abortion, Mr Hodgman has indicated his concern at the legislation passed late last year which infringed on a doctor’s right to freedom of conscience,” Mr Brown said.



Mr Brown said ACL was providing opportunities for Christians to make an informed vote this election with its Strong Economy, Strong Communities Breakfast event tomorrow and Meet Your Candidate Forums being held around the state over the next two weeks.   



“Tomorrow’s business breakfast will discuss the importance of a strong Tasmanian economy to strong Tasmanian families and communities with economist Professor Ian Harper, local innovator and business strategist Professor Jonathan West, and Mission Australia’s Noel Mundy,” he said.



“The five Meet Your Candidate Forums provide an opportunity for people to meet their local candidates and understand the values and ideas that they’ll bring to the job if elected,” he said.



The website also has a conscience vote history table of current sitting MPs showing how they voted on issues including surrogacy, marriage, adoption, abortion and euthanasia legislation in the past three years.



Mr Brown said the majority of Tasmanians identify themselves as being of the Christian faith.



“Elections are a good time for Christians to positively influence society through electing people of good character who share their desire to see a more moral, just and compassionate society,” he said.



Mr Hodgman’s interview and other election resources are available at www.tasvotes.org.au.

There was good news out of the Tasmanian upper house this week with the Legislative Council blocking a controversial change to the State’s Anti-Discrimination Act.



The move to make it an offense to offend or insult a person for an increased range of attributes, such as religious or political belief, was decisively voted down my members.



ACL led a team that briefed the upper house on concerns about proposed amendments back in June.



This is a win for common sense and for freedom of speech.



An amendment to allow for faith-based schools to be excluded from the Act, when selecting students from their particular faith, was narrowly rejected 7-7.



Instead a more restrictive limited exemption was passed allowing for schools to discriminate in choosing students of faith only when there are more students than places.



The amendment bill must pass the lower house for it to become law.

The ACL's latest monthly newsletter, which includes a column from ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton, is out now. This month's newsletter includes stories on a federal inquiry into slavery and people trafficking, IVF and euthanasia bills in South Australia, anti-discrimination and adoption laws in Tasmania, and a study into children of same-sex families. Click here to read the July newsletter.

In the last week, the ACL has been quoted in the media on issues such as amendments to anti-discrimination laws and adoption laws in Tasmania, and outdoor advertising. See below for links to mentions in the media.



On amendments to the Adoption Act in Tasmania:

• The Mercury - Vote on gay adoption

On proposed changes to anti-discrimination legislation in Tasmania:

• ABC News - Christian lobby calls for block on gender law change



• Yahoo!7 - Christian lobby call for block on gender law change

ACL's Queensland Director Wendy Francis was interviewed on 96five on Monday 24th June about outdoor advertising regulation.

The Tasmanian Government has benched anti-discrimination legislation that would have had serious implications on religious freedom.



Proposed changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1988 were due to be debated in the Upper House on Wednesday but ACL understands the state government decided not to vote on the legislation when it realised it didn’t have the numbers for the legislation to pass.



The legislation would have greatly expanded the number of grounds where conduct which “offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules” is prohibited. It would include race, age, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities, disability, industrial activity, political belief or affiliation, political activity, religious belief or affiliation, religious activity, irrelevant criminal record, irrelevant medical record, and association with a person who has or is believed to have any of these attributes”.



A central point of contention for the government was that a majority of members supported faith-based schools receiving exceptions to anti-discrimination laws when enrolling students.



ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said in a media release  this week that such changes would threaten free speech and open dialogue, and increase unnecessary litigation. He says Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’.



Meanwhile, ACL understands proposed changes to Tasmania’s adoption laws will be passed which will allow those registered with a significant relationship, including unmarried and same-sex couples, to adopt an unknown child.

This is a disappointing outcome and it seems previous laws regarding surrogacy and known adoptions for same-sex couples had set a precedent for members to also vote for this legislation.

MEDIA RELEASE



Tuesday, 25th June 2013



Amendments to anti-discrimination legislation in Tasmania would have serious implications for freedom of speech, conscience and religion, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.



Proposed changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1988, which will likely be debated in the upper house tomorrow, would expand the prohibition of conduct that “offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules.”



ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said such changes would threaten free speech and open dialogue, and increase unnecessary litigation.



“ACL certainly objects to behaviour that incites hatred or ridicules another but to open the prohibition of offence to things like religious or political belief or sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of speech,” he said.



“Who doesn’t get offended or insulted at times by others’ difference of opinion? This is part of living in a democracy,” he said.



Mr Brown also said that legislators should ensure anti-discrimination laws respect fundamental and universal human rights to freedom of thought conscience and religion.



“Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’” he said.



“In a country like Australia which prides itself on tolerance in a multicultural society, these changes would only undermine tolerance and robust political debate would be inhibited.



“In the last few months, Tasmanians have debated numerous social issues which bought out diverse opinion, much of which surely offended people. Surely the government does not expect all such offences be put before the legal system,” Mr Brown said.



- ends -

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently ruled that a Moranbah motel were able to preclude prostitution on their premises. As the proprietors explain in the media release below, they participated in two Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) prior to the judicial hearing over a three year period.



ACL had commented on the case last year when QCAT ruled the owners had breached the Anti-Discrimination Act stating "The issue raises the rights of businesses and motels across the state to decide what occurs on their premise." The ACL also said the issue highlighted the need for prostitution reform in the state. See this earlier media release by the ACL for more information.



MEDIA RELEASE:



Issued by Evan & Joan Hartley, proprietors of the Drovers’ Rest Motel, Moranbah, Qld



17^th May 2013



Our court ruling won’t stop unwanted motel prostitution



The Queensland Court of Appeal has ruled we had the right to stop prostitution, after it nearly destroyed our Moranbah motel business.



We thank the Premier Mr Campbell Newman, his Government and particularly the Attorney-General Mr Jarrod Bleijie and his legal team for their support with our appeal. Also in the support team we thank the Accommodation Association of Australia, the Australian Family Association, the Australian Christian Lobby, other businesses, our staff, family and friends.



The court’s finding that no discrimination occurred has much the same effect as Queensland legislation passed late last year. It exempted accommodation providers from discrimination claims if they refuse, as we did, to let out a room for prostitution.



Urgent legislation needed



As our experience has shown, however, we need more than the current right to evict prostitutes who are ‘caught in the act’ or suspected of past prostitution. No one should be forced to play a ‘cat and mouse’ game to discover, or prove that prostitution is happening behind closed doors.



The sale of sex will continue to harm accommodation businesses like ours by lowering both occupancy rates and property values, unless an upfront disclosure requirement is put in place.



We ask the Attorney-General to consider further support for accommodation owners by making booking a room for prostitution practices unlawful unless written consent from the owner has first been obtained.



‘Kangaroo’ justice nightmare



Anti-discrimination claims are decided under a parallel system of injustice that is heavily biased towards professional complainers.



In defending ourselves against this claim, we lost the right to a fair trial of the kind that civil litigants and accused criminals can expect.



We gained the right to legal representation before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal only after our Barrister requested three times. And then we only got a barrister as we needed to argue a point of law. We were then forced to waste fees in two tribunal hearings before getting a proper judicial hearing in the Court of Appeal. It took us close to 3 years and in excess of $50,000 in legal fees to get there.



Even though we won, we lost, because the process and the stress is the punishment.



The government should scrap the parallel system of ‘kangaroo justice’ reserved for anti-discrimination cases.