Queensland’s proposed Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 could make it impossible for doctrinally conservative churches to discipline clergy. This problem in the proposed law is revealed in an analysis on the Law and Religion Australia site by Dr Alex Deagon, an Associate Professor in the School of Law at QUT and a recognised expert in religious freedom.
The propsed law “Results in the absurd and frankly repugnant position that a religious organisation is able to select, train and appoint a minister, but a religious organisation must adhere to the [new law’s] Clause 29 requirements in the paid employment of that minister,” Deagon writes. “For example, a religious organisation would not be able to refuse to employ a minister, or terminate the employment of a minister, if they acted inconsistently with the doctrine of that religion through engaging in an extramarital affair or a gender transition.”
This is because the proposed law’s attempts to give religious bodies ability to freely appoint and train ministers or priests fall short. The attempted carve out in Clause 61 provides an exemption from the act for “ordination of people as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order”, “training or people seeking appointment” in those roles, and “selection or appointment” of people to “participate in a regious observance or practice.”
But once appointed or selected, Deagon’s analysis suggests that the proposed law’s discrimination provisions apply. The Clause 29 he referred to in the quote above says a “Genuine Occupational Requirements” for example a Catholic church wanting to have a Catholic Priest, can be used by religious bodies. But Clause 29 also makes it clear that it tdoes not allow discrimination “on the basis of a protected attribute other than religious belief or religious activity.”
Hence Deagon’s belief that once appointed, a minister acting inconsistently with the doctrine of a religious body could not be terminated if it involved a protected attribute. Sexual orientation, sex work activity, relationship status, gender identity are protected attributes under the proposed law.
Deagon’s concern also involves school staffing.
“The ‘genuine occupational requirement’ standard is too narrow to allow religious organisations to employ someone consistent with their faith,” Deagon writes. It perpetuates the ‘only a principal and chaplain need to be religious’ stereotype and ignores the fact that, for example, religious schools are trying to create a culture of faith. A culture of faith requires a critical mass of staff who share the beliefs and practices which undergird the school.”
Deagon’s anlysis is at Law and Religion Australia.