Religious concerns over discrimination law review
VICTORIAN Attorney-General Rob Hulls says he understands the need to exempt religion from proposed changes to Victoria's discrimination laws.
NAOMI LEVIN
VICTORIAN Attorney-General Rob Hulls said this week he understood the need to exempt religion from proposed changes to Victoria’s discrimination laws.
Hulls was responding to concerns that a review of the Equal Opportunity Act might remove concessions for religious organisations. Religion-based organisations are currently able to discriminate in favour of hiring people who share the same religious background.
This law has implications in a range of Jewish contexts, for example, limiting Jewish school admissions to Jewish students, or appointing non-Jewish staff to work at Jewish organisations.
“Currently our Act has a number of exceptions and exemptions, many of which are justified,” Hulls said.
“I understand arguments being put forward to retain a whole range of exceptions, including religious exceptions.
More than 1150 submissions were received by the Victorian Government in July. That committee will commence a series of public hearings in August to consider changes to the Act, which legislates when and by who discrimination is permitted or prohibited.
The B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC), together with the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV), were among the groups submitting a paper to the review.
The ADC-JCCV submission supported a review of the Act to “better address substantive equality”.
It specified legislating in favour of minority religions so that people, including Jewish people, could more easily observe religious holidays, dietary restrictions and clothing requirements.
It also endorsed a change to discrimination laws that would prohibit “discrimination in all areas, rather than singling out attributes for special mention”.
This amendment would resolve an ongoing background debate around whether Judaism was a religion, a race, or an ethnicity for purposes of identifying discrimination.
A Victorian Government spokesperson said the review was instigated to assess whether the Act was compatible with Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights.
comments