ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 112, NOVEMBER 2003

Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

Fiona Simpson MP

Many Christians realise they were betrayed with the rushed passage of the Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 in the Queensland Parliament last year. Premier Beattie proclaimed a “win win” for both the churches and the gay rights lobby after hurried late night negotiations for a ‘compromise’ change to the Bill.   

However, as the Courier Mail noted  (30/11/02), the amendments are ‘not significantly different’ from the Government’s original proposals. I agree. Little ground has been given by the Government while the right of Church-run schools to choose teachers who live their values is severely compromised. A school principal is now gagged by law from asking if the employee is in a homosexual or other relationship which is contrary to the teachings of the church. As long as the employee doesn’t ‘openly act’ out the offending values or behaviour in or near the work environment, the principal does not have the right to remove them or reject them for employment. What a church school employee does in the wider community apparently isn’t important.  

Children aren’t dumb. They know if someone who preaches one thing at school in the classroom is living a lie elsewhere,   but it seems that the State Government has used its massive majority to force this double-standard on the churches. Parents who belong to faith-based communities which believe in the sanctity of marriage and who do not condone the homosexual lifestyle have now lost the right to send their children to church-run schools which can legally require their teachers to honestly hold these values. 

The burning issue is not only that religious freedoms have been restricted by the Bill (which amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 by removing the religious institutions exemption) but the way the Beattie ALP State Government deliberately manipulated and deceived the churches to achieve a carefully managed outcome. 

Quite frankly, churches and the Christian community were ambushed as part of the State Government’s hard-nosed political strategy to elevate gay rights over freedom of religion. The  passage through Parliament of the new laws was the climax of carefully prepared political strategy -  based on the correct presumption that removing the right of anyone to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality or marital status would enrage church schools. The schools knew they would no longer be able to refuse to hire as teachers homosexuals, people in de facto relationships and others whose personal lives did not reflect church values. Beattie decided months ago that if he had followed the normal path of releasing a discussion paper on the plan, the resulting public outcry would have mired his Government and made it all but impossible to produce workable legislation. 

Instead, he decided to break his consultative habit and drop legislation into the Parliament without warning. He then set himself the task of negotiating a compromise with churches. Beattie capitalised on disunity among churches to marginalise the fundamentalist religious right. He realised early on in the process that fundamentalist churches would never compromise on his proposals. So Beattie cleverly split the churches in two. He cut his compromise deal with the mainstream, traditional churches such as Catholics and Anglicans and consulted fundamentalist churches separately ­ after the compromise deal had been brokered. The bottom line here is that Beattie rejected the normal public consultation because he was dealing with controversial social reform which he believed could not have become law any other way.

Premier Beattie’s claim that the lack of consultation was an “accident” due to the October Bali incident, lacks credibility.....  The legal fall out:

Faith communities could now have to run an expensive and uncertain legal gauntlet to justify their religious beliefs and prove they are acting ‘reasonably’ if they choose not to employ people whose lifestyle is contrary to their teachings. Religious values which are quite ‘reasonable’ to the church are not considered “reasonable” by the Government. The acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner also does not accept the protests of faith communities over the Bill, adamantly claiming that no exemption should be granted to allow schools to reject the best candidate for a maths teaching position on the grounds of his or her lifestyle. 

The Bill also allows transgenders to change the gender on their birth certificate, making it illegal to reveal that the birth certificate has been changed; 

Changes the definition of "spouse" to include same-sex and heterosexual de facto couples; 

Changes succession laws to give property rights for de facto couples who have lived together for two years; 

Makes it illegal to vilify homosexuals which sounds fair in theory but the definition of  “vilify” is vague and has raised   concerns about freedom of speech. 

The legislation passed by  Beattie’s Labor government in Queensland is a classic example of  Labor governments’ tactics   and  ideology. Similar legislation  has been passed in Tasmania and WA.  Some Christians maintain  there is not much difference between Labor and the Coalition, and it is true that Coalition MPs (with a few honorable exceptions)  have shown no great enthusiasm for legislating  to outlaw abortion or even abortion funding..  However, the  difference is that Coalition governments do not initiate legislation to extend abortion or homosexual “rights”. The difference is  small, but it is most significant.  - Editor

Fiona Smith is a member of the Queensland Parliament

Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family

NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN