Things move fast in politics. And as much as I long to talk about politics less (and you wish me too!), any pastor today cannot ignore that number of ways in which legal changes threaten the living out of Christian faith. This does not flow from ill-intent on the part of politicians and policy-makers, but on a sheer lack of acquaintance with who we really are and what we really think.
There is a substantial challenge to the way our Anglican private schools operate brewing. I am one of many pastors writing to local members, and making submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission, to express concern.
It may not be what they trained me for at bible college, but if you are in the private sector, and value your child being taught by a majority of Christian teachers, it’s good to see risks to this before they overwhelm you as an accomplished fact.
Here is a letter which I have sent to our Federal member: Matt Thistlethwaite.
Dear Matt,
Thank you so much for your work in parliament, and locally among the Maroubra community. I’d love to remind you that both I and our church pray for you, and that we seek to support you as you represent us.
I have never been so politically engaged as I presently am – federally, in regard to the Voice referendum, and in state matters, in advocating for poker machine reform to your colleague, Michael Daley. You may remember representations from members of our church in the past on behalf of refugees in mandatory detention, or other conversations. It seems we have much to speak about, and this seems to be increasing!
This email concerns an Australian Law Reform Commission process currently underway which I believe seriously undermines the free exercise of religion in the private educational sector, which I am involved in as a pastor, parent, and school community leader.
I would like to draw it to your attention. Sadly, time granted for submissions has been incredibly tight, so I will do my best, but wish to register my alarm about the report of the ALRC with you as my local member.
I write confident of the substantial support of my parish on this issue, and certainly with the encouragement of the school that I help administer.
ALRC Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws: Consultation Paper
I feel deep disappointment with the proposed reforms outlined by the Australian Law Reform Commission in their Consultation Paper on religious educational institutions and anti-discrimination laws.
In a letter to the Attorney General on 8 June last year, Labor’s commitment to recommence the ALRC’s Inquiry into the Framework of Religious Exemptions in Anti-Discrimination Legislation was appreciated. This was in no small measure because of assurances regarding the Government’s commitment to “protect teachers from discrimination at work, while maintaining the right of religious schools to preference people of their faith in the selection of staff.”[1] We were pleased to see that commitment reflected in the third limb of the terms of reference, which asked the ALRC to balance the right of students and teachers not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy with the freedom of religious schools “to build a community of faith by giving preference, in good faith, to persons of the same religion as the educational institution in the selection of staff.”
The proposals in the ALRC Consultation Paper seek to place severe limits on the application of this principle.
The school I am involved with has a terrific reputation for and practice of non-discriminatory care for students from many backgrounds and ideological persuasions. We are a thoroughly, remarkably inclusive community. I am fiercely proud of this and work to protect its’ practice in my roles in the school. The school has, on the other hand, exercised real care in employing staff who would support the religious ethos of the school – and who teach with full compliance to the national curriculum demands, but who also teach, live and worship with a fullness that enables the school to meet its’ charter with much more than mere lip service. We meet the national educational standards handsomely, and above and beyond that we meet the objects and aims for which the school was established.
The Paper proposes that the right of religious schools to preference people of their faith in the selection of staff be strictly limited only to those teaching roles where the “teaching, observance, or practice of the religion is a genuine requirement of the role, having regard to the nature and ethos of the institution”. I would argue in our school that this definition would extend to the great majority of roles. The ARLC disagree, and betray a lack of understanding of their subject – people like me. For every other teaching role, the report recommends that it would be become unlawful for the school to give preference to employing teachers who share or are willing to commit to supporting the religious beliefs of the school. For schools that seek to be genuinely faith-based schools, the resulting thinness of faith-culture will be an immense compromise and a betrayal of their charter.
Faith-based schools in Australia have long been free to give preference to employing staff who share or who are willing to support the faith and beliefs according to which the school is conducted. They do not seek the right to discriminate on the basis of a protected attribute, but be able to employ staff who share or are willing to uphold the religious beliefs of the school.
The real fabric of a school such as the one I serve, is that its’ extensive faith-committed staff base are involved in care of students well beyond the classroom in a multitude of programs nourished by faith convictions that simply could not exist if legislation prevented us from seeking to employ staff who would not only will passively support an ethos, but actively believe and live it.
The Consultation Paper continually cites the restrictive laws in Queensland and Tasmania as a basis for its claim that these laws “indicate … that such reforms would not significantly undermine the ability of religious schools to maintain their religious ethos.” However, this is misleading. Religious schools in those States rely upon the current exemptions in section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act and depend upon those exemptions overriding the State laws in order to maintain their religious ethos.
I would hope you can raise the concern of many in my position with your party, and especially the Attorney General, to ensure the ALRC properly addresses the Terms of Reference, particularly the third limb regarding the building of communities of faith, through a genuine consultation with input from religious leaders and religious education experts, parents, and secular experts.
As a parent, religious leader and school governor, I am feeling greatly misunderstood by the ALRC, but wish to be understood by those who would seek to represent me. So I write with great goodwill to this end.
Signed
Rev. Jim Crosweller
St John’s, Maroubra
0417 424 694