This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/02/australia-should-delineate-religious-and-civil-weddings-report-finds

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Australia should separate religious and civil weddings, report finds Australia should separate religious and civil weddings, report finds
(6 months later)
The federal government should consider delineating religious and civil weddings in order to fortify protections for religious objectors, a wide-ranging report into Australia’s rights and freedoms has recommended.The federal government should consider delineating religious and civil weddings in order to fortify protections for religious objectors, a wide-ranging report into Australia’s rights and freedoms has recommended.
The study was instigated by the attorney general, George Brandis, in 2014 to determine if commonwealth legislation encroached on people’s rights and freedoms. It was conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).The study was instigated by the attorney general, George Brandis, in 2014 to determine if commonwealth legislation encroached on people’s rights and freedoms. It was conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).
The 600-page report published on Wednesday found that several laws were in need of review or further consideration, but that “few, if any” commonwealth laws infringed on freedom of religion.The 600-page report published on Wednesday found that several laws were in need of review or further consideration, but that “few, if any” commonwealth laws infringed on freedom of religion.
Related: Joe Bullock quits Senate over Labor's compulsory support of marriage equality
“There is no obvious evidence that commonwealth anti-discrimination laws significantly encroach on freedom of religion in Australia, especially given the existing exemptions for religious organisations,” the report said.“There is no obvious evidence that commonwealth anti-discrimination laws significantly encroach on freedom of religion in Australia, especially given the existing exemptions for religious organisations,” the report said.
However, it noted there was a potential for the two to clash, especially when it came to the performing of same-sex marriage, should the Marriage Act be changed.However, it noted there was a potential for the two to clash, especially when it came to the performing of same-sex marriage, should the Marriage Act be changed.
“Provision could be made, for example, for authorised celebrants to register a genuine religious or conscientious objection with registrars of marriage celebrants. Such provisions, protecting a right to ‘conscientiously object’, have been advocated by the Australian human rights commissioner, Tim Wilson,” the report said. “Reforms to clarify the position, or to more clearly separate the civil act from the religious act of solemnising the marriage may be desirable.”“Provision could be made, for example, for authorised celebrants to register a genuine religious or conscientious objection with registrars of marriage celebrants. Such provisions, protecting a right to ‘conscientiously object’, have been advocated by the Australian human rights commissioner, Tim Wilson,” the report said. “Reforms to clarify the position, or to more clearly separate the civil act from the religious act of solemnising the marriage may be desirable.”
Labor ramped up pressure on the government to allow a free vote on same-sex marriage, by attempting to call a motion to bring on a vote on legislation that would remove existing limitations on marriage.Labor ramped up pressure on the government to allow a free vote on same-sex marriage, by attempting to call a motion to bring on a vote on legislation that would remove existing limitations on marriage.
“It is a bill that is moderate, it is pragmatic ... It has support across the chamber,” the bill’s co-author, Terri Butler, told the House of Representatives. “To all of you, I say: you can pass this bill before Mardi Gras ... This can be something we’ve delivered as a parliament.”“It is a bill that is moderate, it is pragmatic ... It has support across the chamber,” the bill’s co-author, Terri Butler, told the House of Representatives. “To all of you, I say: you can pass this bill before Mardi Gras ... This can be something we’ve delivered as a parliament.”
The leader of the house, Christopher Pyne, personally supports having a free vote on the issue, but he opposed Labor’s motion as a “cheap political stunt”.The leader of the house, Christopher Pyne, personally supports having a free vote on the issue, but he opposed Labor’s motion as a “cheap political stunt”.
The Coalition had the numbers to shoot down Labor’s motion.The Coalition had the numbers to shoot down Labor’s motion.
On Tuesday night, Western Australian senator Joe Bullock resigned from the Labor party over its stance on same-sex marriage, which is to bind members to a yes vote from 2019.On Tuesday night, Western Australian senator Joe Bullock resigned from the Labor party over its stance on same-sex marriage, which is to bind members to a yes vote from 2019.
“I see the best interest of children being at risk through non-traditional families,” Bullock told Sky News on Wednesday afternoon. “The breakdown of families is a tragedy in this country.”“I see the best interest of children being at risk through non-traditional families,” Bullock told Sky News on Wednesday afternoon. “The breakdown of families is a tragedy in this country.”
Apart from freedom of religion, the law reform commission’s report identified a number of areas of concern.Apart from freedom of religion, the law reform commission’s report identified a number of areas of concern.
Anti-terror laws, including the extension of control orders and preventative detention orders, and laws criminalising the advocacy of terrorism, encroached on a number of rights.Anti-terror laws, including the extension of control orders and preventative detention orders, and laws criminalising the advocacy of terrorism, encroached on a number of rights.
Anti-terror laws should be subjected to “ongoing and careful review”, the report found. But it noted that such laws and the rights they potentially infringe should be weighed against their objectives.Anti-terror laws should be subjected to “ongoing and careful review”, the report found. But it noted that such laws and the rights they potentially infringe should be weighed against their objectives.
“Counter-terrorism and national security laws that encroach on rights and freedoms should nevertheless be justified, to ensure the laws are suitable, necessary and represent a proper balance between the public interest and individual rights,” it said.“Counter-terrorism and national security laws that encroach on rights and freedoms should nevertheless be justified, to ensure the laws are suitable, necessary and represent a proper balance between the public interest and individual rights,” it said.
Related: Why does the Australian Christian Lobby enjoy a privileged position in public debate? | Jeff Sparrow
The report found that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offence to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate anyone based on their ethnicity or colour of their skin, should be reviewed.The report found that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offence to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate anyone based on their ethnicity or colour of their skin, should be reviewed.
Particularly, it found that the clause relating to “offend” could be interpreted too broadly.Particularly, it found that the clause relating to “offend” could be interpreted too broadly.
“The provision appears broader than is required under international law to prohibit the advocacy of racial hatred and broader than similar laws in other jurisdictions, and may be susceptible to constitutional challenge,” it said.“The provision appears broader than is required under international law to prohibit the advocacy of racial hatred and broader than similar laws in other jurisdictions, and may be susceptible to constitutional challenge,” it said.
But it added that, to date, the clause has been applied judiciously.But it added that, to date, the clause has been applied judiciously.
“The ALRC has not established whether section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has, in practice, caused unjustifiable interferences with freedom of speech. [But it] would benefit from more thorough review in relation to freedom of speech,” it said. “However, any such review should take place in conjunction with consideration of anti-vilification laws more generally.”“The ALRC has not established whether section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has, in practice, caused unjustifiable interferences with freedom of speech. [But it] would benefit from more thorough review in relation to freedom of speech,” it said. “However, any such review should take place in conjunction with consideration of anti-vilification laws more generally.”
Conservatives have called on the repealing of section 18C. A pre-election promise by the Coalition to enact changes to the Act was dropped after strong community opposition, though a number of Coalition backbenchers have vowed to support a similar private members’ bill that is currently before the Senate.Conservatives have called on the repealing of section 18C. A pre-election promise by the Coalition to enact changes to the Act was dropped after strong community opposition, though a number of Coalition backbenchers have vowed to support a similar private members’ bill that is currently before the Senate.
The report also flagged concern about the breadth of migration laws, particularly the retrospective element of many bills, and the cutting off of judicial review.The report also flagged concern about the breadth of migration laws, particularly the retrospective element of many bills, and the cutting off of judicial review.
“Migration laws that have the stated intention of deterring behaviour, but apply to behaviour that occurred before the commencement of the legislation, could be further reviewed to ensure that their retrospective nature is proportionate and appropriately justified,” the report said.“Migration laws that have the stated intention of deterring behaviour, but apply to behaviour that occurred before the commencement of the legislation, could be further reviewed to ensure that their retrospective nature is proportionate and appropriately justified,” the report said.
“Some migration laws that encroach on the duty to afford procedural fairness would benefit from further review, given the gravity of the consequences for those affected by the relevant decision. Migration laws that might be further scrutinised include those relating to the mandatory cancellation of visas and the fast-track review process for decisions to refuse protection visas.”“Some migration laws that encroach on the duty to afford procedural fairness would benefit from further review, given the gravity of the consequences for those affected by the relevant decision. Migration laws that might be further scrutinised include those relating to the mandatory cancellation of visas and the fast-track review process for decisions to refuse protection visas.”
Brandis heralded the report as a “historic document”.Brandis heralded the report as a “historic document”.
“I’m conscious that this report contains criticism of legislation passed by this parliament, under this government and by previous parliaments under Labor governments. That is a good thing,” he said.“I’m conscious that this report contains criticism of legislation passed by this parliament, under this government and by previous parliaments under Labor governments. That is a good thing,” he said.
“That is why we have bodies like the Australian Law Reform Commission, to participate in the dialogue, to identify and hold up to intellectually tight critical scrutiny, the legislative work of the parliaments and the enactments introduced by governments. We do not shy away from that. While not always agreeing with the conclusions, we welcome that as being the essence of a healthy, open, liberal, parliamentary democracy.”“That is why we have bodies like the Australian Law Reform Commission, to participate in the dialogue, to identify and hold up to intellectually tight critical scrutiny, the legislative work of the parliaments and the enactments introduced by governments. We do not shy away from that. While not always agreeing with the conclusions, we welcome that as being the essence of a healthy, open, liberal, parliamentary democracy.”