Australia's compulsory tax concessional superannuation scheme is a bad deal for many people 22 May 2020

About the author

I am a 77 years old retired health professional. I live in the Sydney metropolitan region.

I am a beneficiary of  the superannuation component of Australia’s retirement income system.

But my children in their mid 40’s to mid 50’s will benefit minimally or not at all.

The purpose of this post

I often read in news media someone claiming that Australia’s superannuation scheme is a wonderful thing, a great success and a model for the rest of the world.

I disagree very strongly with this for reasons which I will give.

I  believe that most Australians would be better served by a scheme to properly fund the age pension at a decent level, using a national retirement investment fund (like a larger version of the existing Future Fund) which would be funded from a range of revenue sources, not just a levy on income.

I am of the view that the federal government should have done this in 1992 instead of  setting up the present superannuation scheme.  In fact the government could have begun the process of properly funding the aged pension a hundred years ago.

The best thing  about Australia’s national retirement income system is that  we have one. Many countries do not. That alone is reason enough to give Australians a measure of satisfaction.

But our system is a long way from being the best we could have. Any complacency we might feel about our present system is misplaced.

What are the main elements of our current retirement income scheme ?

1. The aged pension.

2. The national compulsory tax concessional superannuation scheme.

The purpose of a national retirement incomes scheme

I put the view that the purpose of a national retirement income scheme is to ensure

* That people in retirement are able to have a good but not extravagant  quality of life and a decent but not opulent living standard.

* This would involve the big three quality of life basics:

1. Sufficient reliable income to meet reasonable cost of living expenses.

2. Security of decent quality housing.

3. Guaranteed access to high quality health services.

A national retirement income scheme should not, I believe, do any of the following things either by accident or design:

* Provide a vehicle for private capital gain

* Provide a vehicle for estate planning

* Operate as a tax minimisation strategy

* It should not provide a greater benefit to high income earners  who can manage well enough without the benefit of a national scheme,  than to low income earners who most need a scheme which can ensure them a decent quality of life in retirement.

* It should not provide windfall gains for superannuation scheme operators who set excessively high management fees.

Australia’s current retirement income scheme fails on all counts.

It does not adequately do the things which it should do, yet it does the things which it should not do.

Looking at each of these issues in more detail:

A majority of retired Australians rely on the aged pension in part or whole. Our extremely expensive compulsory tax concessional superannuation scheme does not substantially diminish the burden on taxpayers to provide funding for the age pension.

In particular superannuation is of very little value for low income earners and has no value at all for those who do not earn income even though those people may make a valuable contribution to society, for instance in a child caring or other caring role.

Our superannuation scheme works best for high income earners (who need it least)  and worst for low income earners (who need it most).

There is nothing in our system of retirement incomes which guarantees all citizens and residents access to decent quality housing.

People who cannot afford private health insurance are not guaranteed access to high quality health services. We have a two tier health system in which low income or no income earners and pensioners are relegated to the bottom tier. They must join a queue which could be as long as two years for treatments like elective surgery, which the privately insured can have done next week.

The current superannuation scheme provides a vehicle for private capital gain at public expense. This comes about because of the tax concessions which are built into the scheme.

Funds are taxed at 15% going into a superannuation scheme.

Earnings in the accumulation phase are taxed at 15%.

Payments in pension phase if taken as an allocated pension are not taxed at all and do not even have to be declared as income.

Residual funds in a superannuation account at death can be directed to the beneficiaries of the estate and taxed. I have been informed by my fund planner that the tax level is 15% although the explanation given in the ATO information bulletin is so complicated I cannot understand it.

These tax concessions represent a huge benefit for high income earners who would otherwise pay a higher tax rate, but hardly any for low income earners and none for non income earners.

One analyst has estimated that as much as 60% of some individuals’ supposedly self funded retirement is actually attributable to the tax concessions provided by other taxpayers.

I believe this is the most egregious aspect of our current superannuation scheme.

Three groups of people are disadvantaged by the present system.

In the first group are taxpayers who do not receive or only benefit minimally from the tax concessions built into the superannuation system.

Understand this: If  one group (in this case high income earners) is getting a tax benefit and a second group (low income earners) is not getting that benefit and if the federal government is to meet its obligations regarding program expenditures every year then the second group is paying excess tax every year over that which they would have to pay if the first group were not receiving the tax concession.

This means there is effectively a transfer of wealth every year from low income earners to high income earners.  

This is the exact opposite of the way a fair and just tax system should operate.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 2019 shows that the top 20% of households by wealth increased their average net worth from $1.9 million in 2004 to $3.2 million in 2018.

The lowest 20% had a net worth of $35,200 in 2018, less than a thousand dollars more than they had in 2004.

ABS notes that the main drivers of this wealth are superannuation accounts and the real estate market.

The second disadvantaged group includes those people who are beneficiaries of  federal government programmes such as the aged and invalid pensions and programmes for the disabled.

If the effect of superannuation tax concessions is to reduce federal government revenues such that the government cannot meet its obligations then the second cohort will be short changed and will suffer.

The third disadvantaged group are young adults in the early years of their employment history. These people are trying to establish themselves in housing and start a family.

But they are required to pay an extra 9.5% levy on top of regular income tax at precisely the time in life when they can least afford to do so.

If the amount spent each year on the aged pension could be reduced by the amount spent  on superannuation tax concessions then there might be the basis of an argument for those concessions.

The problem is that

a) to date the amount spent on the aged pension has not been substantially reduced  by the superannuation tax concessions and

b) the benefit of those concessions is going to high income earners who need them least.

Another major problem with the present superannuation scheme is the vast sums of money directed each year to those who administer the funds.

In 2018 Australian contributors to superannuation in the accumulation phase paid on average 1.23% of their account balance in fees for a total of $32 billion, yes that is billion,  in account fees.

Superannuation fund managers have found themselves a lucrative source of income, raking in excessive fees every year without providing commensurate benefit to their contributors.

Compare this to the Future fund which manages a very good return on investment with an annual cost of about 0.5% of funds under management.

Superannuation funds do not compete with each other to provide the best service at the lowest rate.

Brief historical background

When Australia became a nation in 1901 notions of “old age” and “retirement” were not a major issue for many people.

The average life expectancy was 55 years (male) and 59 years (female).

Many people would not live long enough to enter the realm of old age or retirement.

By 2010 average life expectancy had increased to 79 years (male) and 84 years (female).

In just a hundred years old age and retirement had become a  major public policy issue.

The new federal government introduced age and invalid pensions in 1908, both funded from general revenue.

This historical detail is important because the age and invalid pensions are still funded from general revenue  despite multiple opportunities over the years for the federal government to properly fund these major welfare payments by specific programmes.

This is a major problem to which I will return later in this discourse.

Workplace based superannuation schemes emerged from about the middle of the 20^th Century. But these were not transferable to another workplace or employer and were of limited benefit to the majority of Australian workers.

The Hawke government in the 1980s raised the profile of superannuation with the prices and incomes accord and other measures.

However the basis for the current system of national compulsory tax concessional superannuation was laid by the Keating government in 1992.

Since then successive governments have changed many details as  problems with  the scheme have become increasingly evident, but the basic elements  remain in place.

In preparation for this post I trawled through many of the numerous information sources online.

I looked for some form of answer to  two questions:

Why was compulsory tax concessional superannuation introduced ? 

If there are or were in 1992 perceived problems with or inadequacies of the age pension or with the way it is funded why were those problems not identified and rectified before or instead of launching a new and extremely complex and expensive compulsory tax concessional superannuation scheme ?

I looked for some kind of coherent narrative by the architects of the present superannuation scheme explaining why they thought this was the best thing for Australians.

But here is the strange thing. The more I looked, the less I found.   Details aplenty, yes, lots of those. 

All about political battles and agreements with trade unions and employers and percentages and accords and all manner of procedural intricacies.

But very little by way of answers to my two questions which go to the fundamental philosophy and rationale of the present arrangements.

Mr John Dawkins, treasurer in the 36^th Australian parliament presented the Superannuation Guarantee (administration) bill on 2 April 1992.

In his second reading speech he made reference to several issues by way of background to the bill.  

The main ones appear to be:

* Prior to 1983 most people would look to the age pension as their main source of retirement income.

* The reform of superannuation has been one of the great achievements of the government.

* The increased self provision for retirement will permit a higher standard of living in retirement than if we continued to rely on the age pension alone.

* The increased self provision will also enable future Commonwealth governments to improve the retirement conditions for those Australians who were unable to fund adequately their own retirement incomes.

* Self provision will increase …..our national savings overall reducing our reliance on…..foreigners to fund our development.

Some of those statements are contestable particularly in light of the way the scheme has evolved, but 

I am much more interested in what he did not say.

He did not say what he thought was a problem with the age pension, either for the aged or for the government. 

Was the weekly amount inadequate ?

Was the source of revenue for the age pension thought to be unsatisfactory in some way ?

Was it thought that without some “self funding” the treasury would run out of funds ?

The problem I have is that there is little evidence of discussion about these issues in the public record.

My proposed alternative retirement incomes scheme

The key elements of the proposed scheme are:

1. Properly fund a means tested age pension.

2. End the present compulsory tax concessional superannuation scheme.

Funding the age pension

In the early years of the scheme funds for the age pension would come from general revenue.

A percentage of revenue would be directed to a Commonwealth Retirement Benefits Investment Fund each year. Over time this  Investment Fund would grow and in due course the annual income from the Fund’s investments could be used to supplement general revenues  as a source of funds for the age pension.

Substantial taxation reform is required.

I write this in May 2020 when the need for stimulus to Australia’s economic activity has never been higher.

I make no claim to being a tax expert but it seems to me that there are basically three broad types of tax.

These are taxes on capital, taxes on income (personal and business) and taxes on transactions.

Taxes on income and transactions tend to reduce economic activity.

Taxes on capital may reduce the availability of funds for investment  but do not reduce economic activity in the way that taxes on income and transactions do.

So it follows that a tax reform process should seek to reduce taxes on income and transactions and increase and broaden taxes on capital.

My suggestion is to reduce personal and business income tax, hold the GST (a tax on transactions) unchanged and broaden capital taxes in two ways.

These are

1. Taxing capital gains at the same rate as income. At present only half the capital gain is taxed.

2. Introducing a progressive estate duty. This would have a threshold and a could have a rate of 5%-25% depending on the value of the estate.

Staging

In stage 1, the government announces the new scheme and closes all new entry into the current scheme.

Seniors in pension phase of the present scheme continue with arrangements unchanged.  Any residual monies in the scheme at death are subject to estate duty.

Younger people in the accumulation phase of the present scheme have the option to remain in the scheme or exit and withdraw any monies which they have paid into the scheme minus the residual of any income tax which they would have paid on those monies.

In stage 2, tax concessions for those remaining in the current scheme are progressively reduced over a 20 year period.

In stage 3 all those in the current scheme will have died or opted out.

People with discretionary funds can invest them at will. This could include placing those funds in a voluntary, non tax concessional retirement income scheme of the person’s choice.

Summary

I put the view that the present compulsory tax concessional national superannuation scheme is a very bad deal for many Australians.

I present in outline an alternative proposal which I believe will better meet the needs of  most Australians.

Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 (Australia) Comments on the second exposure draft 18 May 2020

About the author:  I am a retired health professional. I have no affiliation with any organisation, religious or secular.

My comments are those of a concerned citizen. I am unlikely to be directly affected by any legislation to do with religion.

I strongly support the right of all people to practice religion if that is their choice provided that in so doing they obey the law of the land and respect the rights of others and respect the equal status of other fundamental rights.

My concerns are about the nature of Australian society and the quality of life of those of us who live here.

Inclusiveness and tolerance

There are several organisations which rate quality of life in different countries. Most rate personal rights, tolerance and inclusion as important determinants of quality of life.

I believe that the Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 is a most unsatisfactory piece of legislation which will not ensure anybody’s personal rights and is likely to diminish tolerance and inclusion in our society.

Reasons for the bill

I have read both the first and second exposure drafts of the bill, the explanatory notes, the Religious Freedom Review (“The Ruddock review”) of 2018 and as much commentary as I can find online about the matter.

There appear to be underlying and precipitating factors leading to the Bill.

Underlying factors

There appear to be two of these.

First, the Commonwealth and States have various laws relating to a range of protected attributes but none specifically about religious practice.

Second, Australia has been criticised by international bodies for not legislating for all the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Australia is a party.

There is however reference to religious freedom in the Australian Constitution.

Section 116 states:  "The Commonwealth shall not make any law establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Precipitating factors

There appears to have been a single precipitant followed by a second provocative issue.

The precipitant was the same sex marriage postal survey of 2017 and subsequent introduction of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 (“the same sex marriage bill”) into the federal parliament.

I want to examine some issues around the passage of this bill through the parliament as these have been re-visited by the subsequent Religious Discrimination Bill.

I have found that when an enterprise has gone off the rails the critical factor causing that derailment can usually be found quite early in the voyage of that enterprise through life.

To continue the analogy, the Religious Discrimination Bill is nowhere near the rails and I believe a significant precursor to the derailment is to be found in the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act.

The idea that the state should recognise marriage between two people regardless of gender is a human rights issue. It has nothing to do with religion.

So how did the words “Religious Freedoms” get into the title of the Act ?

The religious (I use the word religious here as a descriptive noun which is common practice in the Roman Catholic Church) argued that the same sex marriage act constituted a restraint on freedom to practice their religion as they wished.

In fact no person’s right to practice their religion changed in the slightest degree when the same sex marriage act became law.

The new law was however a challenge to religious authority and a challenge to the exclusionary and discriminatory practices of the religious, in this case to do with sex, gender and the definition of marriage.

The religious sought and were granted special license available to no other group to ignore the new law to the extent they could refuse to marry a same sex couple and could even refuse to provide goods and services for a wedding ceremony.

I understand that the proponents of the new law probably had to offer up these exemptions in order to get the bill through the parliament.

An unfortunate consequence has been a re-appearance of demands by the religious for similar exclusionary and discriminatory  license in the Religious Discrimination Bill.

The second, provocative issue which appears to have influenced the wording of the second exposure draft of the bill is the “Israel Folau” case.

Mr Folau is a sporting identity who was under contract to Rugby Australia (RA) until April 2019 when he was dismissed for breach of a contract which contained a code of conduct which RA said he had failed to follow.

The matter had nothing to do with religion.

RA would have been equally displeased had some other unwelcome remarks been made from a non-religious position.

Neither in my view was there a substantive issue of freedom of speech.

I regard the right to freedom of speech as fundamental in a liberal democracy but freedoms come with responsibilities and respect for the views of others.

Mr Folau’s pronouncements  showed a lack of responsibility and respect to  his employer, his contract, his sporting code and the millions of citizens he consigned to hell.

Despite the Israel Folau matter having nothing to do with religion the actions of Rugby Australia were portrayed as some kind of impediment to religious freedom.

In fact Mr Folau is entirely free to practice his religion as can anybody in Australia.

Religious freedom is not the same thing as religious dogma, religious entitlement or religious authority.

The religious should not be too surprised if their sense of entitlement and authority is challenged.

Neither should they be surprised when thoughtful citizens decide that religious entitlement and authority are not fundamental rights and have no legitimate place in an act of parliament.

Summary of reasons for the bill

* The underlying factors, consisting mainly of international pressure to codify all protected attributes in law appear to me to be reason enough to proceed.

* The precipitating factors represent a problem for any attempts to draft worthwhile legislation.

Neither the same sex marriage legislation nor the Folau case were about religion or anybody’s religious freedom, although some people have attempted (in my view disingenuously) to portray them as such.

All Australians have exactly the same right to practice their religion (or elect not to) after these events as before them.

The real issue arising from these precipitants is that the religious want license to engage in sectarian, exclusionary and discriminatory practices. 

There is a great deal of international evidence that societies which engage in these practices provide a much lower quality of life for all citizens than those which encourage acceptance, tolerance and diversity.

Both the same sex marriage law and the actions of Rugby Australia in the Folau case were about promoting and encouraging acceptance, tolerance and diversity.

Objects of the Act

The good news is that the exposure draft does have a section devoted to a statement about that which the Act is intended to achieve.

The bad news is that the statement itself is confusing, ambiguous and internally inconsistent.

In Part 1, Section2, Clause 3 (2)  The draft says “ In giving effect to the objects of this act, regard is to be had to

(a) the indivisibility and universality of human rights, and their equal status in international law”

But in Clause 3, (1) We have

“The objects of the Act are

(a) to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination…………and

(b) to ensure as far as is practicable  that everyone has the same rights to equality before the law…………….

It seems to me there is a fundamental problem here.

If human rights are indivisible and universal and the right to religious practice is one of them then it applies always to everybody and in every circumstance.

There is no wiggle room here for any person or organisation to decide that in some circumstance it is not practicable or even possible for  some rights  to apply.

Who would make such a decision and on what basis ?  Part 3 of the exposure draft attempts to answer this question, unsuccessfully in my view because the basic premise is not sustainable. I will discuss this below.

Either rights are indivisible and universal or they are not.

The exposure draft is trying to have an each way bet on this which in my view is completely inconsistent with the whole idea of human rights.

Beliefs

The exposure draft contains multiple references to beliefs,  specifically religious beliefs.

I take the view that such references have no place in an act of parliament.

The word belief can be defined as acceptance or feeling of certainty that  something exists or is true particularly in the absence of evidence.

Such feelings are personal, private and beyond the reach of any law.

Laws can only deal with behaviour.

The authors of the bill have misdirected themselves by including reference to beliefs in the draft.

An organisation cannot have beliefs

As beliefs are based on feelings which are personal it follows that an organisation cannot have beliefs.

An organisation can state its mission and purpose. It can have policies, procedures, practices and codes of conduct for its staff and/or members.

But not beliefs.

There are many references in the draft bill to doctrines, tenets, beliefs and teachings of various organisations.

Doctrine  can be defined as a belief or set of beliefs taught by a church, political party or other group.

Tenet  can be defined as a principle or belief especially of a religion or philosophy.

Thus belief, doctrine and tenet mean essentially the same thing.

The staff and members of a group or organisation can undertake the teaching of beliefs.

But only individual  people can hold beliefs.  Several such individuals may share beliefs.

But an organisation cannot hold beliefs.

Therefore all the many sections of the bill which refer to the doctrines, tenets, beliefs and teachings  of an organisation are without meaning.

They attempt to attach to organisations attributes which an organisation cannot have.

Religious organisation, religious body

The exposure draft, Part 2, Section 12 (5) (a) asserts that

Religious body means:

(a) an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs and teachings of a particular religion: or

(b) a registered public benevolent institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets …etc…….or

(c) any other body that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines…..etc

But does not include an institution that is a hospital or aged care facility, or that solely or primarily provides accommodation.

But then  Part 3, Division 4 Exceptions and exemptions, Clause 32, (8) (a)  says that it is not unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s religious belief or activity if the first person establishes, directs, controls or administers a hospital or aged care facility in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion.

So in a somewhat convoluted and confusing fashion we see that the Bill does regard schools, hospitals and a range of other services and facilities as “religious bodies” for the purposes of the Bill.

I take the view that this represents an entirely misleading construction of the notion of a “religious body”.

It seems to me that the most obvious candidate for the title “religious body” or “religious organisation” is one the primary mission of which is the teaching of religious doctrine and organisation of religious practice. This includes training, placing and funding religious officials such as priests, nuns, mullahs and so forth plus providing places of worship such as churches, mosques, temples and similar and arranging for religious ceremonies.

Some of these organisations have a large formal hierarchy. For instance the Anglican Church in Australia has an elected Primate, provinces and diocese, with staffing by bishops and other appointed religious personnel.

Some are much smaller and more local in reach. Some like Islam traditionally have a flatter hierarchy.

But they all have the same basic purpose which is to organise religious practice.

Somewhat to my amazement this type of organisation is not mentioned in the exposure draft at all.

Schools, hospitals and charitable organisations are not religious bodies

Let us look at schools. I am not talking about a bible college or some other theological college (which I think we can agree is a religious organisation) but a school which is licensed by a State Education Authority to teach a prescribed syllabus of general education leading to formal certification of completion.

It matters not whether the head organising body of the school is a State entity, Catholic or Independent.

All schools which seek license to provide a comprehensive education to students drawn from the general populace are required to meet a range of standards with regard to teacher training, syllabus, facilities, funding and many other issues.

The physics or mathematics or English  taught in a Catholic school is the same as that taught in any other school.

Some of my grandchildren attend State public school, some a private school under the aegis of a religious organisation and some an independent, non religious private school.

They each receive tuition on the same basic subjects. Teaching methods are substantially the same in each and the majority content of the syllabus is the same in each.

State, Catholic and Independent schools each receive very substantial funding by taxpayers via State and Federal government programmes.

Now  consider hospitals. If I am to undergo surgery it matters not whether the hospital in which this takes place is administered by a State Health Authority, a private-for-profit corporation or an entity declaring religious or benevolent non profit status.

Procedures for pre-admission assessment, admission, surgery, anaesthetics, post operative care, nursing, physiotherapy, x-ray, pathology, catering, cleaning and so forth are with only minor differences in detail the same everywhere because they have to be in order to meet required clinical and administrative standards and get the job done safely and effectively.

By way of example the Sydney Adventist Hospital which is wholly owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church states that its mission is “Christianity in action”.

And that it has  a …”special  purpose of carrying out Christ’s mission of health and healing”…

I have been admitted to that hospital several times for major and minor procedures.

I have also had surgical procedures at another private hospital operated under the aegis of a religious organisation, public hospitals and private-for-profit hospitals.

They each deliver the same standard of care with the same types of procedures and the same clinical procedures and  administrative practices.

The administrators of the Sydney Adventist Hospital might imagine themselves to be engaged in some kind of special Christian enterprise but the reality is that they are delivering standard clinical care just like any other health service.

They are also affiliated with (through ownership by the SDA church)  a very large, multi-million dollar per year commercial enterprise which engages in  the manufacture and sale of foodstuffs in supermarkets and other outlets.

Each of the three hospital types receives substantial taxpayer funding directly or indirectly.

Neither the Australia nor the New Zealand Sanitarium companies pay company tax on their profits, due to their ownership by a religious organisation.

The authors of the draft bill have misdirected themselves in proposing that some schools and hospitals are “religious bodies”. They are not.

Neither are most charitable organisations even those operating under the aegis of a religious entity.

If a person goes to Vinnies or the Salvos  to buy second hand goods that person is not seeking or engaging in any kind of religious experience.

There are no grounds for believing that an organisation is or will be benevolent and charitable simply because it operates under the aegis of a religion.

The Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse has made it abundantly clear that the opposite is all too often the case.

Religion is not like other protected attributes

We have anti-discrimination laws about ethnicity, gender, age, illness, disability and other protected attributes. All these attributes are visited upon us. We do not get to choose them.

Religious affiliation is a very different type of protected attribute particularly in a liberal democracy like Australia where people can and do choose of their own volition to join a religious group or not and to change religious affiliation at will.

The authors of the draft bill have sought to make the format of the bill similar to that of other anti-discrimination laws.

I think this is not a useful approach given that religion is such a very different type of attribute.

Religious freedom vs religious discrimination

Given the importance of religious freedom I think this needs to receive greater emphasis in any legislation.

Different rules for different situations, Why ?

The draft bill goes to great lengths to create different categories of circumstance in which different rules about religious discrimination shall apply.

Public sector organisations have different rules from private entities and corporations.

Large commercial organisations have different rules from small ones. This difference is defined in monetary terms.

The rules differ from one profession to the next.

A partnership of three individuals has different rules from one with two members.

The list goes on and on.

The draft bill refers in Section 2.3 (2) (a) to …”the indivisibility and universality of human rights and their equal status in international law”….

If the right to practice religion is indivisible and universal then all the different circumstantial rules described in great detail in the draft bill are meaningless.

The right to religious affiliation and practice must apply everywhere, always, without artificial rules which seek to modify that right in different circumstances.

The exceptions

Section 4 of the draft bill describes  exceptions and exemptions in great detail.

I take the view that if religious freedom is  universal and indivisible then no exceptions are required nor do they serve any religious, humanitarian, philosophical or practical purpose.

The most egregious aspect of the draft bill is the exceptions which apply (in my view improperly) to various organisations deemed (incorrectly in my view) to be “religious bodies”.

The main effect of these exceptions is to give license to some organisations to engage in restrictive industrial relations and human resource practices which in my view amount  to sectarian tribalism.

These exceptions have nothing whatsoever to do with religious freedom.

They are about granting authority to certain organisations under the aegis of  a religious organisation to engage in discriminatory practices not permitted to any other organisations.

The religious leaders demanding this authority are engaged in a cynical exercise of hypocrisy and the authors of the draft bill have completely misdirected themselves and failed in their duty to the Australian people by pandering to this hypocrisy.

An idea for an alternative draft bill

Part 1. Religious freedom

Individuals and groups are free to express religious views and engage in religious practices provided that in so doing they do not break the law or infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Part 2. Religious discrimination

Individuals, groups and organisations shall not discriminate against other individuals, groups or organisations on the basis of religion.

Part 3. Offences.

It is an offence for any person, group or organisation to act so as to prevent any person or group from engaging in lawful religious practice.

It is an offence for any person, group or organisation to discriminate against any person, group or organisation on the basis of religion.

Summary

The draft religious discrimination bill is unsatisfactory.

It does not contain provisions which could  reasonably be expected to improve the right to  religious freedom for individuals or groups.

It is drowning in details which obfuscate rather than clarify.

It contains provisions which would have the effect of giving license to sectarian discrimination contrary to the concept of human rights.

The bill cannot be improved  by any species of amendment.

It should be withdrawn and public debate about religious freedom and discrimination re-energised with the aim of reaching community consensus about a workable legal framework for religious freedom.

Andrew Smallman

Sydney 18 May 2020