The Tasmanian Catholic Church’s demand for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act so it can turn away non-Catholic students from its schools is one of the oddest public issues I have ever encountered.
The details of the Church’s demand keep changing, as do the reasons for this demand, and the Government’s response to it.
“Opening the floodgates”
The Archbishop of Hobart, Adrian Doyle, wrote in a recent letter to the editor that he wants an exemption “for those who are baptised in the Catholic faith” (The Mercury, 22.4.10). The exemption would only apply to students at their first enrolment (Catholic primary school students must re-enrol when they enter secondary and senior secondary Catholic schools). Doyle went on to criticise me for “publicly generat(ing) a perception that Catholic schools would use the Catholic ethos to exclude students”.
However, in a 2009 government report on this issue, which emerged from a larger review of the Anti-Discrimination Act, the Church was quoted as seeking an exemption so its schools could discriminate on the much broader grounds of “religious belief, religious affiliation or religious activity”. There was also nothing which indicated this exemption would be limited to students’ first enrolment.
The report was sceptical about the Church’s demand. It reminded policy makers that “faith-based bodies receiving public funds for secular purposes should be required to comply with anti-discrimination laws”, and flagged the possibility “the amendment proposed by the Archdiocese would open the floodgates in respect of other religious institutions such as hospitals or health care facilities, family and welfare services”. It recommended that any exemption “should not extend beyond the point of admission”
In response to the 2009 report, then Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Sarah Bolt, expressed even deeper concern about what the Church was putting forward.
“If the proposed exception is enacted, whether or not students from other religions are accepted will be entirely up to the discretion of the particular school. Students may not be enrolled if they are gay, their parents are divorced or in a same-sex relationship, if a school says this is against the religious beliefs of the school.
“The Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is also concerned that parents and students who have a different religious belief but who want to attend a religious school because they are willing to work with the ethos of the school will be excluded.”
Clearly, it’s not me but the Church itself which has “generated a perception” that it would exclude anyone who defies its teachings.
“Where student places are limited”
The Church’s rationale for an exemption has also quietly transformed.
When Archbishop Doyle first raised this issue in May 2007 at the opening of a new Catholic school in Kingston he declared his goal to be nothing less than increasing the number of Catholic students in Catholic schools from 44% to 75%. This incredibly ambitious plan would have involved the transfer of thousands of students between the public and Catholic schools system. In other states even a modest increase of 10% in Catholic enrolments in Catholic schools has proven impossible to achieve.
Perhaps because of this, the Church has changed tack. In his recent letter to the editor the Archbishop declares an exemption necessary “where student places are limited”, a problem which “affects only several schools”.
Actually, from what I understand the problem of over-subscription only affects one Catholic school in Tasmania, St Patrick’s College in Launceston. Further, there is no reason to believe this is a long term problem for St Pats. This means that, in effect, the Church wants a permanent hole punched into the Anti-Discrimination Act to fix what is essentially an enrolment-management problem currently facing one school.
The Anti-Discrimination Act already has a mechanism for dealing with situations like this. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has the power to allow administrative exemptions limited in time and scope to deal with precisely the problem faced by St Pats. Yet the Church has never applied for such an exemption. It wants special legislation to entrench its special right to ignore a law everyone else is obliged to abide.
Given the shifting and dubious reasons the Church puts forward for its proposed exemption is there any wonder people suspect its motives.
“National consistency”
The same goes for the State Government.
When the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group (TGLRG) lobbied former Attorney-General, Steve Kons, and Premier David Bartlett on this issue in 2007, both agreed the Church had failed to make its case for an exemption.
But at the end of last year Attorney General, Lara Giddings, said the Government had agreed to an exemption. The Government’s seemed to support an exemption more limited than the one originally proposed by the Church, but there was no discussion of an exemption limited even further to students “baptised as Catholics”.
This peculiar vacillation was reflected in Labor’s response to the TGLRG’s state election survey. The ALP said it “does not intent to provide any further exemptions under the (Anti-Discrimination) Act on religious grounds”, but then went on to declare “a Bartlett Labor Government accepts the principle that, for example, a Catholic school should be able to give priority to Catholic students or an Islamic school to Muslim students, at the time of enrolment” – something which cannot happen without an exemption.
Labor’s rationale for sanctioning religious discrimination was particularly worrying. Allowing faith-based schools to discriminate “is consistent with a number of jurisdictions across Australia”.
In other words, because the continental states have so far failed to match the anti-discrimination standards set in Tasmania, we must roll back our protections in the name of “consistency”.
Needless to say the Government has so far failed to explain why inconsistency is a problem. It has also failed to say what it will do about all the other sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act that set standards higher than the other states. (I loath the notion of “national consistency” and “harmonisation” that has infected Labor policy making in recent years. “National consistency” may appeal to Labor’s once-radical ideal of a centralised, homogenised nation. But in reality it is about reducing social policy to its lowest common denominator and stifling all innovation. Rudd’s “national consistency” is almost as effective a brake on legal and social progress than Howard’s neo-conservative culture tussles. The sooner the states and territories shake off the dead hand of Capitol Hill and assert themselves as loci of innovation, the quicker Australia can resume its place at the forefront of the movement for social and legal equality. For more on how the Federal Government’s attempt to impose “national consistency” has stifled progress on state relationships laws, click
HERE.
“Respectful, diverse and inclusive”
My hope is that Tasmania’s new governing arrangement will spell the end of the Catholic Church’s demand for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act.
But if this is not the case, if the Church continues to press its claim to sympathetic MPs, there must be a parliamentary inquiry into the issue.
The inexplicable twists and turns in both the Catholic Church’s demand for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Government’s response to that demand, bring into question the real motives of both players.
Nothing short of a cross-examination of church and government representatives will reveal what this exemption is really for and, if it is to be granted, what form it should take.
A parliamentary inquiry would also allow all stakeholders in this matter to have their voices heard. This would include anti-discrimination experts, church representatives, and, of course, Catholic school teachers, parents and students.
These latter groups are particularly important.
In his letter to the editor, Archbishop Doyle makes the point that,
“Catholic education is a respectful, diverse and inclusive education system. Mr Croome would only have to step through the door of any Catholic school to see this.”
As a matter of fact I have, and I agree entirely with the Archbishop.
Catholic schools in Tasmania are far more tolerant and inclusive places than they were ten years ago.
For example, some Catholic schools now regularly conduct anti-homophobia programs in schools, something that was inconceivable not long ago. Levels of homophobic bullying are demonstrably lower. Although there are still significant problems, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) Tasmanian Catholic students enjoy a standard of education that is far superior to their predecessors.
GLBT students, their teachers and their parents are quite aware of the improvement in school culture, and when I ask them about what underlies it almost all of them respond with the same four words…the Anti-Discrimination Act.
That’s right, it is precisely the legislation Archbishop Doyle wants to water down that is responsible for the more inclusive school culture he values.
Only a parliamentary inquiry will be able to take our understanding of this issue beyond the law to the important educational and cultural changes influenced by the law.
It is easy to dismiss the debate over a Catholic school exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act as an obscure legal bun fight, or yet another tussle between the Christians and the gays.
But it is far more than this. It is about ensuring every young Tasmanian has the capacity to fulfil their educational potential through the institution of their choice. It is about not returning to the kind of old-fashioned sectarianism that meant religion determined a child’s opportunities in life.
Until we, as an island society, can bring our attention to bear on this issue and resolve it rationally and equitably, we cannot say we really care about our how our children are schooled and how we have prepared them for the future.
Rodney Croome is co-author of a new book on marriage equality in Australia published by Pantera Press: on TT HERE
