A quick survey of public responses to the package of religious discrimination bills (there is actually three) has been organised by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. You can access their survey here.

The survey takes about five minutes to fill out – quicker if you state your opinion without giving reasons. It canvasses your view on whether statements of religious beliefs should be legal when they are not malicious and do not vilify other persons or groups, and whether religious schools, aged care and hospitals should be free to prefer hiring staff of a particular faith.

The survey closes on December 21 at 5 pm.

The Joint Committee’s call for formal submissions – with the same closing date can be found here.You can also upload submissions on that page. Their guidelines urge that submissions strictly address the bills. It will publish submissions from organisations and academics, with samples only of form letters.

The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is also holding an inquiry. Their deadline is January 7. You can upload submissions here.

A quick-of-the-mark but quite lengthy submission has been sent in by legal academic Alex Deagon which he has made available here.

A strong supporter of the bills Deagon gives his view on one of the contentious sections of the bill: the hiring practices of schools. “Sections 7-11 of the Religious Discrimination Bill enable religious bodies, including religious educational institutions, to give preference to persons who adhere to the religious belief and activity of the body for employment purposes. This will override the recently passed amendments to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act, which prevent religious schools from preferencing staff in accordance with a religious ethos. However, it will not override state or Commonwealth discrimination laws relating to sex, sexual orientation or other protected attributes. It deals with religious discrimination only. The media has reported rumours of a deal to remove the Section 38 religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act in exchange for passing the Bill. To the extent such rumours are accurate, and within the scope of the Committee’s terms of reference, this would be misconceived. Previous parliamentary committees considered such a move and rejected it, recommending the issue be considered in depth by the Australian Law Reform Commission. This is still the best approach as religious discrimination, and religious exemptions to sex discrimination are conceptually and legally separate.”

Freedom for Faith, a legal think tank promoting religious freedom and Mark Sneddon of the Institute for Civil Society – once agains supporters of the bills – have complied a booklet addressing key ojections.

Here’s a summary of the ojections and their answers.

“They’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist.” Peter van Onselen and many others claiming that the Ruddock Review said Australia did not have a religious discrimination problem.