As a basic rule, if businesses and organisations want to cripple themselves by not hiring the best talent, they shouldn’t have too.
Over the weekend the Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls, announced a compromise plan for his proposed amendments to the state’s Equal Opportunity Act.
Hulls’ plan is to scrap the exemptions that stop the government telling private organisations what they can do, with private money on private property.
Hulls’ original target was the exemptions that allowed private men’s clubs to exclude women members. He’s trotted out a predictable press release on the need to scrap the men’s clubs’ exemptions every slow news January since the Labor government was elected in 1999.
They’re an almost embarrassingly easy target — few people sympathise with the woes of Melbourne Club members. But in proposing to scrap all exemptions, Hulls angered more than those who enjoy exclusivity at the Paris end of Collins Street.
Currently religious organisations are allowed to freely discriminate against pagans, gays and lesbians and single mothers because they don’t conform to their faith.
And scrapping that opportunity has angered religious groups because of the prospect they’re going to be told Adam’s partner, Steve, should be allowed to teach Bible class.
So Hulls has compromised and allowed religions to discriminate against non-believers, gays and single mums, but has made sure they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, disabilities etc.
Understandably gay groups are furious. But in their outrage they’re missing a central point — religious people have rights too. And that includes freely practicing their religious faith.
And the rights of religious people aren’t being protected when they’re told who they can hire.
The biggest loser from discrimination isn’t the person who is discriminated against, it is the discriminator.
If Catholic schools are excluding the best talent from teaching their kids the biggest losers aren’t the potential employees — it’s the school for having weaker teachers, parents for paying for, and the children for receiving sub-standard education.
Few argue with the basic principle that we should have a society free of discrimination, but that is not what Hulls’ reforms will achieve.
If people really want to discriminate, they will. But in doing so they’ll sell themselves short, and should suffer the consequences.
Tim Wilson is Director of the IP and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Hang on, isn’t the taxpayer partly funding these schools? If faith schools want to cut themselves off from dealing with gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths, then surely they can’t expect a secular society to keep funding them with taxpayer’s money partly derived from those same gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths? Or will we now be eligible for a refund? And while we’re at it, could we dispense with the lie that religious instruction provides the pretense of a moral code? This simply proves what intolerance, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and patriarchal narcissism quite apart from weird beliefs in imaginary friends is encouraged in our faith schools. Julia Gillard could include these wonderful qualities in her school signs so parents will know how their kids will turn out.
Well said Michael Harvey!!!! I read this article, scrolled down to pen a response and found that it had already been said!
Are you intending to communicate with us, or is this some sort of test?
“As a basic rule, if businesses and organisations want to cripple themselves by not hiring the best talent, they shouldn’t have too.”
Good lord. What does this sentence mean? If they want to cripple themselves…they shouldn’t have to. Huh? And surely anyone who can sign themselves ‘Director’ knows the difference between ‘too’ and ‘to’?
OK, so there are only three subbies left in Australia and Crikey is a seat-of-its-pants, get-the-dirt-on-the-cheap outfit. Let the articles gradually descend into incomprehensible gibberish if you must, but can we at least expect basic literacy in the first line?
Having no religion I don’t care much about upsetting anti-gay or other prejudices just because they are supported by someone’s religion. However, I wish people like Michael Harvey wouldn’t fall for the prevalent failure to distinguish between schools and families when it comes to financinig of schools. His is the same fallacy which would have us believe there are “wealthy schools” as if there were any – or, at any rate, more than one or two in Australia – schools with serious endowments like major American private schools (and don’t forget that swimming pools cost a lot in maintenance – they are more liabilities than assets for a school).
So, consider the reality that some subsidies are paid which prevents parents who choose religious or other private schools instead of the state system not to be too disadvantaged financially by that choice. I wonder where Michael Harvey’s reasoning could lead. Perhaps, because the taxpayer supports old age pensioners and other recipients of social welfare they can reasonably be held to some high standards that we might like our benevolent and wise government to impose (albeit through highly imperfect human instruments). If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?
If faith schools want to cut themselves off from dealing with gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths, then surely they can’t expect a secular society to keep funding them with taxpayer’s money partly derived from those same gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths?
Michael I agree with this statement.
Julius- His is the same fallacy which would have us believe there are “wealthy schools” as if there were any – or, at any rate, more than one or two in Australia – schools with serious endowments like major American private schools (and don’t forget that swimming pools cost a lot in maintenance – they are more liabilities than assets for a school).
Julius, I believe you are arguing apples and oranges. The rich schools are to be compared with the poor public schools that receive the same funding not American institutions.
“So, consider the reality that some subsidies are paid which prevents parents who choose religious or other private schools instead of the state system not to be too disadvantaged financially by that choice.”
This sounds like middle class welfare as wouldn’t everybody choose to send their kids to these rich schools if they could? The choice is affected by means, if you dont have them then bad luck.
“If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?”
No, we get to elect a government to administer the taxes we pay. If we don’t like it we elect somebody else. I personally despise the private health insurance rebate, but as my fellow Australians elected somebody who has this as their policy then I have to accept it, just as you do.
What happens if an employer was to say I dont want to hire you because you take too much paternity leave due to your religious faith preventing you from using contraceptive? Would this be ok?
As for these old codgers.
We hopefully all get old one day.