web analytics
≡ Menu

 Turnbull: the spectre of a ghost past

09.10.19. Recall those famous words, “Lucy and I will be voting for same sex marriage!” And so it came to be as his handler jerked the Waffler’s chain and together they chanted far and wide—cloying sermons from the hymn book of the Qantas queer extolling the virtues of homosexual union.
Using the deception of his republic thrust which failed, ‘vote yes and we’ll work out the details later’ did work for SSM. Now the legal mess over religious freedom becomes just one more Turnbull legacy. Why has this liability not been expelled from the Liberal Party?
Attorney-General Christian Porter is facing a growing backlash against the gov­ernment’s proposed religious freedom bills, as the business ­sector says the laws could increase conflict and disharmony in Aus­tralian workplaces and impose a regulatory burden on ­organisations. With the deadline for submissions on the draft bills closed, the Australian Industry Group and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have made public their lists of concerns ahead of a parliamentary vote on a religious discrimination bill as early as this year.Source: 
Rosie Lewis and Geoff Chambers, News Corp

Firms in religious freedom warning

Both peak industry groups fear the definition of “religious belief or activity” in the proposed bill is too broad and could be problematic for employers, resulting in “unnecessary conflict and controversy in workplaces”.
In a rare unity ticket, the union movement also opposed the draft religious discrimination bill, with the ACTU’s submission cautioning that it privileged the rights of religious organisations over workers’ rights to be treated fairly and equally.
Union opposition will put pressure on Labor to vote down the laws in federal parliament.
AiGroup, which represents more than 60,000 small, medium and large businesses, said in its submission it could not support the bills in their current form.
“The bills have the potential to increase conflict in Australian workplaces,” its submission states. “The bills need to be amended to ensure that they are not at odds with the maintenance of harmonious workplace relations and co-operative Australian workplaces.
“The concept of a ‘religious belief’ is not defined in the bills and is very broad and uncertain. Further, a person’s religious beliefs can be much less tangible than a person’s sex, age, race or disability that feature in federal anti-discrimination legis­­lation.
“The bill’s restrictions on businesses, in seeking to protect religious and non-religious beliefs and activities, are unreasonable. Businesses need to be able to maintain appropriate standards of conduct in workplaces.”
Representing more than 300,000 businesses, ACCI’s submission said employers would have to rely on the High Court’s definition of religion, which would prove challenging for businesses and legal advisers.
“For example, the High Court’s definition of ‘religion’ ­appears to not capture an indigenous employee’s activities in respect of indigenous spirituality, which has existed for thousands of years but could nonetheless capture another employee’s activities in respect of an esoteric or emerging religion, the bona fides of which are yet to be established,” its submission says.
The ACCI suggested an expansion of the definition to clarify what religious activities and beliefs were protected.
The business groups also lashed the so-called “Folau clause”, which prevents companies with annual turnovers of at least $50m from sacking employees for sharing controversial religious views outside work hours unless they were able to prove the sacking was necessary to avoid undesirable financial hardship.
AiGroup said the section was “prima facie unreasonable” while ACCI was critical that the public service — whose agencies often compete with the private sector — was excluded.
“In cases such as Australia Post, where a government corporation is almost entirely operating in fully competitive markets for profit, it seems extremely difficult to ­establish a need for the public to have faith in the impartiality of Australia Post employees as a justifi­cation for why Australia Post should receive a market advantage over other private sector busi­nesses performing the exact same service,” the ACCI submission states.
Its submission also called for federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws to be “harmonised” to reduce the regulatory burden on business, drive greater efficiencies and improve productivity outcomes by minimising compliance costs for individuals and companies.
The ACTU’s submission said there was “no need for these complex and confusing new laws … New federal protection against discrimination for workers and other individuals on the grounds of religion could be achieved by a simple amendment to an existing discrimination act.
“The RDB goes too far, allowing corporations to override the rights of others.”

{ 9 comments… add one }
  • luk1955 09/10/2019, 6:54 am

    This bill has only 1 goal, that of getting the government only more involved in something that is none of its business, and the new laws only apply to the general public, not the bureaucraps who run roughshod over our rights to determine who we associate with. That is why they import 3rd world savage barbarians death cult ideologists, to create conflict that benefits the military, industrial and security complexes. Another attempt to remove our civil liberties.

    • Maryanne 09/10/2019, 8:49 am

      Agreed, it’s all about control over people’s lives. This country prospered when people simply negotiated with one another. If a business wants to employ a young blonde bimbo on the front desk why can’t he? Why does he have to waste time and money checking that he hasn’t discriminated against blacks, old boilers of any race, men. He’s paying the wage. What business is it of government?

  • DT 09/10/2019, 8:19 am

    We discussed the problem with Barnaby, about his three trial separations and irreconcilable differences when everybody in Parliament House knew the marriage was over, and that he had become involved with a senior staffer.

    And then his Section 44 exposure relating to a possible birthright to New Zealand citizenship. His first inclination was to resign and face the High Court immediately but we, being lawyers, suggested that he not do so, and wait and see where the allegation headed.

    However when resignation was inevitable we turned against him, I even placed a ban on bonking . He had to be cast out. To our amazement he was cleared, and when he faced a by election and won his seat back I was there to celebrate and show solidarity.

    And we were guests on a Channel 9 programme where I confirmed that I Love Lucy.

    • Lorraine 09/10/2019, 8:41 am

      such loyalty

    • ibbit 09/10/2019, 9:11 am

      Lorraine is kind – my thoughts are, what a mongrel. He should be whipped like the cur (sorry no dog is that bad) he is and muzzled in public.

  • Penguinite 09/10/2019, 9:38 am

    When this article was published in The Australian , yesterday, it attracted more than 1000 comments of which 99% were negative towards Mephistophelian Mal. He dudded us over SSM for sure! However, 18c is the problem! Remove that problem solved and people can, once again go about their business in freedom. Israel Palau could play rugby again. George Brandis was right when he erred, very briefly, defended the ‘right to be a bigot’ amid Government plan to amend Racial Discrimination Act.

    • DT 09/10/2019, 9:55 am

      Indeed, remembering that Opposition Leader Abbott who does not support SSM offered a plebiscite run by the AEC with votes cast at polling booths.

      Mansion’s timeline of history explains his SSM agenda dating back a very long time ago. And he decided on a postal ballot instead.

      It should be remembered that only 80% of voters participated in the postal ballot. Slightly more than 50% who did indicated YES.

      Therefore, effectively, less than 50% of voters supported SSM. And no doubt most of the 20% who did not bother to return the postal ballot were not interested in it.

      Beware of the next Republican Movement push, Opposition Leader Shorten hinted that a postal ballot asking for interest in a republic would be conducted before a referendum was held.

      The globalist socialists really want permission to rewrite the Australian Constitution to suit their purposes, and remove the parts that get in their way.

    • Aktosplatz 09/10/2019, 3:08 pm

      I understand there is a Tribute Gathering for Tony Abbott from the Liberal Party with about 800 tickets sold.

      I also understand Turnbull’s Tribute gathering has enough to sit around a dinner table. Makes perfect sense.

  • Graham Richards 10/10/2019, 9:08 am

    Here comes another beauracracy to burden the tax payer. How many hundreds of $$millions will this cost, in persuit of division.
    Will us atheists be protected as well??
    Every time a new regulation comes along we are opening the doors to more arguments, court cases, useless bickering in Parliament, more unhappy religious nuts, more division in the communities.
    Maybe we could create a minister for religion as well. If we’re to screw anything up we may as well do it properly!!!

Leave a Comment