By Terence Mills

Voting is compulsory in Australia, right? Well, not quite. If you believe that it is your religious duty not to vote then you don’t have to. It’s one of the many privileges granted to those of a religious persuasion but if you or I decide not to vote because we conscientiously believe that those being put forward for election are a group of mongrel twits, we get fined twenty-dollars and the High Court will so find. Well not so quick, an enterprising man in New South Wales, who I have never met but with whom I have a great feeling of empathy, had a close look at the Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 245 (14) where it says:

Without limiting the circumstances that may constitute a valid and sufficient reason for not voting, the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for the failure of the elector to vote.

In an exercise is in logic reminiscent of the Life of Brian a magistrate in NSW has determined that:

Person: I think it was ‘Blessed are the cheesemakers.’

Woman: What’s so special about the cheesemakers?

Man: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

No, sorry that actually was Life of Brian but it will serve to illustrate the point, to which I will return. What actually happened was that the man has won a legal battle in a New South Wales court after being prosecuted for failing to vote in the 2016 federal election, saying that voting would have left him feeling “morally corrupt”. A powerful argument when you look at the quality of the candidates on offer in New South Wales at the last election. The man admitted that he didn’t vote in the July 2016 election but pleaded not guilty to failing to vote without valid and sufficient reason.

Relying on section 245 of the Electoral Act the self-described agnostic said he believed in “freedom” an ideology that forms the basis of his view of life and his moral framework. The magistrate said fair enough and dismissed the case against him, finding that the man had provided evidence of a valid and sufficient reason not to vote.

Now, this judgement has a massive potential impact on the enquiry that Philip Ruddock is chairing into Protections for Religions and Religious Beliefs. How so? Well it demonstrates the fact that a conscientious belief or an ideology such as “freedom” or agnostic or atheistic beliefs need to be protected equally as much as other beliefs provided that they are conscientiously held. So, as we know, in the national census  a large number of people said that their religious belief system centred around Jedi Knights a belief closely aligned with Scientology but without Tom Cruise. An even bigger group said “none of the above” clearly indicating a more intellectually based belief system not relying on symbolism, funny hats, silly walks or omnipotent beings.

So, returning to the Life of Brian analogy, when the act says if an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting, it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any belief system that is conscientiously held, and if you feel that voting for the candidates on offer will leave you feeling morally corrupt then you have every reason to abstain.

I have no doubt that Philip Ruddock will take this into account and extend such protections to all of us.

I rest my case!

In case you’re not up to date on the eligibility of our elected members to sit in our parliament due to section 44 constitutional doubts on their dual citizenship, I’ll try and bring you up to date.

The timetable agreed at Labor’s insistence was for all parliamentarians to provide their citizenship details by Friday 1 December. So they all have to submit documentary evidence confirming that they are not dual citizens by Friday and they will start being considered during the parliamentary sitting week commencing Monday 4 December, which happens to be the same week that the House of Representatives will consider the Marriage Equality Bill now that it has passed the Senate; it may also be the final sitting week after the scheduled sitting week for the House of Representatives which had been due on 27 November was cancelled.

You may recall that the cancellation of the sitting week of 27 November was to avoid the numbers going against the government on a private members Bill to hold a Royal Commission into banks and financial institutions – that didn’t work out so well, did it?

I’m anticipating some high-jinks next week as elected members start giving excuses about why they haven’t done their homework ranging from the usual ‘the dog ate it’ to ‘it’s Shanghai Sam’s fault’ [as it seems is everything else at this point in time]. Incidentally, I understand that a letter from your Mum stating that you are dinky-die will not be acceptable, neither will proof of membership of the Argonauts Club but it’s getting close.

Pauline Hanson has been unusually proactive and forthright in getting her paperwork sorted out with the UK Visas & Immigration people in England and I have no doubt that she will be demanding that her fellow parliamentarians do likewise and for once, I agree with her. However, having seen Murphy’s law in action in Canberra before I think you will find that quite a few of our elected elite will fail to meet the deadline or will submit old bus tickets and such like hoping nobody notices.

This is Pauline’s evidence and I will be watching closely next week to seek similar evidence published as it comes to hand but I have a feeling that there will be attempts to obfuscate and despite what Christopher Pyne said, it is unlikely that it will suit the government to extend the parliamentary year to include the week of 11 December.

Marriage equality campaigners have shown patience, goodwill and perseverance and whilst the first skirmish has been won the parliamentary battle remains; this offering is a look at the lighter side of some of the silliness.

Kevin Andrews MP want to introduce changes to the Marriage Act that will allow businesses to discriminate on who they serve based not only on whether they are gay or not – he accepts that discrimination based purely on sexuality would be unlawful – but he insists that trades people should be given the right based on a conscientious belief reasonably held to discriminate against people who are LGBTQI and who may use the product in question at or in association with a gay type marriage or wedding.

Confusing, isn’t it? But Kevin is preparing a video that will clear things up once and for all: the scene is a bakery in Kevin’s electorate of Menzies. The Man is played by Matt Canavan; the Baker by Scott Morrison and Eric by Christopher Pyne.

A man enters the bakery and inspects the display of cakes, buns etc. He is approached by the baker:

Baker: Can I help you?

Man: A pie floater with Worcestershire sauce please.

Baker: (looks customer up and down) You wouldn’t be of a Gay persuasion, would you?

Man: What’s that got to do with purchasing a pie floater with Worcestershire sauce. Are you seeking to discriminate against me and my choice of sustenance?

Baker: No, it’s just that if you were of a Gay persuasion and if the pie, should I elect to supply it, were to be taken to or in any way participate either actively or passively in a marriage type service involving two persons of a corresponding gender, then I would not be able to serve you based on my conscientious beliefs which are genuinely held that my pies should not be in attendance at any such gathering or function.

Man: I believe that my rights to personal privacy do not require me to divulge to you any information on my gender identity or persuasion. Apart from which, what makes you think that I am Gay anyhow and that I may be attending a gay wedding?

Baker: People who come in here don’t usually say Worcestershire sauce, they say Brown sauce and I noticed that your hair is dyed magenta red and that you are clutching a man-purse. This, according to the legislation allows me to form a reasonable belief that you may be of a gay persuasion. I also noted that you are wearing a carnation in the lapel of your puce jacket which leads me to believe on reasonable grounds that you may be attending or participating in a Gay marriage ceremony and in accordance with the prevailing laws I can decline to serve you a pie-floater with or without Worcestershire sauce: so, on your bike, sunshine.

Man: Well, Sherlock, you’re off base on that one because I’m actually a One Nation supporter and this is how we get about and my hair colour reflects my love of our dear leader. As a dual citizen born in Britain, I choose to call the sauce of my choice Worcestershire and not Brown.

Baker: I’m still not convinced, and I seem to detect a lisp in your pronunciation or Worcestershire and that according to my conscientiously held and well-founded belief gives me the right to deny you service. However, in the interests of fairness I’ll call my assistant Eric for his opinion: (calls out) Oh Eric are you free?

Eric: Yes, poppet, coming.

Baker: Eric, I have reasonable and a well based conscientious belief that this customer who wishes to purchase a pie-floater with Worcestershire sauce may be of a Gay persuasion and may be taking said pie-floater to a marriage celebration of two persons of a corresponding gender: I need your advice.

Eric: Get him to walk around a bit, it’s a dead giveaway.

Man walks around the shop.

Baker: I detect a certain mincing gait that gives me reason to believe on a conscientious basis that this customer is of a gay persuasion and I can rightfully deny service, what do you think, Eric?

Eric: Ooh, nice bum!

Man takes a close look at the baker and Eric the assistant.

Man: Based on a well-founded and reasonable belief and in accordance with the Consumer Protection (Cakes, Buns, Pies and other Confectionary) Act 2017 I consider that these are premises with a gay and/or LGBQTI inclination and accordingly on a conscientious basis I hereby withdraw my order for a pie floater with Worcestershire sauce.

It can’t get any worse, folks!

All this talk about changing the date of Australia Day, tearing down statues and rewriting our history seems to be missing the broader story of the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, a momentous feat of seamanship and navigation by any standards, bringing eleven wooden sailing ships half way around the world without the loss of a single vessel.

Even by comparison with the major voyages of exploration, the achievement of Arthur Phillip was commendable for that era.

By contrast, Columbus in 1492 was only at sea for a little over two months in his first voyage of exploration, leaving Spain on 3 August 1492 and sighting land – San Salvador in the Bahamas initially – on 12 October.

Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe was an immense undertaking for the 16th century, leaving Spain on 20 September 1519 with five ships and 270 men but the losses were enormous, including the death of Magellan in the Philippines. Just one ship, the Victoria, under the command of Juan Sebastián Elcano and a crew of 18 men, returned to Spain on 6 September 1522.

The epic Mayflower voyage was a snip in 1620 with the Mayflower departing Plymouth, England, on 6 September 1620 and arriving at Cape Cod on 9 November 1620, after a 66 day voyage.

Arthur Phillip’s voyage, with eleven vessels, left England on 13 May 1787 sailed southwest to Rio de Janeiro, then east to Cape Town and via the Great Southern Ocean to Botany Bay, arriving over the period of 18 to 20 January 1788, taking 250 to 252 days from departure to final arrival. Comprising two Royal Navy vessels, three store ships and six convict transports, carrying between 1,000 and 1,500 convicts, marines, seamen, civil officers and free settlers and a vast quantity of stores this epic voyage was a triumph and whilst precise numbers differ reports indicate the fleet comprised:

There is no doubt that European exploration and settlement of the new world had instant and long term detrimental and devatating impacts on native peoples, particularly in the Americas but no less in Australia and the Pacific region and we can’t change that.

But is this a reason to completely dismiss the historic significance and our national commemoration of the arrival of the first fleet? Establishing an outpost in the Pacific had become a priority for the British in an era when colonial expansion had become a frantic race of acquisition and had the British not settled Australia there is little doubt that the French would have.

Australia Day in the modern era should represent a celebration of the achievements of all Australians, migrant settlers and the First Australians. Whether this recognition takes place on 26 January or another date is beside the point. We should not allow the achievements of Arthur Phillip and the first European settlers and convicts to pass without recognition: to do so would not only be disrespecting their memory but also a denial of our recent history.

It’s started: the religious communities are letting us know that if we do approve same-sex marriage in the government’s postal survey, there will be repercussions and penalties to be paid and they will not hold back.

Over the weekend Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne fired the first salvo and let it be known in no uncertain terms that the Catholic church will dismiss from church-owned institutions teachers, nurses and other employees who marry their same-sex partner.

Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, warned the church’s 180,000 employees they were expected to uphold its teachings “totally”, and defiance would be treated “very seriously”.

Archbishop Hart, who also chairs the powerful Australian Catholic Bishops Conference was backed up by Archbishop Timothy Costelloe (not to be confused with Tim Costello AO is an Australian Baptist minister and the current Chief Advocate of World Vision Australia), chair of the Bishops Commission for Catholic Education, who cautioned teachers against “undermining” their schools’ values if same-sex marriage became law.

So here we have a situation where Catholic institutions, particularly schools who are funded largely by taxpayers, are calling the shots and not only will they not support marriage equality, they will actively discriminate in their employment practices against same-sex couples who marry.

Taking the state of Victoria where Archbishop Hart holds sway, the bulk of funding for the Catholic system comes from the public purse. For example, the Catholic Education Commission Victoria (CECV) reported that in 2015 it received:

• $440 million recurrent and $9.2 million targeted state government funding
• $1.6 billion recurrent and $7.5 million targeted federal government funding
• $96 million in school levies and almost $11 million from bank deposit interest and other income streams.

The pattern is similar in other states. So, were it not for taxpayer funding, many of these institutions would probably not exist and yet they see themselves as having a role in not only influencing but dictating policy over a matter that has no direct religious implications: neither churches nor ministers or religious celebrants will be required to conduct wedding ceremonies or to sanctify same-sex marriages under the changes to the Marriage Act likely to be introduced. But that introduces yet another problem with this postal opinion poll – we have not yet seen the proposed legislative changes that will, should the in principle argument get up, form the amended legislation – but we are asking the people of Australia to vote on something that will be constituted in legislation but we cannot see the foreshadowed legislation, because it doesn’t exist!

The churches already enjoy considerable freedom to discriminate in a range of ways. This includes discrimination against a person on the basis of their sexuality in relation to the employment of teaching staff, and the provision of education and training. The main religious exemptions to anti-discrimination law are set out in Sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act. This is provided that the discrimination is in:

… good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

Religious organisations, the Catholic church in particular adhere to these legislative exemptions and cherish the ability to discriminate. They see the possibility of changes to the Marriage Act as being the thin edge of the wedge which may ultimately diminish their ability to discriminate.

This Abbott inspired plebiscite, which has now morphed into an expensive, non-binding, voluntary postal ballot, is being engineered to create division and promote misinformation within our society and if the High Court gives it the go-ahead you can expect that to be considered as an official sanction to what will become an ugly and hate filled campaign from the religious extreme right.

Let’s just hope that our High Court sees through this sham plebiscite and its funding manipulations and calls upon the parliament to do the job that it is paid to do.