Opponents of gay conversion practices may need to be careful about criticising its promoters under new anti-discrimination laws passed in New South Wales parliament on Thursday, legal experts have said.
The Minns government’s religious vilification bill, with backing from the opposition, amended the existing Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to vilify people or organisations on the grounds of their religion.
Alastair Lawrie, an expert in anti-discrimination law at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said he supported, in principle, reforms that protected people from vilification for their religious expression or affiliation.
But he said ahead of the bill being passed changes were broader than religious vilification laws enacted in other state and territories, leaving the door open to restrictions to freedom of speech.
“It would be disappointing if this bill passes in its current form,” he said.
Lawrie said this could see people or organisations who engage in gay conversion practices bring forward complaints of vilification if criticised for engaging in the activity.
The Minns government, with backing from the opposition, has vowed to ban gay conversion practices.
But Lawrie said religious people or groups who continued to engage in the activity after it was banned would still be protected from vilification under the laws, given it protects criticisms against unlawful religious practices.
Prof Simon Rice, a University of Sydney expert in anti-discrimination law, said the bill would not restrict people from advocating against the practice, but it draws the line at anything said or done that risks “engendering hatred towards promoters of gay therapy”.
“They’d have to be careful about what they said so that they didn’t incite hatred against that religious view, but they’re certainly still free to attack the [practice],” he said.
Labor promised to introduce the religious vilification bill in the lead-up to the election. But given the government recently referred the act for review under the NSW Law Reform Commission, Rice said the government should have waited to introduce the religious vilification laws until that review was complete.
“We’ve got an [anti-discrimination] act which is almost unworkable. It’s so old and dated and cobbled together,” he said. “And then we go and add another little bit to it at the same time that we’re acknowledging that it’s a problem and we’re going to review it, I just think that’s bad policy.”
Dr Haroon Kasim, of the Coalition Against Caste Discrimination, had also written to the NSW attorney general, Michael Daley, ahead of the bill passing calling for more protections for people who experience discrimination on the basis of their caste.
As migration from south Asia rises, Kasim said the communities were experiencing escalating discrimination on the basis of their caste – a hierarchical system assigned at birth that determines occupations and social status.
“It affects every part of a person’s life,” he said. “People of the so-called ‘lower caste’ are refused houses and jobs because of that status.”
Kasim said people deemed to be from “lower” castes who speak out about caste discrimination were often harassed by others deemed part of the “higher” caste groups. He was concerned the new laws would give licence to religious groups to accuse those who speak up about caste discrimination of religious vilification.
“We just want to be seen and heard,” he said.
An amendment to the bill proposed by the Greens spokesperson for anti-discrimination, Jenny Leong, that would have excluded protections for unlawful activity and organisations was rejected by the lower house on Thursday.
Leong said the government should prioritise holistic reforms to the bill rather than “putting protections first”.
“At a time when there has been a disturbing increase in anti-trans and anti-LGBTQIA+ aggression online and on the streets, what message does this send to the LGBTQIA+ community?,” she said.
The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Josh Pallas, said the group also opposed the new laws.
“We want an Anti-Discrimination Act that does not discriminate,” he said. “To move on one part without moving on other glaring deficiencies sends a bad message to the community about whose rights and interests are privileged over others.”
