In the face of mounting evidence that Meta Platforms Inc (formerly Facebook Inc) is a bad actor on the global social media stage, it remains a puzzle as to why so many well-intentioned community groups still use the Facebook platform

 

Amnesty International, What’s New, 28 September 2022:

MYANMAR: FACEBOOK’S SYSTEMS PROMOTED VIOLENCE AGAINST ROHINGYA – META OWES REPARATIONS

Facebook owner Meta’s dangerous algorithms and reckless pursuit of profit substantially contributed to the

atrocities perpetrated by the Myanmar military against the Rohingya people in 2017, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.

The Social Atrocity: Meta and the right to remedy for the Rohingya, details how Meta knew or should have known that Facebook’s algorithmic systems were supercharging the spread of harmful anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, but the company still failed to act.

“In 2017, the Rohingya were killed, tortured, raped, and displaced in the thousands as part of the Myanmar security forces’ campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the months and years leading up to the atrocities, Facebook’s algorithms were intensifying a storm of hatred against the Rohingya which contributed to real-world violence,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

“While the Myanmar military was committing crimes against humanity against the Rohingya, Meta was profiting from the echo chamber of hatred created by its hate-spiralling algorithms.

AGNÈS CALLAMARD, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S SECRETARY GENERAL

“Meta must be held to account. The company now has a responsibility to provide reparations to all those who suffered the violent consequences of their reckless actions.”

Sawyeddollah, a 21-year-old Rohingya refugee, told Amnesty International: “I saw a lot of horrible things on Facebook. And I just thought that the people who posted that were bad… Then I realized that it is not only these people – the posters – but Facebook is also responsible. Facebook is helping them by not taking care of their platform.”

The Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority based in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State. In August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya fled Rakhine when the Myanmar security forces launched a targeted campaign of widespread and systematic murder, rape and burning of homes. The violence followed decades of state-sponsored discrimination, persecution, and oppression against the Rohingya that amounts to apartheid.

An anti-Rohingya echo chamber

Meta uses engagement-based algorithmic systems to power Facebook’s news feed, ranking, recommendation and groups features, shaping what is seen on the platform. Meta profits when Facebook users stay on the platform as long as possible, by selling more targeted advertising. The display of inflammatory content – including that which advocates hatred, constituting incitement to violence, hostility and discrimination – is an effective way of keeping people on the platform longer. As such, the promotion and amplification of this type of content is key to the surveillance-based business model of Facebook.

In the months and years prior to the crackdown, Facebook in Myanmar had become an echo chamber of anti-Rohingya content. Actors linked to the Myanmar military and radical Buddhist nationalist groups flooded the platform with anti-Muslim content, posting disinformation claiming there was going to be an impending Muslim takeover, and portraying the Rohingya as “invaders”.

In one post that was shared more than 1,000 times, a Muslim human rights defender was pictured and described as a “national traitor”. The comments left on the post included threatening and racist messages, including ‘He is a Muslim. Muslims are dogs and need to be shot’, and ‘Don’t leave him alive. Remove his whole race. Time is ticking’.

Content inciting violence and discrimination went to the very top of Myanmar’s military and civilian leadership. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of Myanmar’s military, posted on his Facebook page in 2017: “We openly declare that absolutely, our country has no Rohingya race.” He went on to seize power in a coup in February 2021.

In July 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that it has jurisdiction to proceed with a case against the Myanmar government under the Genocide Convention based on Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya. Amnesty International welcomes this vital step towards holding the Myanmar government to account and continues to call for senior members of the Myanmar military to be brought to justice for their role in crimes against the Rohingya.

In 2014, Meta attempted to support an anti-hate initiative known as ‘Panzagar’ or ‘flower speech’ by creating a sticker pack for Facebook users to post in response to content which advocated violence or discrimination. The stickers bore messages such as, ‘Think before you share’ and ‘Don’t be the cause of violence’.

However, activists soon noticed that the stickers were having unintended consequences. Facebook’s algorithms interpreted the use of these stickers as a sign that people were enjoying a post and began promoting them. Instead of diminishing the number of people who saw a post advocating hatred, the stickers actually made the posts more visible.

The UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar ultimately concluded that the “role of social media [was] significant” in the atrocities in a country where “Facebook is the Internet”.

Mohamed Showife, a Rohingya activist, said: “The Rohingya just dream of living in the same way as other people in this world… but you, Facebook, you destroyed our dream.”

Facebook’s failure to act

The report details how Meta repeatedly failed to conduct appropriate human rights due diligence on its operations in Myanmar, despite its responsibility under international standards to do so.

Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism.

Meta received repeated communications and visits by local civil society activists between 2012 and 2017 when the company was warned that it risked contributing to extreme violence. In 2014, the Myanmar authorities even temporarily blocked Facebook because of the platform’s role in triggering an outbreak of ethnic violence in Mandalay. However, Meta repeatedly failed to heed the warnings, and also consistently failed to enforce its own policies on hate speech.

Amnesty International’s investigation includes analysis of new evidence from the ‘Facebook Papers’ – a cache of internal documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen.

In one internal document dated August 2019, one Meta employee wrote: “We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech, and misinformation on Facebook… are affecting societies around the world. We also have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as virality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why these types of speech flourish on the platform.”

‘Meta must pay’

Amnesty International is today launching a new campaign calling for Meta Platforms, Inc. to meet the Rohingya’s demands for remediation.

Today marks the first anniversary of the murder of prominent activist Mohib Ullah, chair of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights. Mohib was at the forefront of community efforts to hold Meta accountable.

Rohingya refugee groups have made direct requests to Meta to provide remedy by funding a USD $1 million education project in the refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. The funding request represents just 0.002% of Meta’s profits of $46.7 billion from 2021. In February 2021, Meta rejected the Rohingya community’s request, stating: “Facebook doesn’t directly engage in philanthropic activities.”

Showkutara, a 22-year-old Rohingya woman and youth activist, told Amnesty International: “Facebook must pay. If they do not, we will go to every court in the world. We will never give up in our struggle.”

There are at least three active complaints seeking remediation for the Rohingya from Meta. Civil legal proceedings were filed against the company in December 2021 in both the United Kingdom and the USA. Rohingya refugee youth groups have also filed an OECD case against Meta which is currently under consideration by the US’ OECD National Contact Point.

“Meta has a responsibility under international human rights standards to remediate the terrible harm suffered by the Rohingya that they contributed to. The findings should raise the alarm that Meta risks contributing to further serious human rights abuses, unless it makes fundamental changes to its business model and algorithms,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Urgent, wide-ranging reforms to their algorithmic systems to prevent abuses and increase transparency are desperately needed to ensure that Meta’s history with the Rohingya does not repeat itself elsewhere in the world, especially where ethnic violence is simmering.”

“Ultimately, States must now help to protect human rights by introducing and enforcing effective legislation to rein in surveillance-based business models across the technology sector. Big Tech has proven itself incapable of doing so when it has such enormous profits at stake.”

On 20 May 2022, Amnesty International wrote to Meta regarding the company’s actions in relation to its business activities in Myanmar before and during the 2017 atrocities. Meta responded that it could not provide information concerning the period leading up to 2017 because the company is “currently engaged in litigation proceedings in relation to related matters”.

On 14 June 2022, Amnesty International again wrote to Meta regarding the relevant allegations contained in the report, and to give the company the opportunity to respond. Meta declined to comment.

BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices:

Friday, 12 May 2017

You're not on Facebook? Why not?!

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Turns out that Facebook Inc is the biggest baddie of all on the Internet

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

Almost right from its very beginning Facebook Inc was not the benign Internet presence it pretended to be

Australian Society 2022: Are Australia's frail aged ever going to receive the care, dignity and respect that is their right?

A dinner of chicken nuggets and chips at an aged care home
IMAGE: The Age, 1 March 2022] 

The federal government does not know how much of almost half-a-billion dollars it paid aged care providers to improve nutrition was spent on meals, as families report residents are still being served “disgusting” food. The $10 basic daily supplement was a key part of the government’s response to the Aged Care Royal Commission final report a year ago. It has so far handed over more than $460 million to about 2700 homes, without an effective system to ensure it is spent on food....The royal commission heard evidence that two-thirds of aged care residents were malnourished and recommended funding earmarked for food be lifted by $10 a day for each resident. [The Age, 1 March 2022]

Even though residential aged care has been increasing privatised for the last twenty-five years - until commercial delivery of residential aged care dominates what is now an industry - the Australian Government remains the primary funder and regulator of the aged care system. Thus it has many avenues to influence the quality of aged care.

The aged care sector has a troubled history and many older people fear being admitted to nursing homes once they become frail or chronically ill. There have been 18 inquiries and reviews of aged care in Australia since 1997.

The most recent investigation, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established on 8 October 2018 and The Honourable Tony Pagone QC and Ms Lynelle Briggs AO were appointed Royal Commissioners.

The Commissioners' eight volume Final Report titled “Care, Dignity and Respect” was handed down on 26 February 2021 and made 148 detailed recommendations.

In May 2021 the Morrison Government on paper accepted roughly half the recommendations and, rejected outright or offered up a workaround of the other half.

Thus far it appears that only 16 aspects of those 148 Royal Commission recommendations have been acted upon by federal government and, at least one in a way which might not have been expected by the Commissioners.

One of the recommendations which was not readily agreed to and is yet to be acted on is:

Recommendation 87: Employment status and related labour standards as enforceable standards.

1. By 1 January 2022, the Australian Government should require as an ongoing condition of holding an approval to provide aged care services that

a. approved providers: have policies and procedures that preference the direct employment of workers engaged to provide personal care and nursing services on their behalf

b. where personal care or nursing work is contracted to another entity, that entity has policies and procedures that preference direct employment of workers for work performed under that contract.

2. From 1 January 2022, quality reviews conducted by the Quality Regulator must include assessing compliance with those policies and procedures and record the extent of use of independent contractors.

Almost two months past the Royal Commission deadline to demonstrate an increase in direct employment of those providing personal care and nursing care to aged care facility residents, the Australian Treasurer & Liberal MP for Kooyong Josh Frydenberg announces that Productivity Commission would undertake a study of employment models in aged care, and the effects that policies and procedures to preference the direct employment of aged care workers would have on the sector.

Thus kicking ensuring provision of adequate personal and nursing care for aged care residents, further down the road and past the May 2022 federal general election.

One might suspect from the wording of the directive to the Productivity Commission, that Mr. Frydenberg is less concerned about how nursing home staff are employed and more concerned that corporate owners of nursing homes retain their ability to pay low wages to much of their workforce.

Australian Productivity Commission, retrieved 1 March 2022:

Aged Care Employment

Terms of reference

I, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, Treasurer, pursuant to Parts 2 and 4 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, hereby request that the Productivity Commission (the Commission) undertake a Study to examine:

• employment models in aged care, and the effects that policies and procedures to preference the direct employment of aged care workers would have on the sector.

Background

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the Royal Commission) was established on 8 October 2018 and the Final Report: Care, Dignity and Respect was released on 1 March 2021.

The Australian aged care system provides subsidised care and support to older people. It is a large and complex system that includes a range of programs and policies. In response to the Royal Commission there will be significant reform to the aged care system. These reforms will be underpinned by a new Aged Care Act, which is intended to commence from 1 July 2023, subject to parliamentary processes.

The Royal Commission noted a trend in recent years has been the increased use of ‘independent contractors’ in aged care.

The Royal Commission’s Final Report noted numerous submissions over the course of the Royal Commission inquiry had made the claim that quality care was more likely to be delivered by direct employees than by contractors. However, some stakeholders consider these subcontracting models deliver better consumer choice and flexibility, which is also desired by the sector.

Scope of the study

The Commission will undertake a study to examine employment models in aged care, and the effects that policies and procedures to preference the direct employment of aged care workers would have on the sector.

When examining these issues, the Commission should also consider recommendation 87, as well as submissions and evidence provided to, the Royal Commission.

In undertaking this Study, the Commission should:

• examine the extent of the aged care personal care and nursing workforce who are not directly employed by aged care providers

• taking into account the wide scope of duties within the aged care sector, ranging from low level care such as grocery shopping and gardening through to high level personal and medical care, examine how different employment arrangements might impact on:

• quality of care

• consumer choice

• job creation and availability of workforce

• employment conditions for the workforce

• worker preferences

• flexible and innovative models of care

• accountability of aged care providers for care delivered on their behalf

• costs of providing care

• viability of aged care providers

• explore any preconditions in personal care and nursing workforce supply that would be required prior to any potential policies and procedures to preference direct employment

• consider whether new policies and procedures would impact other care sectors, such as disability and childcare.

The Commission should support analysis with modelling using quantitative and qualitative data.

Process

The Commission should undertake broad consultation with consumers, the aged care workforce, unions and aged care providers.

The Commission could release a draft report in June 2022, and provide a final report to the Australian Government in September 2022.

The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP

Treasurer

[Received 23 February 2022]

And the tale of Rous County Council decision making under new pro-dam majority continues......

Echo, 21 February 2022: 

During last week’s Rous County Council (RCC) meeting, Cr Big Rob spoke of contact he had with Professor Stuart White regarding the proposed Dunoon Dam. 

 Professor White is the Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at UTS in Sydney where he leads a team of researchers who create change towards sustainable futures through independent, project-based research. 

 With over twenty years experience in sustainability research, Professor White’s work focuses on achieving sustainability outcomes at least cost for a range of government, industry and community clients across Australia and internationally. 

The Echo spoke to Professor White who made a late video submission to Rous that missed the deadline. A representative of Rous said it was too late to be screened in public access and was ‘forwarded to all Councillors on the morning of the Council meeting for their info’. The rep also mistakingly thought the video was a submission from the Northern Rivers Water Alliance who already had a space in Public Access. 

Rous County Council meeting 

During the meeting Cr Rob did not give Councillors all of the information he received from Professor White. 

At the meeting, Cr Rob said: ‘I circulated an email overnight relating to the experts that have been relied on – Professor Stuart White for example. You know, his position was the cost and when I made inquiries with Professor White, he finally agreed that yes, that dam should be considered. So if you take the cost out of it, then his position [is] all options on the table, the dam must be considered because that is one of the options.’ 

The Echo asked Professor White about his conversation with Cr Rob because Cr Rob’s comments seemed to be at odds with the information Professor White has been giving other interested parties. 

‘I have not spoken to Cr Big Rob,’ said Professor White. ‘I only had email correspondence. 

‘My position on the Dunoon Dam is clear and I’ve been public about it: it is too expensive, too risky, not useful for the purpose it is intended for, and not needed within the planning horizon. This is before considering the environmental and Aboriginal heritage risks.’ 

Time to rule out dam 

Professor White said that this does not mean the Dunoon Dam, or any supply option should not be considered and investigated alongside other options. ‘It is just that under any reasonable analysis it would be rejected. The proponents have already had a chance to make their case, at great public expense, and my view is that this case has not been made, so it is now reasonable to rule the Dunoon Dam option out.’ 

‘My understanding of the decision by Rous last year was to reject it primarily due to the Aboriginal heritage considerations, which are of course very important and remain very important.’ 

The Echo does not know if any Rous Councillors saw this submission before they voted 6 to 2 to put the dam back on the table.  [my yellow highlighting]

BACKGROUND

NORTH COAST VOICES, FRIDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2022 

Rous County Council and that Dunoon Dam proposal now risen from the dead

Rous County Council and that Dunoon Dam proposal now risen from the dead

 

In 2014 Rous County Council (RCC) adopted its Future Water Strategy which recommended detailed investigations to assess the suitability of increased use of groundwater as a new water source, and if groundwater was not suitable, investigate complementary options such as water reuse and desalination.

After completion of this investigation Rous produced the original Future Water Project 2060 which did not prioritise groundwater use, reuse of already available water or building a desalination plant/s.

Instead it chose another option – the 50 gigalitre Dunoon Dam, with the concept design indicating an initial capital cost of approx. $220 million.

“In considering options for the future, Rous County Council conducted extensive assessments to weigh up environment, social and economic impacts. The result of these assessments indicate the Dunoon Dam is the preferred long-term water supply option when compared to demand management and water conservation, groundwater sources and water re-use”.

It is worth noting that the proposed Dunoon Dam would be the second dam on Rocky Creek thus further fragmenting this watercourse. The first water storage is Rocky Creek Dam which will continue to operate if the Dunoon Dam was built. Rocky Creek Dam does not have an outlet structure so it does not provide releases for downstream flows. [NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020]

By 2020 this incredibly flawed second dam plan still relied on the widely discredited ‘offset’ scheme as a workaround for the widespread level of environmental destruction, significant biodiversity & species local population loss and, for the drowning of land sacred to the Widjabul Wia-bal People and the desecration of highly significant cultural sites.

Rous authorized preliminary investigation of the Dunoon Dam project in mid-2020 allocating a $100,000 operating budget.

However, the Widjabul Wia-bal, local residents in Lismore Shire and many people in the three other shires within Rous County Council (Byron, Ballina & Richmond Valley) remained concerned with Rous’ choice – the Future Water Project 2060 Public Exhibition Outcomes revealed that 90% of the 1,298 submissions received by 9 September 2020 expressed concerns about the Dunoon Dam proposal.

In March 2021 Rous was reconsidering its earlier Dunoon Dam decision and by 21 July it had voted 5 to 3 to remove the Dunoon Dam from its Future Water Project 2060. At that time a second public exhibition from 1 April to 24 May 2021, this time of the revised Future Water Project 2060, was put in place which resulted in an RCC digital file of supporting submissions 1,754 pages long and confirmed that voiced public opinion was still against building the Dunoon Dam.

By 16 December 2021 Rous County Council had authorised “the General Manager to cease all work on the Dunoon Dam and provide a report on the orderly exit from Dunoon Dam as an option in the future water project, including revocation of zoning entitlements and disposal of land held for the purpose of the proposed Dunoon Dam”.

There the matter should have rested, but after the December 2021 local government elections there was a changing of the guard at Rous Water and six of the eight current sitting RCC councillors are pro-dam.

This led to the unedifying sight on 16 February 2022, of Rous County Council by a vote of 6 to 2 vote reinserting the Dunoon Dam proposal into the revised Future Water Project 2060. No genuine forewarning of what that first RCC meeting of 2022 would contain, no prior consultation with Widjabul Wia-ba elders on the Item 12.1 motion, no community consultation.

The community scrambled to respond. So on the day RCC did hear objections to Item 12.1 from Hugh Nicholson, a previous Chair of Rous Country Council and Friends of the Koala representative Ros Irwin.

A young Widjabul Wia-ba woman, Skye Roberts, addressed the councillors as a “custodian” of the land. She spoke with conviction, determination and, clearly informed all present that: the proposed dam was sited within the large tract of land between three ancient mountains and that land was “sacred land” to all the Widjabul Wia-ba; this included Channon Gorge, the waters that ran through it and the wider dam site; the stone burial mounds which would be submerged by dam waters were part of the circle of cultural connection between land and people; men’s places & women’s places were on land to be flooded; and that land connects to living culture.

The message she carried for her grandmother and mother fell on predominately deaf ears and it was ‘ugly Australia’ which voted the dam back into future planning on that Wednesday in February.

Rous County Council already has before it the Ainsworth Heritage “Dunoon Dam: Preliminary Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for Rous Water, May 2013” which can be read in digital form or downloaded from:

https://issuu.com/jwtpublishing/docs/ainsworth-heritage-preliminary-cultural-heritage-i.

It also has before it the SMEC “Dunoon Dam Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment, Prepared for Rous Water November 2011”. An assessment of which can be found at:

https://waternorthernrivers.org/ecological-impact/

For a brief summary of some of the technical flaws in the Dunoon Dam preliminary investigation:

Dunoon Dam: 4 Risks & Considerations by Water Expert Professor Stuart White - Feb 2022

 

Scene: Australian House of Representatives On a Busy Working Day in February 2022. Enter Stage Right: the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 looking back over its shoulder

On 22 November 2017, then Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Wentworth Malcolm Bligh Turnbull announced a review into religious freedom in Australia.

The review was in response to pushback by religious institutions & conservative persons of faith once it became clear that the nation would be considering separating gender from the definition of legal marriage¹ and, the possibility that the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 would be amended to reflect this.

The Religious Freedom Review was conducted by an Expert Panel, chaired by former Liberal MP for Philip Ruddock, and was comprised of Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, Dr Annabelle Bennett AC SC, Father Frank Brennan SJ AO and Professor Nicholas Aroney.

The Report of the Expert Panel was presented to the Prime Minister on 18 May 2018 – five months and nine days after the Marriage Act had indeed been changed to create marriage equality as a fact under law – and it made a total of twenty [20] recommendations.

In the following years there were three publicly released iterations of the proposed draft legislation. These are the versions currently before the Parliament: 

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 [Provisions]; 

Religious Discrimination(Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 [Provisions]; and

Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 [Provisions].

On 2 December 2021, the Senate referred all three bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2022.

On 4 February 2022, this committee tabled its 164 page Report.

The Report states in part: The religious discrimination bill seeks to implement recommendations 3, 15 and 19 of the Religious Freedom Review, while the human rights legislation bill would implement recommendations 3, 4 and 12.2 It is silent on the remaining fifteen recommendations.

The entire report can be found at:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Religiousdiscrimination

Starting at Page 95 and ending at Page 150 are the Committee View, Additional comments from Australian Labor Party senators, Dissenting report from the Australian Greens and Additional comments from Senator Andrew Bragg.

What this section of the Report clearly shows is that the only people who come close to being unreservedly happy with the wording and intent of these bills are to be found within the ranks of Scott Morrison’s faction in the Parliamentary Liberal Party. In the wider Parliamentary Liberal Party there is some concern but whether it gets fully realised is another matter.

Further amendments are expected to be put forward, given the very real concerns held by the general public that the rights of LGBTQ+ students, teachers and parents are not protected against discrimination by faith-based educational institutions, as well as other concerns relating to potentially discriminatory impacts of Statement of Belief provisions currently found in the draft Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and the fact that the successful passage of this bill into law will require as yet unaddressed amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

The three bills in question were always going to be used as an improvised explosive device buried deep within the House of Representatives carpeting, all set to explode during the first few weeks of the 2022 parliamentary calendar year in the hope of badly wounding the Labor Party over the course of the federal election campaign. 

On Thursday 4 February Prime Minister Scott Morrison also clearly stated his intention to legislate amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act before the federal general election. 

Given the limited number of sitting days in February and March in which to amend, it appears that Morrison may be reconciled to not passing  the current version of the Religious Discrimination Bill if the House Of Representatives baulks during the coming weeks. However, it is likely his intention to perform a piece of political theater in which he attempts to bully, intimidate and threaten the parliament in order to be seen as striving to fulfill his longstanding 'religious freedom to discriminate' promises to his conservative Christian base before polling day.

NOTES

1. Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, 2017

2. Recommendations incorporated into the religious discrimination bill and human rights legislation amendments bill:

Recommendation 3

Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should consider the use of objects, purposes or other interpretive clauses in anti-discrimination legislation to reflect the equal status in international law of all human rights, including freedom of religion.

Recommendation 4

The Commonwealth should amend section 11 of the Charities Act 2013 to clarify that advocacy of a ‘traditional’ view of marriage would not, of itself, amount to a ‘disqualifying purpose’.

Recommendation 12

The Commonwealth should progress legislative amendments to make it clear that religious schools are not required to make available their facilities, or to provide goods or services, for any marriage, provided that the refusal:

(a) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body, or

(b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

Recommendation 15

The Commonwealth should amend the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, or enact a Religious Discrimination Act, to render it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious belief or activity’, including on the basis that a person does not hold any religious belief. In doing so, consideration should be given to providing for appropriate exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities.

Recommendation 19

The Australian Human Rights Commission should take a leading role in the protection of freedom of religion, including through enhancing engagement, understanding and dialogue. This should occur within the existing commissioner model and not necessarily through the creation of a new position.