Ruddock inquiry into freedom of religion puts bill of rights back on the agenda

Several submissions to a key review of religious liberties are pushing for a dramatic overhaul of protections.

Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock is heading a review of religious freedoms under Philip Ruddock holding a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture Kym Smith

Deficient protections for freedom of religion risk reigniting a debate over the introduction of an Australian bill of rights with several submissions to a key review of ­religious liberties pushing for the dramatic overhaul.

Thousands of submissions to the review panel, led by former Liberal attorney-general Philip Ruddock, were released yesterday after its reporting deadline was deferred until May to accommodate more than 16,000 responses from churches, faith groups, lawyers, ­individuals and LGBTI bodies.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils used its submission to argue the right to freedom of religion was not adequately protected under Australian law and was “at risk of further erosion in the current political climate”.

It pushed for the introduction of a bill of rights, arguing that ­religious freedoms were created by a series of legal exemptions. It said this approach “promulgates the view that the right to freedom of religion is a ‘secondary’ right that is catered for by way of ‘exception’ in certain matters to the more important rights that it is distinguished from”.

“This is fundamentally counter to the intent of the UN Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” it said.

University of NSW Law Dean George Williams warned freedom of religion received “inadequate protection under Australian law” and that, in contrast to other ­nations, “protection of these rights is weak or even non-existent”.

Professor Williams noted Australia was the lone democracy without “some form of national human rights act or bill of rights incorporating protection of freedom of religion”.

“The Australian Constitution offers no direct protection in ­respect of religion or belief at the state level,” he said. “This stands in contrast to the strong and clear protection provided for religious freedom under international law ... and in comparable nations.”

A debate over the introduction of a bill of rights risks dividing the Coalition, given many of the supporters of traditional marriage are also constitutional conservatives opposed to a general bill of rights.

Other submissions warned that religious institutions were at risk of being driven from public life.

Australian tennis great Margaret Court, an ordained Pentecostal minister, used her submission to warn Christians were in danger of being silenced.

“The Australian LGBT lobby is urging the adoption of anti-­discrimination laws to prevent dissenting voices from expressing their views in the public square,” she said.

Former deputy prime minister John Anderson was “increasingly concerned” over the apparent ­attempt by majority and minority groups to “stifle all views which do not concur with their own”.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays warned against religious freedoms being used as an excuse to override the rights of others, noting that 61.6 per cent of those who voted in the postal survey supported same-sex marriage.

Additional reporting: RACHEL BAXENDALE