Australians are being warned that a rush to legislate religious freedom could open the door to sharia law, as senior conservatives call for “cooler heads to prevail” in the growing dispute over the protections needed when parliament enacts marriage equality.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Defence Personnel Minister Dan Tehan are urging colleagues to avoid sweeping amendments with unintended consequences, such as creating religious enclaves shielded by law. The warning comes as federal cabinet meets today to consider a breakthrough plan to resolve a growing dispute over personal freedom, with church leaders and independent experts likely to be consulted on how to craft the right safeguards for people of faith.
The Australian understands the cabinet proposal could lead to an expert group being set up to advise on the wider issue of religious freedom, exploring the need for safeguards as well as the risk of going too far in a way that could embolden groups to justify discrimination on the basis of their beliefs.
Malcolm Turnbull has canvassed the issues with Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, Jesuit priest and lawyer Frank Brennan and other religious leaders in recent weeks, in a step towards drafting a government response on an issue that is dividing the parliament. The advice from experts could shape a government policy on religious freedom in the new year, avoiding a delay to a vote in parliament within weeks to enact same-sex marriage.
With conservatives and moderates at odds over religious freedom, some fear a rush to pass new laws would involve danger of unintended consequences from poor drafting. “As I said last week, we should include religious and parental protections in the bill now, no question,” Mr Dutton told The Australian.
“But cooler heads do need to prevail about an additional process to provide a protection of a person’s fundamental belief and practice of religious belief.
“There’s no way I’ll be supporting a process that gives rise to a push for sharia law. That’s why we need a process to look at the consequences, because that goes to the important principle of protecting religious beliefs and practices.
“The Safe Schools push by the left is a prime example of what we need to address and we need to do it in a way that doesn’t give rise to unintended consequences.”
Mr Tehan is a supporter of traditional marriage but has said he will vote in parliament in line with the national outcome from the postal vote, while also seeking protections for religious freedom.
“I have advocated for us to be a country where religious freedom is protected, but it needs to be done carefully and with expert advice, or else we risk dividing the community into religious enclaves practising different modes of life with religious practices like sharia law,” Mr Tehan said.
“If we don’t take our time and get this right we could do more harm than good to our nation. It needs to be done separately to the marriage bill and needs to be considered by experts on where you draw the line so you don’t end up damaging the cohesion of Australian society.”
While many MPs back the call for religious safeguards, the support for change depends on the wording of the amendments, such as those set out in a bill released last week by Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson, who supports marriage equality but also personal freedom. Senator Paterson’s bill was met with a wave of objections from marriage-equality supporters on the grounds it would widen the power for discrimination on the grounds of religion or personal belief without applying enough constraints on this power.
The Australian Muslim Women’s Association cautioned against claims of a push for sharia law, calling it a manifestation of a general fear of Islam. It acknowledged “fringe radicals” had called for Australia to adopt sharia but noted there was no general call on behalf of the Muslim community for the establishment of sharia.