I initially thought the inquiry into religious freedom would not be of great concern to most Australians. How wrong I was: the review panel has received over 16,000 submissions. On issues such as this fundamental human right, the waters run deep in the Australian consciousness.
Does Australian law adequately provide for the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice, balancing this with other rights such as that to be treated without discrimination?
The issue I suspect becomes more important the more socially and economically marginalised one is. Not coincidentally, these are the groups of people that are least able to effect change in the Australian political process.
It is also worth noting that popular intolerance of one or other religion does not necessarily equate with the breach of one's right to practice it, although, at an extreme, it can certainly lead to it.
In the thinking of theologian, William Cavanaugh, the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, made towards the end of the European Wars of Religion, laid the foundations of the separation of Church and State in the western world.
At the risk of over-simplification, the separation allowed secular sovereign governments to provide for security from external military threat and perform other 'external' functions, in return for religious practice being relegated to a more private 'space'.
The underlying myth is that the space for public debate on which most governments depend is 'value-neutral', or, in other words, enables objective assessments to be made, which becomes the foundation of all legislation. Religion, so the logic goes, is viewed as inherently emotional, unpredictable and potentially violent: it therefore must be contained.
"The Church, mosque or synagogue's direct contact with marginal groups through charitable works is what gives any critique they make of policy its credibility."
An obvious example is the tendency to remove religious symbols from the Christmas season in the pursuit of supposed neutrality between different religions whose adherents would otherwise be scandalised.
This neutrality in fact replaces the religious message with another set of values allowing the commercialisation of the festival to a degree that serves to place immense pressure on individuals, families and communities, many of whom cannot afford the trappings seen as necessary for such a celebration.
This exclusionary process forms the polar opposite of what the religious festival aspires to.
Two 20th century developments are disrupting the accommodation between church and state. The first is the growth of the concept of security to include economic and social wellbeing and matters of cultural and other identity.
This enables, for example, government to argue for the prevention of many more refugees entering Australia, from the point of view of the threat they pose to national and cultural identities.
Secondly, religious practice has rediscovered part of its expression in the public space, through the foundation and growth of charitable 'works of justice'. The Church, mosque or synagogue's direct contact with marginal groups through such works is what gives any critique they make of policy its credibility. It has also set the stage for potentially greater conflict with policy-makers.
The requirements for faith based service providers receiving government funding to express support for, or withhold potential criticism of, government policy is a result of this clash. This is a delicate balance to hold — a good starting point would be a better appreciation of the contribution of such faith based agencies to the overall public good.
It is perhaps ironic that United Nations institutions are increasingly acknowledging the vital role of faith based institutions in the response to disasters and the most difficult situations necessitating humanitarian response, at a time when one senses Australian faith based organisations are increasingly denigrated.
To my knowledge Australian legislation has avoided the extremes experienced in Canada, where organisational participants in the summer holiday program are expected publicly to endorse a range of government policies that may be at variance from their own values.
The corollary is the requirement of faith based agencies not to discriminate in employment or, in the case of schools, enrolment practices. Employers should be able to recruit for a cultural fit with the organisation in my view, but this cannot extend to discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, or membership of a particular social or political group or religion.
It is a delicate balance to uphold, but one that a strong faith base should grapple with rather than shrink from.
The most systemic attack on religious practice lies far away from polemical debates or recruitment practices. It consists of multiple labour practices that effectively prohibit one from attending religious worship of any kind, something that hits people who hold down multiple jobs or who carry out shift work just to get by, mostly in the service sectors.
This area is also the most difficult to remedy. It is significant that the New Zealand seasonal worker visa requires prospective employers to cater for the religious practices of their workers. I know of no such attendant requirement in the regulations around for example temporary visas in Australia.
As Australia moves to a post-Christian state, there are numerous tendencies to see limits on the expression of religion as some kind of necessity. But religions remain legitimate voices in the political process and life of the community, and the space that permits the hearing of these voices is one of the marks of a healthy democracy.
We are at the point where greater constitutional or legislative coverage of this and other rights is needed for the benefit of Australian society as a whole.
Australian Jesuit Fr David Holdcroft is higher education specialist for Jesuit Refugee Service International.
Main image: Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM is a member of the expert panel examining whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion. AHRC/Flickr