Australia’s democracy depends on two important principles: elections must be fair, and every Australian must be free to participate in them.

Both principles matter in the growing controversy surrounding the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church.

The Church has faced intense scrutiny in the parliamentary inquiry into the 2025 federal election. Its senior leader, Bruce Hales, is expected to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on October 16, following allegations about the conduct of some Church members during the election campaign.

Those allegations include claims of intimidating behaviour at polling booths and links to political agitators.

These are serious matters. They deserve to be investigated carefully, and anyone who has broken the law should be held accountable.

But that is quite different from treating an entire religious community as responsible for the alleged actions of individuals.

The Brethren Church has denied coordinating or funding election campaigning. It maintains that members who volunteered, donated or otherwise participated did so as private citizens.

And that is their right.

Religious Australians do not surrender their right to participate in democracy when they join a church. They are entitled to support political candidates, express opinions and campaign for change, just like everybody else.

The tone of the inquiry is therefore concerning. The committee chair publicly declared that senior Brethren leaders needed to “show up and fess up” before hearing their evidence.

That language hardly conveys an open mind.

Christian leaders and parliamentarians have raised concerns that the inquiry risks turning legitimate electoral scrutiny into guilt by religious association.

We do not need to endorse every belief or practice of the Brethren to recognise the danger.

Religious freedom does not exist only for churches whose doctrines are popular or whose members hold fashionable political views.

It protects people whose beliefs others may find unfamiliar, uncomfortable or objectionable.

Nor is this about placing churches above the law. The same rules should apply to everyone, including the same expectation of fair treatment and freedom from prejudice.

At HRLA, we defend these fundamental freedoms for all Christians, whether or not we agree with them on every question.

Australia should be able to investigate genuine electoral wrongdoing without allowing religious prejudice to influence its judgement.

Our democracy will be stronger for doing both.