Saturday’s federal election was bittersweet for those concerned about religious freedom in Australia. Labor won with a huge majority and won’t need the support of minor parties or independents, meaning the influence of the Greens will be diminished.

As Monica Doumit wrote in the Catholic Weekly:

“It is good that Labor will not have to rely on the Greens to form government.

“And even better that the Greens’ anti-life and anti-faith influence in the House of Representatives will be much more muted if not removed altogether. 

“Without the Greens’ strong anti-religious push, it might seem that there are not any big battles for religious freedom on the immediate horizon.”

But this now opens the question about what people of faith and faith organisations can expect under a Labor government.

Firstly, it looks like religious freedom will once again be pushed to the side. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced before the election that a religious discrimination bill would not be one of his priorities, saying that he did not want a “divisive debate about religion”.

In the wake of increasing institutional and societal pressure on Christians and faith groups in Australia, this is unfortunate. It signals a lack of seriousness in protecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech in Australia.

Doumit also rightly points out that “the biggest potential threat to religious freedom in this parliamentary term will be disguised as a sweet-sounding charter of rights (otherwise known as a human rights act)”.

The charter of rights debate was reanimated during the same-sex marriage debate and discussed further in Labor’s first term. However, a charter of rights may, somewhat ironically, encroach upon fundamental rights in Australia rather than protect them.

In Labor’s first term, under the direction of Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended a federal human rights act and proposed an example act to its report.

The example act appears to prioritise the “right to recognition and equality before the law and freedom from discrimination”, as defined in Australia’s federal discrimination laws, above all others. And while religious freedom is included in the example act, its guarantees are watered down compared to international human rights law such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Doumit argues that the human rights act would provide a “weak and subjective” protection for religious freedom and that “all manner of restrictions on religious freedoms” could still be justified under the proposed act.

And the current government has a concerning record on fundamental freedoms already. Recently the US State Department criticised the Australian government for “coercing” Musk’s X to censor truth on gender. Referring to the Billboard Chris case among others, the Department stated:

“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression.”

With three more years of Labor before us, Australians must remain alert to the threats posed to fundamental freedoms. This includes direct threats such as government censorship. But it also includes threats hidden in proposals that appear innocent or even positive, like human rights instruments that fail to prioritise and balance human rights correctly.