Religion is the ultimate force in the universe, so nothing is more paramount than the freedom of religion.

However, the problem with legislating for religious freedom, is that the state, including its parliamentarians and judges, does not have the faintest idea of what comprises religion. Should such legislation be made, it would likely only cover the superficial rulings of the major churches, leaving the truly religious behind and unprotected.

A general bill of rights is therefore likely to include more religious freedoms, though still not provide a full cover.

To rely on legislation of any sort is to rely on a splintered reed of a staff¹: religious people should never ask the state for anything, but rely on God alone!

___
¹ "Look, I know you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him." [2 Kings,18:21]

bobd35: Hear, hear and well said!
Alan B.

Perhaps the first and most important question to ask is; does conventional institutional religion and religiosity have anything to do with Real God, or Truth & Reality, and The Beautiful too?

Obviously not.

Without exception ALL of the god and gods of human beings are (whether male of female in their descriptive gender) merely the personal and collective TRIBAL (and entirely dualistic - or conventionally subject-object-bound) myths of the separative entirely godless human ego-mind.

Put in another way all of the now existing institutional "religions" are primarily power-and-control-seeking political corporations, all of which are competing for market share, and thus by extension worldly power, in the market place of whats-in-it-for-me childish and even infantile mommy-daddy religiosity.

Personally, I object to, unelected by the people - judges, making decisions on national issues.

To me that is undemocratic.

Also we’ve had members of government removed because they have dual citizenship.
Should this also not apply to Judges, if they are making national decisions overriding governments

Who are these judges, not elected by me or any of the people, how come they can override truly elected representatives.
They are faceless to the general population.

If the right to religious belief, is enshrined in law, what happens if a religion believes in killing someone for blasphemy.

Maybe the Bill should read, “the right to believe in a non violent religion that can not impose itself by violent means.

Generally speaking judges and the governor general are appointees and need to pass peer review by folk of honourable character, who know their compatriot quite well!?

And a better selection system than political preselection that forces folk of sometimes questionable repute or character into some very powerful places, where some of the most important decisions are made! Like, say corruption central alias the NSW state parliament, perhaps?

I'd sooner take my chances with a fair-minded and thoughtful judge who on average has to be significantly more intelligent than the average backbencher/party hack?

Religious freedom already adequately guaranteed in our constitution! What these folk want enshrined in law, is an ongoing and special right to selectively discriminate on gender or religious grounds? All while actively advocating that rights codified in law are effectively denied to the general population at large!?

That's just not the alleged example of J.C. Or in line with esoteric Christian philosophy! Or progressive conservatism!
Alan B.