The government received the report in May but was in no hurry to release it. How the findings are received in Wentworth, where the Liberals are battling to hold Malcolm Turnbull's former seat on October 20, will be fascinating. The dispute will not help Liberal candidate Dave Sharma. Loading The divisions laid bare in the marriage equality debate one year ago will be laid bare again. There is no alternative scenario. It is impossible for Morrison and federal cabinet to brush the issue under the carpet ahead of the federal election. Morrison wants to act on this report. The Prime Minister told Fairfax Media in an interview one month ago that he believed religious freedom had to be protected.

“At the end of the day, if you’re not free to believe in your own faith, well, you’re not free,” he said. This message resonates with many of the social conservatives within the Liberals and Nationals, raising expectations for the bill that a Morrison government would put to Parliament in response to Ruddock’s report. Credit:Matt Golding The problem with raising those expectations is that some of the Ruddock’s recommendations will infuriate Liberal MPs who pushed for marriage equality one year ago. The greater the expectations, the greater the division. There are wins and losses for both sides in the recommendations.

Ruddock and his review panel members recommend abolishing any exceptions in anti-discrimination laws that allow religious schools to discriminate against students on the grounds of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status. That is not a victory for religious schools, but it is qualified by other recommendations in the same report. Most importantly, the review calls for an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to provide that religious schools can discriminate against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status where that discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion. Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to act on the issue of religious freedom. Credit:AAP Morrison noted on Wednesday morning that existing law already allows this. This is true: an exemption for religious schools is in Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, last updated by a Labor government.

The point is that the Ruddock review calls explicitly for a new law to be put to Parliament and for the exemptions to be codified in a new way. Some in the government argue this means the exemptions would be subject to stricter conditions. Others argue the exemptions should not exist at all because they are out of step with the community. Why, then, should a government cement these exemptions? Have no doubt, any move to act on the Ruddock review will ignite this dispute in Parliament. The Ruddock recommendation is that Parliament should act. Loading The review panel also backs concerns by church groups and charities about their right to advocate traditional marriage. The Charities Act would be amended so that religious charities could not be punished by the government for opposing same sex marriage.

Other wins for church groups include the recommendation that religious schools would not be forced to make their facilities available for any marriage and the proposal that the Australian Human Rights Commission should take a “leading role” in protecting religious freedom. The findings on discrimination law are certain to inflame the Parliament. The review has heeded church calls for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act to specify “religious belief or activity” as another unlawful area of discrimination alongside race or ethnic origin. Advocates for marriage equality believe this change is not justified. They fear a law that will empower the most conservative church groups to campaign against gay rights. The Ruddock review includes a check on the power of a religious school to discriminate against a student on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. It says the school must have regard to the “best interests of the child as the primary consideration” in its decision. What would this mean in practice? It is hard to be sure, but one scenario is lengthy litigation in the courts over what the “best interests” of the student really are.