Though the case was dismissed, it highlights community concerns over the duty of care, consent, and religious tolerance and comes as the new Morrison government is urged to release the findings of the Ruddock Review of religious freedom in Australia.
On a hot day at a Victorian government school, John Perkins spotted a girl dressed in a way he thought was too warmly for comfort.
He decided to lodge a case with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or VCAT arguing that her human rights and welfare were being infringed by being required to wear the religious dress, with only her face and hands exposed.
In a statement, Mr. Perkins, who is the president of the Secular Party of Australia, says it amounted to "cruel and inhumane treatment".
"No child would freely choose to suffer in this way. It cannot be the free choice of the child," he says.
While the case was dismissed due to the non-involvement of the child concerned, the party believes it still creates an opportunity to ask questions about young children and religion.
Mr. Perkins says he believes children could be taught about religion in school -- but not be forced to practice it themselves.
"The state has some responsibility there to look after the basic welfare of the child. In this particular case, the welfare of the child was really at risk, but then there are much wider philosophical issues, about whether it’s right to force a child to believe a religion or whether they should be given the ability to think for themselves and make up their own mind."
All states and territories permit religious instruction classes in government schools, subject to varying guidelines.
Direction around teaching religion as a subject is less clear.
Tasneem Chopra is the chair of the Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights.
She says she supports Mr. Perkins' right to his opinion.
She just wants the same respect shown towards how people raise their own children.
"But I think it’s one thing to be entitled to an opinion and a complete lot her thing to then try and enforce what you believe to be...what is appropriate child-raising behavior or child-rearing practices for someone who’s not of your faith or of your culture. When you talk about wanting to police how children believe and how children think, you're going down a very dangerous path of state control. Ultimately, of course, it’s an individual choice if they then decide to pursue that religion, but I think the way parents choose to instill or not instill values is theirs."
Many legal experts were unwilling to comment on the issue of children's rights and religion, describing it as a difficult and under-researched area.
Lecturer in law at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Renae Barker, says children's rights are recognized by state and territory, national and international law.
There are even sometimes additional rights recognizing their as-yet-undeveloped capacity to make decisions or look after themselves, and giving this responsibility to their parents.
Dr. Barker suggests John Perkins' belief that the child was in danger or her rights were being contravened wasn't shared by others.
And she's critical of his true motivations behind the case.
"He makes an argument that the child is too young to consent, too young effectively to have a religion. But when we look at the laws and we look at the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child has a right not just to freedom of conscience, which is what he emphasizes, but a right to freedom of religion. And what he’s trying to do in this case is take away that freedom. Saying to this child, ‘you are too young, I’m not going to respect you enough to involve you in this process, I’m going to make the decision for you', which is effectively what he’s accusing the parents of doing."
Admitting the complexities around obtaining the consent of a child, Mr. Perkins says he just wants parents and authorities to re-examine what they consider is in a child's best interests.
"If the child had to give consent, that would be correct, but whether you can realistically ask a child whether they consent, I don't know, these decisions are left to the parents. I think this is a case where the state and the parents have to look independently at what is in the best interests of the child."
Ms. Chopra says religions, institutions and even governments impose different age limits for different activities.
Within Islam, she says, puberty generally marks children's transition into adulthood and is usually the age at which many females may choose to start wearing religious dress.
But she says there are many reasons behind people's decision to wear or not wear the garb.
"There will be times when you see younger children wearing a hijab, and in my experience -- I do point this out that it's my experience -- it’s not because they’re required to wear it by their parents – it might be part of a school uniform code, it might also be because they see their mum wearing it and they want to copy her or their big sister’s wearing it and they don’t want to miss out. So I’m not reading into it a great religious conspiracy to impose a dress code on an infant. In my experience, it's not about enforcing views."
A recent debate over religious clothing, almost always referring to outfits worn by Muslim women, has been particularly fierce across Europe.
A recent ban on wearing face veils in public in Denmark prompted more than 1,000 people to march through the capital in protest.
Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and some German states have introduced varying restrictions on face veils, while in 2004, France outlawed headscarves and other so-called "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools.
Dr. Barker says a person's religion is an intensely personal thing that permeates all aspects of their life.
Accusing Mr. Perkins of singling out a soft target -- a child who looks visibly different -- she says his proposal to remove religion from children's early lives isn't practical, or possible.
"If he actually wanted to remove the practice of religion from all primary schools and from all children then he’s targeting something that’s actually internal, an internal belief, and the law around the world has been very, very strong to say ‘while in some situations we can restrict the practice of religion, because there are some religious practices which can be detrimental to society, but we cannot restrict religious belief’. We cannot get inside the minds of these children and say to them ‘no, you’re too little, you can't have a belief in God or in Gods or a particular spiritualism’."
The concerns arise as West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has called ((28 Aug)) on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to release the Review into Religious Freedom in Australia.
Former Howard government minister Philip Ruddock handed the report to then-Prime Minister Turnbull in May this year after a seven-month review, but his findings have not yet been released to the public.
