Once again.. I am interested in serious answers.. and this does constitute research.. not for any particular academic exercise, but primarily regarding self-informing.

Gerit should be able to offer some rich pickings here for sure.

Section 116 of the Australian federal constitution states:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Now.. for a body which owes it's existence to an Act of Parliament..
such as say Melbourne University which is based on the

Melbourne University Act 1958
http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/154b86eb077c3a83ca25706900160dbd/$FILE/58-6405a061.pdf

...one would expect a high degree of compliance with the constitution in the area of separation of Religion and State..no?

So.. if HillSong and associated Assemblies of God Churches, requested a "Chapel" to be built on Melbourne University land, for the exclusive use of the HillSong denomination members and the exclusion of all others, which included Pin coded key pass entry to the facility, I would expect a bit of chirping and muttering from non HillSong denominations about 'discrimination' and section 116 of the constitution.

If a Government enacted body, makes a 'law'(albeit a locally applicable 'rule' for that institution alone) which promotes one 'religion' over others, and 'hinders' others from access to that facility... are they infringing the constitution?

If so, what legal avenues would be open to members of other denominations to address this?

-Injunction?
-Law suit?
-Public protest?
-All of the above?

Dear Polycarp,

Why do you do this?

I thought that you were better than this?

I'm most disappointed in you.

Foxy: << Why do you do this?

I thought that you were better than this? >>

No, he's not. This is just another Boazycrap troll.

Please do not feed.

Here is something about Hillsong.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hillsongs-true-believers/2004/11/06/1099547435083.html

-=-=-=
"Dr Max Wallace, author of The Purple Economy, which investigates the business of churches, says "[Australian] citizens are underwriting the churches". "But," he adds, "what we are getting is a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency and no obligation to do any charitable work." He says Hillsong has charitable programs "but we have no way of reconciling their income with their charitable work".

The full church accounts are not publicly available. Hillsong, along with all churches in Australia, does not pay tax and does not have to file its accounts with the Australian Taxation Office."

...

"The church is known not just for its style of Christian worship, but for its links to the burgeoning political influence of the "religious right" through politicians associated with it.

The Liberal Party's Louise Markus, a Hillsong church member, won the seat of Greenway,.........two Family First Senate candidates, Joan Woods and Ivan Herald, who failed to win Senate seats, were featured in Hillsong's latest glossy circular, with members being asked to pray for them."
=-=-=-=

These people want an Australian theocracy and are being manipulated politically with the cozy entry:

-=-=-
"The Anglican Bishop of Western Sydney, Bishop Ivan Lee, says the style of worship is "very positive, very contemporary and very accessible to Australians who are no longer churched""
=-=-=

Polycarp,

I suspect you may be talking of chalk and cheese with respect to this matter.

Section 116 of the Constitution states that the COMMONWEALTH shall not make any law for establishing etc.

The Melbourne University Act 1958, if I am not mistaken, is a State Act.

Your expectation expressed in the statement "...one would expect a high degree of compliance with the constitution in the area of separation of Religion and State..no?" is thus based upon a false premise. In the immediate sense that false premise being that the Commonwealth has any power to legislate with respect to such matters, which indeed it does not, as Section 116 makes so very clear.

In a more general sense, your false premise is an expectation that in the area of what you describe as that of 'separation of Religion and State' that this concept is in any way enshrined in law at State level. I think the consensus is that it is not.

In 1900, any State of Australia enacting legislation favouring any particular religion? Unthinkable! Un-Australian!

Step back Polycarp! It is a booby trap! A goad. A provocation.

Consider.

Section 116 of the Constitution was a proposed subject of alteration in one of the four 1988 referenda, referenda defeated with the lowest 'Yes' vote in the history of Federation. The 1988 proposals were an all but verbatim rehash of proposals put to the people at the 1944 Constitution Alteration (Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) referendum, and likewise decisively rejected. The 1944 proposal itself was in turn a reflection of powers that were sought by a process that sought to evade the referendum requirement in the form of the proposed Commonwealth Powers Act of 1942.

In 1942 hardly a muslim to be seen in Australia, but the same legislative program being pursued. Today the notional heirs to the 1942 legislators don't have the Japanese as a distraction, they have Islamic migrants instead.

I commend to you the last paragraph of this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120646

Again, consider.

Hold your fire!

Foxy and CJ, I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.

Isn't it perfectly fair and reasonable to address points of law, the constitution, religion, etc on this forum?