Dear Lexi,

I disagree. Australia has neither freedom of religion or secular government. For one thing the Constitution of Australia does not apply to state law. Australia states are free to have a state religion if their legislature should decide on one.

The original Queensland Education Act specified that Queensland should have secular education. Until 1910 it did with schools not having religious instruction, bible reading or any sort of religious observance. A campaign to remove the word, secular, from the Education Act was successful in 1910, and it has not been restored.

For another thing the Australian Constitution refers to religion in much the same manner as the US Constitution does. However, in the US chaplains in the public schools as well as government subsidies to religious schools would be illegal. The two constitutions are interpreted differently.

Bishop Tom Frame wrote a book called "Church and State." It is a history of church state relations. He contends that Australia does not have separation of church and state. I wish it did, but he is correct. Without that separation we do not have a secular state.

In Queensland the education department does not see that there is adequate opportunity for parents to keep their children from religious instruction. The law mandates that, but some principals ignore the law. They are not checked on. In effect there is missionising without parental consent so there is not freedom of religion. Those children who succeed in being exempt from religious instruction may be treated as pariahs.

Marion Maddox has written on the Howard government's connection with Christian religion. Rudd and Gillard have maintained the connection.

I belong to the Queensland Humanist Society. One of our goals is to have Australia be a secular state with freedom of belief. We are farther from that goal than the US and most northern European countries.

Dear David F.,

The Commonwealth Parliament is the national law-making
body and is at the heart of Australian national
government.

The Constitution allows each state to make laws with
respect to the affairs of that state. However, laws of
the Commonwealth Parliament prevail over state laws.

Laws are the end result of government policy and may
result from:

1) A particular political party policy
2) Pressure for change
3) particular community needs

A Bill (is a proposed law that has not yet passed
through Parliament) and it must go through certain steps
before it becomes law. It must also be signed by the
Governor-General. The process of signing by the
Governor-General is known as Royal Assent.

Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
The Marriage Act in order to be amended must be
done in Parliament. Hence the controversy and debate.

cont'd ...

Dear David F.,

I forgot to add that same-sex marriages are currently
not permitted under the Australian Federal Law. In 2004
the Marriage Act 1961 was amended in Federal Parliament to
define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and
that any existing same-sex marriage from a foreign country
is not to be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

The Australian Constitution can be changed only by a law
passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and approved by a majority
of voters across Australia and in a majority of states.

This process is called a Referendum. Since Federation in 1901
only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constituion have
been approved. The Marriage Act is part of the Constitution.

Dear Lexi,

We still disagree. In the US Marbury vs. Madison was the decision that decided the US Constitution must apply to the individual states. There has been no such decision made by the Australian High Court with regard to the relation between state and commonwealth.

If, as you state, the Australian Constitution takes precedence over state law please cite the applicable provision of the Australian Constitution or the Court decision giving the Commonwealth Constitution precedence. I don't think it exists.

It is my understanding that even if the High Court had stated that Commonweath funding for the chaplaincy program violated the Australian Constitution on the grounds that hiring the chaplains violated the prohibition of a religious test for office the state of Queensland could still employ the chaplains as the decision would not apply to the Queensland government.

Once a law is passed it can be enforced unless there are exemptions stated in law.

For those who believe Gays will not sue the Church for discrimination on the ground they are practising homosexual acts is false. I am a close friend of a Principal of a theological College that refused entry to a homosexual who wanted to do the Church Pastoral Minister course. It went to court and on unsuitable grounds was excluded. They do and will sue Churches if the Church refuse access to positions of ministry within the Church, or if homosexuality is identified as sin against God. Equally Priests who practise homosexual acts with minors or within the members of the Church must be excluded from ministry within the Church.

Dear David F.,

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia
clearly states - that laws of the Commonwealth
Parliament prevail over state laws if there is any
inconsistency. The High Court of Australia has ruled
that the Chaplaincy Program funding is unconstitutional.
It's up to Federal
Parliament to decide what it wants to do. The same as
it was Federal Parliament under John Howard that
instigated this program in the first place:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/chaplains-safe-despite-high-court-ruling-roxon-20120620-20n2d.html