Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

New poll on religion and the Australian Constitution

By Brian Morris - posted Tuesday, 2 February 2016

Changes to the Australian constitution are infrequent. One amendment that many would like to see concerns the head of state, and Australia becoming a republic. But perhaps there's a more immediate issue that is now supported by 78% of the population, in a new January poll. It relates to a minor constitutional clause that will formally remove the influence of religion from the business of government -- an official separation of church and state.

It's been forty years since the last constitutional amendments - following Gough Whitlam's dismissal as Prime Minister by Governor General Sir John Kerr, back in 1975. Amendments were made two years later to codify the conventions for filling casual senate vacancies.

That was one of the triggers, sparked by then Premier of Queensland Joh Bjelke-Petersen, which finally led to a major constitutional crisis. ALP Senator Bertie Milliner died suddenly in mid-1975 and instead of the convention to take the PM's recommended replacement, the Machiavellian Petersen selected Albert Field.


Field was an obscure ALP member hostile to Whitlam who vowed never to vote for his government. The resulting crisis made it necessary to amend the constitution to stablise the mechanisms of parliament.

Today, it could well be said that a similar amendment, and equally simple, is finally needed to codify the constitutional conundrum of religion and how it continues to intrude into the nation's political and secular domain.

A landmark national survey in January, by independent pollster IPSOS, showed that 78 percent of the population thought personal religious beliefs should be separated from the business of government. But the most telling result was that 72 percent also thought the separation of church and state should be more clearly stated in the constitution.

Section 116 of the Australian constitution amounts to just 45 words, in four short clauses. It essentially says the Commonwealth can't establish a national religion; impose religious observances; prevent the practice of religion; and no religious test can be required for any Commonwealth office.

And there's ample historical evidence to show that those who framed the constitution intended Australia to be a secular nation -- a concept approved by popular referendums in all six colonies leading up to its proclamation in 1901.

Many issues have arisen over recent decades which involve a clash of secular and religious principles but few have required the High Court of test the boundaries of Section 116. Regrettably, for the secular community, those cases that were tested have resulted in very narrow interpretations by the High Court. That is not entirely unexpected as the constitution lacks one final defining clause.


In 1981 Commonwealth funding of religious schools came before the High Court. The justices were unable to rule that it directly contravened any of the four clauses of Section 116. More recently -- with two challenges to the National Chaplaincy Program in public schools -- the High Court was again unable to rule against chaplains per se. But under a different section of the constitution they were about to declare that federal funding of the Chaplaincy Program was unconstitutional. However, this was quickly circumvented by administrative changes, first by the federal government under Julia Gillard, and later by the States with assistance from the Abbott government.

The Chaplaincy Program continues despite widespread opposition from professional organisations and many community groups who point up the myriad problems with the scheme -- including comments from the High Court, to the effect that the program is of no benefit to schoolchildren.

Another clear example of how government and religion become hopelessly entangled was the $20m of taxpayer funds that went to finance the Pope's World Youth Day in Sydney. You can't find a more profound illustration that breaches every principle of a secular Australia than parliament handing out millions to Catholic youth for a Papal extravaganza.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brian Morris is the director of Plain Reason.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brian Morris

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Brian Morris
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy