Question 2.  Does Australia Provide for Religious Freedom?

The short answer is "YES".

Australia's national religion is Christianity, but religious freedom is guaranteed for everyone to worship other gods (or no god at all) by Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution under the heading "Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion".

This means that the framers of the Constitution believed that religious freedom is much safer when locked away entirely from over-zealous rulers who might be tempted to give themselves power over what is a matter of conscience in the one area, and a matter of preservation of our National religion in the other.  This aspect of political interference in religious freedom should have been watched much more closely in the past, for "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".  If people have grown tired of being free, energetic and ambitious politicians will eagerly take their liberty from them.   The return to slavery may not then be easy to resist.

Therefore Section 116 is only effective to the extent that the Federal Government does absolutely nothing to breach its requirements, which are:

"Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of a religion:

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."

Not only does Section 116 provide the one lawful means of protecting religious freedom, the Constitution, the Imperial Acts, and associated Oaths also play a further lawful part in preserving Christianity in particular.  All our Monarchs have been enthroned specifically to defend Christ's true faith and gospel, and to maintain the laws of God.

At her Coronation, our Queen was given the Coronation Ring, which is to consecrate her as our -

"Head and Prince and as the Defender of Christ's Religion".

It appears therefore that no monarch after being crowned can lawfully refuse to be "Defender of the Faith" without abdicating from the throne in favour of someone who will.  Christ's faith must be defended by the person who agrees to be "Head and Prince".in a public Christian ceremony.  Our lifelong allegiance to the Queen is allegiance to the one who is the "Head and Prince and Defender of Christ's Religion" Allegiance to the Queen is not an airy concept.  Oaths are not just idle words, but are solemn vows made before God, to uphold the Queen's Coronation Oath and to serve and assist her in the maintaining of the Law of the Land, and in the preserving of Christian religious freedom, especially when pledged publicly before God and the people.

The Queen Herself must obey and enforce all the laws forming the Constitutions of the Colonies and the Commonwealth.  Through the Governor-General, Her Majesty must see to it that the Law of the Land, Common law, Rule of Law, and the Constitution Act 1900 are enforced and not violated.  When the Constitution's "checks and balances" are all observed and Section 116 controls Parliament as it should, then, yes, Australia does very effectively cater for freedom of religion.   Bringing in a Religious Freedom Act may not be legal, for it is a law involving a religion and would presumably tend to prohibit the free exercise of Christianity.  This could quite possibly amount to another attempt to put Parliament above the law of the Constitution, which is forbidden.

Entrenchment of Laws, particularly the Imperial Acts:

Documented evidence confirms the double entrenchment of the Christian content of the ancient immutable Laws, Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, etc., firmly based on God's Word and allegiance to Him.  The lawful method of protecting our National Christian religion, and our personal and political peace, safety and security, is not through U.N Covenants, etc., but is through strict adherence to what the Coronation Oath requires of our Monarchs, and of those who pledge allegiance to them.

Inhibiting a Future Parliament's Lawmaking Power:

A Parliament's intention to protect a law that it considers to be of special significance, is carried out by the entrenchment of that law so as to inhibit a successor Parliament's ability to amend or repeal it through the normal law-making procedure.  It is not true to claim that one Parliament cannot make laws for, or dictate to, future Parliaments.

Entrenched Provisions are laws enacted by a Parliament that may not be repealed or amended, or the affect of which may not be altered by another Parliament, unless, and only if, a special procedure has been pre-determined, such as approval by the majority of electors at referendum or approval by a large percentage majority in the Parliament.  [see Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee Report No 13, April 99 on the Consolidation of the Queensland Constitution S.2.3]

Entrenching Magna Carta:

The liberties secured by Magna Carta were considered so important that all of it was entrenched..   The rights were granted forever and whatever has been granted forever can never become obsolete, nor be overridden.

For instance, Magna Carter's first Clause binds the King and his heirs forever to grant to the free men of his kingdom and to their heirs forever, ALL THE LIBERTIES listed.  Magna Carter is fully entrenched by its last Clause which says that the King desires that ALL THESE LIBERTIES shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength forever, and therefore he will not procure from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished.  He adds "If any such thing is procured, let it be void."

That means that an Act of Parliament that purports to change or repeal any part of Magna Carta is void and of no effect as an Act.  Parliament cannot lawfully legislate away even a part of Magna Carta, and neither can any court make a valid ruling against it.  Magna Carta is the great everlasting Charter of English liberty.  Since there is no provision to allow Magna Carta to be changed in any way at any time (i.e. not by Referendum, not by Parliamentary majority, nor by Judge's ruling) the rights to our liberties are doubly entrenched.

The same also applies to the Bill of Rights 1689 which likewise entrenched itself from the beginning:

"All which Their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament and shall stand remain and be the Law of this Realm for ever.  .  .

After Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights ranks as the third great charter of British freedom, and Australia is fortunate to have inherited all three as well as other Imperial Acts.   These ancient Acts were considered so important that they were all entrenched in their original form and then entrenched again by the various State Governments in the 1980s.

In Queensland Schedule 1 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 was enacted to reconfirm this strong safeguard of our peace and safety.  The Bill of Rights 1688 is doubly entrenched by its last paragraph which also allows no method of alteration.  These Imperial Acts are listed as perpetually in force - entrenched then, now and forever.  No succeeding Parliament can lawfully alter or repeal any of them, nor can they be ignored as though they did not refer to today.

Trial by Jury Entrenched: Magna Carta has everlasting application to Australian Courts, so the right it gives us to trial by jury is inalienable.  No court has jurisdiction to conduct a trial against anyone unless it accords that person his right to trial by jury.  No Parliament has the power to extinguish that right which is an integral part of Common Law.

Right to Jury Trial, entrenched in Magna Carta 1297, is again affirmed by the Petition of Right [Section 3 of (1627) 3 Charles I]:  " . . .  by the statute called the Great Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned . . .  but by the lawful judgement of his peers, . . . "  As well as that, Section 8 of the Petition of Right will allow no contrary precedent to be set, from any previous case, for it says:-

"the awards, doings and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into any consequence or example."

Parliament cannot legislate this right out of existence, despite any modern-day perversions.  It is the religious freedom of Christians to hold and act on their beliefs about the depraved nature of man.  Lawyers and judges have been violating Christianity by phasing out juries and eroding our right to jury trial.  Juries are almost non-existent in civil cases now.