Is the Australian compulsory-vote discriminative against protestants?

You know I love coffee shops right?

They’re great, especially for studying. I have written about why they are one of the biggest study aids in one of my previous posts ‘is this the study tool you’ve been looking for?’

They’re filled with great studying rewards and focus-encouraging atmospheres….except when you overhear a conversation that you’re desperate to join in on. Recently I was in a similar situation when I noticed a man loudly proclaiming that he didn’t have to vote under section 116 of the Australian Constitution because he was a Protestant.

A Protestant is a denomination of the Western Christian Churches that follow the principles of the Reformation. They are a very traditional Christian religion that encourages its followers to adhere to some rules of life as founded within The Holy Bible. – However, please know that voting for a minister of governance in your country of residence is not against the tenants of The Holy Bible.

For those who aren’t from Australia, voting is compulsory for all registered residents over the age of eighteen. Not to vote is a criminal offence in Australia which can result in a $20 fine or prosecution in court which will increase the fine up to $170 plus court costs.

Additionally Australia is a country that bases itself on democracy, failure to vote means that you are not participating in a critical element of our country. But, if something is against constitutional law it is held to be supreme because the Australian Constitution is the creative document of our country (even though it’s an act of British Parliament.) That’s why I thought it would be a great idea to examine how and why this man thought he didn’t have to vote under section 116.

-          A brief history of the Australian Constitution 

In 1901, the Australian Constitution was given Royal Assent. Royal Assent is the title of the process that gives laws of a constitutional monarchy legal effect. Because Australia did not exist before the Constitution was enacted the constitution had to be submitted to the British Parliament for approval.

The desire to federate was led by two men, Samuel Griffith and Henry Parkes. Griffith and Parkes were the forerunners of Federation and participated in all of the conventions around Australia. The two most important meetings that achieved 

Federation were in Melbourne and Sydney.  First, in 1890 at the Melbourne conference where they made the unanimous decision to federate. Then at Sydney in 1891 where they chose to follow the American system of government and drafted the constitution. Notable figures at this convention included Alfred Deakin, the second Prime Minister of Australia and Inglis  Clark a barrister and judge who was the principal author of the Australian Constitution.

-          What is section 116 about?

Section 116 (the clause of the constitution that the guy was talking about) refers to the exclusion of power of the Commonwealth to make laws about any religion or religious activity. It has a very limited jurisdiction as a consequence of two landmark cases, Kruger v Commonwealth and Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth.

Its exact words are:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion                   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.

-          What was the loophole in section 116?

The guy was claiming that there was a ginormous gap in this article that allows him to escape voting. His claim was that forcing him to vote under section 116 was prohibiting the exercise of his religion. Before you all jump on board and claim to be protestant to get out of voting, I suggest that you all realise this is a very, very risky idea. It is highly unlikely that this section has such jurisdiction over voting.

First you would have to prove how is voting prohibiting the exercise of his religion.

According to him voting made him part of a political party and hence was against the beliefs of his religion. A little confusing for sure, but basically he was saying that following a political party was like worshipping an idol. This is against The Holy Bible.

-          How 116 has limited jurisdiction

This section of the Australian Constitution is probably most infamous for its role in the stolen generation. In Kruger v Commonwealth, the question was put before the court whether there could be laws made to take Aboriginal children from their families and put them with white households. They presented that the intent of section 116 was to allow the exercise of freedom of religion. Basically, they argued that the Aboriginal religion (the dreamtime) was being discriminated against by the laws of the Commonwealth.

Logically taking the children from a particular religious group and forcing them to be raised in different homes would appear to be genocide. However, the judges of the case determined (in summary) that the act was merely applied to the making of the law and not the application or administration of it. This horror verdict has managed to limit the application of this section. It was limited so severely that the man loudly proclaiming his right not to vote on account of his religion is probably going to be staring down a nasty fine in the not so distant future.

Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth further limited the authority of the clause. The lesser known case was about whether the Commonwealth could impose laws that were directly prejudiced against a single group. This had a similar decision to Krygger v Williams and both cases determined that a prejudiced law was not a contravention of section 116 if made for the purpose of the efficient defence of the commonwealth. Clearly, this case does not apply to the man in the coffee shop for Australia has never prosecuted Protestants directly under the law.

I’m not quite sure where the non-compulsory voting for Protestants arose from, but it was a good exercise in analysis of Constitutional law. I sure hope that anyone reading doesn’t try to get out of voting under this section of the Australian Constitution. It’s definitely not a loophole.

The Underage Lawyer