Talk:Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Section 116 of the Australian Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some references to single pages are written as pp. instead of p.

   Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images comply to fair use requirements and are properly captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments: There is a small issue with the references section, but otherwise, this article meets all the criteria for a Good Article. My only other question is whether it's possible to find a Scientology image from Australia, rather than the current photo. Please let me know when these issues have been addressed.

Thank you very much for the review. I have gone through and checked all the the "p/pp" references and fixed the incorrect ones. I have looked for free images of Scientology churches in Australia but unfortunately the only ones I could find are of protests in front of Scientology buildings. That doesn't seem to have bothered the editors at Scientology in Australia but I'm concerned such pictures would be too prejudicial for an article that has little to do with Scientology. Anyway, next time I'm in Sydney I will do my best to take a picture of the Scientology headquarters myself to put it on Commons. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Thank you for all your hard work. I am satisfied that all the criteria for a Good Article have been met, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the external links section displaying twice?

"preamble to the Constitution"

Yes, today in the High Court will be interesting! However, there is a point where you seem to have preferred economy of expression to exactness. "Almighty God" is not in a preamble to the Constitution itself, which does not have a preamble. It is in the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which contains the Constitution. To clarify this in the main text could produce cumbersome wording. Maybe add to footnote 12: "More exactly, in the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which contains the Constitution." --Wikiain (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for picking that up -- I'm sure you're right I just don't have a source in front of me. No objections to anyone changing it though! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - thanks. I'm going by what was done, which was to put AG there. I'll look up the debates, to check what was resolved by the framers. --Wikiain (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked and this was correct. McLeish just refers to "the preamble", which is ok since there is no other. But Glynn refers precisely to "the preamble of an Act of Parliament" (2 March 1898). He also speaks of the whole Act as the "Constitution", but obviously just for convenience. The distinction matters today, as you will know, because Constitution s 128, which provides for altering "the Constitution", appears not to be applicable to the material in the Act that precedes "the Constitution" itself - though that might be otherwise now, or at least since the Australia Act. --Wikiain (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WilIiams v Commonwealth (2011)

I've completed the ref to the transcripts of argument in this case, so no more about it should be needed until the day of judgment. Stephen McLeish appeared in it as a recently appointed Solicitor-General for Victoria. --Wikiain (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The HC dismissed the challenge relating to this section of the constitution, stating that the chaplains were not contracted by the Commonwealth. The article should be changed though to reflect that the religious test section has come before the HC.137.111.13.167 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Scientology

The statement that a law has never been overturned based on S116 is somewhat misleading. The High Court has overturned a Victorian law prohibiting Scientology that should have been dealt with under S116. It chose to ignore the fact that S116 prevents the High Court itself from interfering in the states right to establish/prohibit religion. Instead it relied on common lw to assert that it could hear the appeal by Scientologists that they were a religion for tax purposes. The High Court made a ruling which has now defined the meaning of religion in Australian, in contravention of S116. S116 withdraws any common law right of the Commonwealth (inluding the High court) to make a religious law. Thus Scientology can be banned by any state, Christianity can be established as a State religion, and Islam can be outlawed as an organisation that has declared itself as an enemy of the state by any state that sees fit to do so.

I'm not saying this is right. Its not. I'm say that its very very wrong, simply because S116 does not bind the states. The fact that 2 referendums on this subject failed to have S116 bind the states is no indication either of the will of the people. Those failures were due to the failure to articulate the nature of this difficult problem to the people.

Consequently, something needs to be added regarding the Church of Scientology. I'm a politician not a lawyer - so I'll leave this for discussion for now. Alexander Bunyip (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719100831/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/ConstitutionalChange/part2.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/laca/ConstitutionalChange/part2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207163730/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp02.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

archive is fine Find bruce (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011032753/http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/0/19541afd497bc2e4ca256f990081e2cf/$FILE/Constitution.pdf to http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/0/19541afd497bc2e4ca256f990081e2cf/$FILE/Constitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the dead link with a link to the specific section of the constitution on AustLII Find bruce (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)