Dead DOGS? Towards a Less Restrictive Interpretation of the Establishment Clause: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2)
17 Pages Posted: 18 Apr 2013 Last revised: 20 Jan 2016
Date Written: April 18, 2013
Cases involving the ‘establishment clause’ of s116 of the Australian Constitution very rarely come before the courts. In Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2) the plaintiff contended that Commonwealth funding of an Islamic school with an on-campus mosque breached the prohibition in s116 of the Constitution that ‘[t]he Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion’. This case note examines that case and discusses three key issues arising from the reasoning: the rejection of giving restrictive meanings to s116, the possibility of non-national establishments of religion and the possibility of multiple establishments of religion. Finally, the case note identifies a number of issues important to the task of reinterpreting the establishment clause.
Keywords: Establishment clause, religion, section 116, First Amendment, establishment
JEL Classification: K10, K30
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation