That’s a relatively clear and straight forward statement for this antiquated and out of date 19th century British Act, but as it applies specifically to subjects of the British Queen, as per the opening paragraph and Clause 2 of the Act, it can be legally argued that it no longer applies to subjects of the fictitional Queen of Australia that has been unconstitutionally created without the approval of the Australian people. If you were to try and use that Section 117 you would also have to take into account Section 116 that says, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law ……. for prohibiting the free exercise of ANY religion, …..etc”. The interesing point about this abomination of a Section is that the “founding fathers” chose to ignore defining what they would class as a “religion”. Hence Paganism, Satanism, Scientology, Mormanism, can all claim to be legitimate “religions”, just as can Christianity and Islam, and Budhism, Taoism and any sect or cult. In effect, none of this matters because, the Parliament and the High Court simply ignore the British Act any time they wish, except when they can use specific bits to serve their purpose. For example, if Parliament and the High Court were to follow the British Act they would admit that every referendum we have had in Australia since 1906, has been conducted unconstitutionally. Section 128 of Part 9 of the British Act states 8 specific times in the one Section that “the proposed law” must be presented to the people at a referendum. Not once has this happened. Everytime the people have been presented with a simplified question to answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Nowhere in Section 128 is Parliament given one of the 39 perennial loopholes of “Until Parliament otherwise provides…” to alter this Section 128 without going to referendum.

This may apply