WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Being sworn in as an Australian parliamentarian on the Koran is unconstitutional.
OUR VERDICT
False. Australian politicians are allowed to be sworn in on the Koran.
AAP FACTCHECK - Being sworn in to Australia's parliament using a Koran does not violate the constitution, despite social media claims.
Federal politicians can be sworn in using a copy of the Koran, which is Islam's central holy text, or can make a non-religious affirmation.
Ahead of the May 3 federal election, a Facebook post claims that parliamentarians who have used the Koran to be sworn in contravened Section 44 of the constitution.
"6 Muslims all in Australian federal politics who have all sworn on the Quaran on entering parliament. Let that sink in," the post reads.
"This goes against section 44 of the constitution. Not to mention all the Muslims in council seats around Australia."
But the claim is false.
The House of Representatives Practice, a text on procedure and practice in the lower house, states that any holy book can be held when reciting the oath of allegiance during the swearing-in ceremony.
"A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non–Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature," it says.
The same applies to senators, according to the Parliamentary Education Office.
Several federal senators and cabinet ministers have used a Koran to be sworn in.
Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, said that swearing an oath on the Koran was not unconstitutional.
She said Section 42 of the constitution required every senator or member of parliament to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance before taking their seat.
"It permits an affirmation, as an alternative to an oath, showing that no religious faith is required," Professor Twomey told AAP FactCheck.
She said that was consistent with Section 116 of the constitution, which says that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth".
Prof Twomey said Section 44, referred to in the post, instead related to disqualifying parliamentarians "under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power".
"Swearing an oath on a book treated as holy by a religion does not amount to acknowledging allegiance, obedience or adherence to a 'foreign power'," Prof Twomey said.
"A 'foreign power' in this context (Section 44) means a foreign country or political entity. A religion is not a 'foreign power'."
Prof Twomey said a similar argument had been made in the past against Catholic MPs and senators, as the leader of their faith is the head of state of the Vatican.
She said High Court Justice Wilfred Fullagar rejected the argument about Catholic politicians as "quite untenable" in a 1950 ruling.
"He said that in such a matter section 116 is relevant, because if the claim about disqualification of Catholics was correct, it would mean there was a 'religious test' to hold the office of a Member of Parliament," Prof Twomey said.
"The Constitution clearly did not intend section 44 to be treated as applying a religious test."
AFP FactCheck has also debunked the claim.
AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, BlueSky, TikTok and YouTube.
