High Court Challenge decision a victory for democracy

[Lee]

The Atheist Foundation of Australia congratulates the judges of the High Court of Australia in their decision to disallow funding of chaplains in state schools.

This is a victory for democracy, for secularism, and for students in state schools around the country.

The founding fathers understood the importance of Jefferson's wall of separation between Church and State when they wrote s.116 into the constitution. Their intentions were subverted by the 1981 High Court in the Defence of Government Schools case. This more enlightened decision in Williams v The Commonwealth gives us hope that perhaps the judiciary has turned the corner and shown the way for the executive and the legislature.

Mr Ron Williams' tireless efforts demonstrate how the 'little man' on the street can alter the course of history and in doing so benefit future generations immeasurably.

He deserves more than congratulations for his relentless efforts in pushing for the procuring of this long awaited judgment. The personal financial cost to Mr Williams and his family has been great. The AFA calls for equally concerned people in Australia to donate generously to ensure that Ron's sacrifice is shared by us all at highcourtchallenge.com (http://www.highcourtchallenge.com)

We congratulate Ron on taking this risk in our name and his great success!

Ron will be remembered as one of the heroes who stood up to make a difference and attempted to make purposeful change and succeeded admirably.

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia
Private Mail Bag 6
Maitland SA 5573

Phone: + 61 8 8835 2269
email: info@atheistfoundation.org.au
www.atheistfoundation.org.au (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au)

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Clang!



What was that, Dad?

That was a bit of history happening, son.

Is it always that noisy?

Ha, that was a quiet one. No-one died and everyone got ice cream after the show. (exits stage left to find scoop)

[Darwinsbulldog]

WoW! I never expected this. :thumbsup::)

[Annie]

Can't wait to get home and check out Ronnie's FB page.
Thanks Ronnie. So very proud of you.

[robertkd]

Most excellent news and a fantastic effort by Ron, whilst I hope it won't be the case I'm sure the godists will cry foul ;) and challenge the decision.

Now wait a minute isn't the censes out., sort of looks like religion hasn't been updated can only find 2006.

[Voltairine]

A "well done round of applause" for Mr Williams. Made the ball he has started never stop rolling and never collect moss.

[Onlyatheory?]

A "well done round of applause" for Mr Williams. Made the ball he has started never stop rolling and never collect moss.

I would prefer to say 'may the ball keep rolling and collect as many mosques, churches ..........'

It's ok, I'll see myself out:o

Sent from my GT-N7000B using Tapatalk 2

[rayne]

Victory! Although with a victory will come the eventual screeching from the religious right screaming about persecution. To that I say

http://i.qkme.me/36433j.jpg

[Annie]

For anyone not on Facebook and haven't seen this great pic. :) 1947

[crocoduck]

I am going to allow myself a day of dancing on the rooftops. Then back to full support for the ongoing... er.. mosque gathering ball. :)

When Leslie Cannold in her GAC talk mentioned the narrow and baffling interpretation of s 116 of the Constitution by Justices Sir Ronald Wilson and Sir Ninian Stephen, a little bell rang in my head.

Apropos of nothing in particular, a quote from Sir Ronald Wilson in the DOGS case:


In analysing what section 116 meant two judges referred directly to the question of church and state. Justice Sir Ronald Wilson said:
The fact is that s.116 is a denial of legislative power to the Commonwealth and no more … The provision therefore cannot answer the description of a law which guarantees within Australia the separation of church and state.


And also apropros of nothing in particular, Wiki on Sir Ronald:





Throughout his life, Wilson was an active participant in first the Presbyterian Church of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Australia) and then the Uniting Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_Church), formed after the union of many congregations of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, Methodist Church of Australasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Church_of_Australasia) and Congregational Union of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_Union_of_Australia) into one denomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination). He held a range of senior positions in the Church including:

Moderator of Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderator_of_the_General_Assembly), Presbyterian Church in Western Australia (1965)
Moderator, WA Synod, Uniting Church in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_Church_in_Australia) (1977-1979)
President of the Assembly, Uniting Church in Australia (1988-1991)
Deputy Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_Aboriginal_Reconciliation) (1991-1994)
President, Australian Chapter, World Conference on Religion and Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Conference_on_Religion_and_P eace&action=edit&redlink=1) (1991-1996)
Wilson was the first layperson to be the President of the Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia. He was particularly concerned with encouraging the broad Australian community to gain an understanding of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigines) history.
In retirement, he travelled widely to Aboriginal and church events, and was an active member of a refugee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee) education scheme near his home.

By all accounts the late Sir Ronald was a very nice man who did very nice, kind things etc etc and also I am sure he would never have let his personal beliefs interfere with his legal judgment.

[Centauri]

Thank you, Ron. :thumbsup:

[TimB]

A big congratulations Ron, thanks.:thumbsup:

[DanDare]

Of course the gummint is yelling that they will fund chaplains anyway. And the judges dismissed the secularism argument. Takes nothing away from Ron's work and the work of all his supporters. Well done one and all.

Now for R.I. eh?:D

[ptah]

I suspect two steps forwards and one back, given that the government will find another way of carrying on regardless.

Now they're talking of a referendum on recognising local councils which somehow relates to this, but how?

On referenda, I would like to see one on separation of church and state, but given how many have failed perhaps it's not a good idea.

[Fearless]

Fantastic news and hat off to Ron for his monumental efforts and dedication.

It concerns me that the oppositional parties to this decision were so vocal, waving paperwork around their heads at the media talking about the 'consequences' and 'implications' of this ruling that there is no telling what other areas of funding could be affected.

They gave an example of funding for roads on the news and showed school children walking between cars parked during pickup. You know, milking the story.

What is my concern? That the oppositional groups will scheme and plot to find other areas to pick on and make other areas of society pay for its loss, as some form of lesson to us all.

Not that it should affect the CP which is the most important thing, but we should be mindful of a few who will be hellbent on 'retribution'.

[Larsson]

I don't see why this is regarded as a great victory.
We lost on the issue of secularism. The high court again confirmed that we do not have a separation of church and state.

The only good thing as I see it is that Ron was awarded costs, and that the the issue got some press.

Chaplaincy program is continuing without pause. The government will just legislate around this and continue it.

Or am I missing something?

[AFA Admin]

Hi Larsson

This is a message sent to all who find their way to these forums.

We like people, and we like facts too!

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people. (We do not tolerate personal abuse.)

You may already have visited these other handy places:
* New Member Information (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12)
* Welcome from AFA president (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=18)
* For those interested in learning, I recommend the Atheism Resource Thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7608) maintained by Fearless.
* And a quick look at our reserved spot for belief-based discussion, Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16), includes The Great Big List (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4784), a sort-of "things we've seen before" for those of faith, and general rules of argument for the forum.

If you've got questions, please ask. Moderators have red name tags, but many of our friendly people may have the answers you need.

Enjoy the forums. We hope to see plenty from you in discussions.

Have fun.

[Bolero]

I don't see why this is regarded as a great victory.
We lost on the issue of secularism. The high court again confirmed that we do not have a separation of church and state.

The only good thing as I see it is that Ron was awarded costs, and that the the issue got some press.

Chaplaincy program is continuing without pause. The government will just legislate around this and continue it.

Or am I missing something?

While I feel that Ron's efforts here have been awesome, and that certainly this case has greatly increased public recognition of this issue, I understand what you are saying here. The government has already indicated it has no intention of cancelling the program, and has actually talked explicitly about changing legislation, rather than examining the program or funding allocations.

We can only hope the anti-CP voices (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/chaplains-out-welfare-workers-in-greens/story-e6frf7jx-1226403039897) grow as a result of this.

NSW Greens MP John Kaye wants child welfare workers to replace school chaplains after the High Court ruled that commonwealth funding of the Government's National School Chaplaincy Program was invalid.

...continued

[Fearless]

It is a big step in the right direction. If Ron felt that his efforts were for nill all then why bother? It is also sending a strong message out there that obviously people cannot just ignore.

Groups and individuals really have to keep pushing forward and all victories celebrated.

Gain momentum and more ground and there's no telling where you could end up.

[fudge]

how does it actually be considered a win for secularism?
all it has done has shown up a glitch in the political processes, the word I hear is that it can be easily fixed.......
Ron Williams has done nothing except highlight political incompetence, the chaplaincy scheme will continue as normal......
Celebrations because he won? read through the decision the celebration is very hollow......
Appears to be a great waste of time and resource.
The result: Chaplains are still in schools, Gilliard, Garrett, Abbott and co will put it through properly as they all support it.
What kind of atheist is julia??

[AFA Admin]

Hi, fudge.

This is a message sent to all who find their way to these forums.

We like people, and we like facts too!

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people. (We do not tolerate personal abuse.)

You may already have visited these other handy places:
* New Member Information (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12)
* Welcome from AFA president (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=18)
* For those interested in learning, I recommend the Atheism Resource Thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7608) maintained by Fearless.
* And a quick look at our reserved spot for belief-based discussion, Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16), includes The Great Big List (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4784), a sort-of "things we've seen before" for those of faith, and general rules of argument for the forum.

If you've got questions, please ask. Moderators have red name tags, but many of our friendly people may have the answers you need.

Enjoy the forums. We hope to see plenty from you in discussions.

Have fun.

[wolty]

how does it actually be considered a win for secularism?
all it has done has shown up a glitch in the political processes, the word I hear is that it can be easily fixed.......
Ron Williams has done nothing except highlight political incompetence, the chaplaincy scheme will continue as normal......
Celebrations because he won? read through the decision the celebration is very hollow......
Appears to be a great waste of time and resource.
The result: Chaplains are still in schools, Gilliard, Garrett, Abbott and co will put it through properly as they all support it.
What kind of atheist is julia??

I can't quite work out if this is trolling or not. But there are a couple of questions, so here goes.
how does it actually be considered a win for secularism?
It's actually not a win for secularism. More the ability for someone to be able to stand up and be counted and challenge an error by the government.


What kind of atheist is julia??
Didn't know there were different kinds of atheists. Really, atheism is only a disbelief in gods, nothing else should be read into the term.
My opinion of Julia means fuckall.

[Fearless]

Glass is half empty for some I guess.

You can't swallow an elephant by eating it whole, but you have more of a chance if you take it bite by bite.

It is sending a message out there that many people are not happy with the situation. It is spreading information to people who are curious about why this is wrong and how they can get involved in invoking change.

It doesn't mean we stop either. It puts more pressure on the government to listen and take note. Just like the census work done with the no religion campaign, you start the ball rolling, gather interest and momentum and keep bloody going until you reach your goal. If there are achievements along the way like this you acknowledge them and the people like Ron who put so much effort in, even if it wasn't completely ideal.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Appears to be a great waste of time and resource.

Even if I conceded that a person standing up for their rights against incompetent goverance was a waste of time, you still have to balance the effort against the waste of time and resources that is the school chaplaincy program. A long way to go before equivalent wastage is achieved. I think we can keep going in good conscience.




What kind of atheist is julia??

One who does not accept the truth claims of religions. That is all there is to atheism.

As for what kind of person, well, that's another matter, and I would say a she is a crappy one.

[FSM]

So given the result that (if I understand it right) it's simply the funding model (i.e. the government tax dollars) that is unconstitutional, that to me means either:
1) The high court found a loophole and took the easy way out to pander to the government.
2) The challenge itself was somehow flawed? (i.e I was under the impression that the challenge was about the actual chaplains themselves? And the government funding was just a footnote of sorts?
or were they actually targeting the funding model only and therefore the result is complete win?

Can someone clarify?

Dave.

[Durro]

I think that Fudge has some valid points. The case didn't address the issue of separation of church and state, but merely addressed the issue of the mechanism of funding. If an alternate funding arrangement is found, then the Chappies are back on deck, business as usual.

[Loki]

Structural separation would be a tricky one to address through the courts as our constitution doesn't mention it. s.116 is the closest it comes and that only says the government can't create it's own religion and it can't apply a religious test to those it directly employs (saying those employed by others using government money aren't covered is a bit of a welch IMO but that is where things stand). The courts can only provide clarification on what is in the document, what isn't is a whole different barrel of eels.

[DanDare]

I think some mention should be made in public of a flaw in the judgement regarding s116.

The court has basically stated that constitutional constraints on government can be voided by acting through an intermediary. This is a device to thwart limitations placed on government.

I believe the government should be constitutionally be unable to fund operations and institutions to perform activities it would not be legally allowed to fund directly. Does this make sense?

[David Nicholls]

I think some mention should be made in public of a flaw in the judgement regarding s116.

The court has basically stated that constitutional constraints on government can be voided by acting through an intermediary. This is a device to thwart limitations placed on government.

I believe the government should be constitutionally be unable to fund operations and institutions to perform activities it would not be legally allowed to fund directly. Does this make sense?
DanDare,

That is exactly how I see it and it is hard to see it any other way. The High Court not only made a mistake it looks like they engineered one.

David

[Loki]

I'll agree with that, and what's more while the wording provides a possible loophole to be slithered through it's an ethically untenable position. Not a good look.

[OzAtheist]

I commend Ron Williams, his lawyers and all who supported him, but...

After watching various media, and doing a little reading, it does (as others have suggested) seem in some ways a hollow victory.

Both sides of government have already said they will still fund the NSCP, they'll just find another way of doing it. FFS!

Several other institutions including sporting institutions, are now worried about their funding thanks to the court case. (Oh great, now everyone is going to hate 'us')

From what I can gather the whole thing rested on the governments "ability" to fund certain things not on anything to do with religion or otherwise.

Don't think I'm happy about this, I'm not, it annoys the fecking shite out of me. What more can be done?

Sometimes I truly despair for mankind, I really do.

:headbang::headbang:

[robertkd]

I commend Ron Williams, his lawyers and all who supported him, but...

After watching various media, and doing a little reading, it does (as others have suggested) seem in some ways a hollow victory.

Both sides of government have already said they will still fund the NSCP, they'll just find another way of doing it. FFS!

Several other institutions including sporting institutions, are now worried about their funding thanks to the court case. (Oh great, now everyone is going to hate 'us')

From what I can gather the whole thing rested on the governments "ability" to fund certain things not on anything to do with religion or otherwise.

Don't think I'm happy about this, I'm not, it annoys the fecking shite out of me. What more can be done?

Exactly the inference I got from the media, but didn't know about sporting clubs oh well,..



Sometimes I truly despair for mankind, I really do.

:headbang::headbang:

Yep this. :thumbsup:

<edit>

Where victory would be ashes in our mouth,. Spot the Kennedy

[Stubby]

DanDare,

That is exactly how I see it and it is hard to see it any other way. The High Court not only made a mistake it looks like they engineered one.

David

In a sense it is engingeered, but it's not necessarily surprising that it happened that way.

The only reason the HCA threw that part of the challenge out was that the chaplains were not directly employed by the govt. By making that finding, the HCA did not have to address the religious aspects of s 116. This approach is common in law. If there is an evidentiary flaw in your case, appeal courts will happily chuck it out without bothering to assess the merits of the appeal. You could have the strongest case based on an error of law but if you haven't proved the basic facts on which your position is based the HCA is not going to entertain it.

An analogy would be a case based on a speeding charge, where the prosecution has not proved who the driver was. It is a part of the section that sets up the law, and if it's not proved the section simply does not apply.

So it was the easy way out, but not surprising.

In the future, should a suitable 'vehicle' come along with a federal position requiring a religious test then I doubt that it would be dismissed without many pages of analysis. It would absolutely get past that first hurdle.

Of course, they could have gone on to consider the merits of the religious argument to provide a useful precedent to the parties and the country as a whole, basing such a decision on an assumption that the chaplains were in a position that fell within s 116, but the HCA does not do so unless the facts match the issue squarely.

[Blue Lightning]

DanDare,

That is exactly how I see it and it is hard to see it any other way. The High Court not only made a mistake it looks like they engineered one.

David


David – No!

Ron Williams won because the Commonwealth's action was unlawful in the absence of Commonwealth action (ie - legislation/appropriation). Given that there was no such Commonwealth action, there was no “office under the Commonwealth”. End of story. The religious qualification test did not arise. The Court decided what it needed to, to find that RW won. It didn't want to be drawn on questions that didn't arise, for good reason: see below.

Some very skilled Constitutional lawyers have suspected, for some time now, that Commonwealth contractual conduct of the type in this case without supporting legislation was open to question, but that was not a black and white question, and the stakes were high. To run such a case would be expensive. And did the most likely challengers - the States - want to very seriously alienate the holder of their purse strings, the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth Solicitor-General and his predecessor, I assure you, are very skilled, so we should infer that the Commonwealth was aware of this risk. Why do you think that the Chaplaincy programme was funded this way? There is every reason to suspect that the architects of this scheme – the Howard Government - thought that if they legislated, they knew that would get a challenge, which was more likely to succeed and not require as much commitment as RW in the end had to display. I suspect that they thought that, if the States didn't decide to on their own account to mount the challenge, that the harder challenge would be all too much for a private challenger, with poor funding, pitted against the might of the Commonwealth.

Ron and his supporters deserve great praise because they took on the hard case, and they assembled (and paid from their own resources for! :eek:) a legal team with the firepower to match the Commonwealth. :thumbsup: :)

Now, there might be lots of ways to attempt to fund Chaplains in public schools. Some might be legal – for example, by just gifting money to a State, free of any condition for the State to do what it wants. A lot of non-controversial State works are funded this way. Then State funds Chaplains :mad:. Queensland, for example, doesn't have any religious qualification prohibition in its own state Constitution :mad:. So, regrettably, it can lawfully fund chaplains in its schools :mad:. But is the Commonwealth going to give up control of the purse strings? :rolleyes: It's track record here is to the contrary. So this may never happen. Some ways might be illegal: Maybe the Commonwealth legislates and says “this money shall only be paid to chaplains of religion”. IMO, that in all likelihood would infringe the religious qualification prohibition, even if those persons were independent contractors primarily responsible to principals for the delivery of services. That's so because they would have a responsibility under a Commonwealth statute to be chaplains of religion. Sounds like an “office under the Commonwealth” to me. So, if the Commonwealth wants to try to achieve the objective of chaplains in schools, precisely how far do they go to in order to achieve it? Do they try for some half way house? If so, what is it? There, we we get into trickier territory in predicting the future. And the legalities of a half way house may not be completely clear, especially wihout hearing all the arguments about it.

One of the fundamental principles that Courts follow is not to pre-judge cases without hearing the arguments from the affected parties. Call them old fashioned! But they are worried about affected people “having their day in Court”, and being given a real opportunity to put their cases. That's one reason why they don't decide things that don't arise.

Also, what if a Judge had expressed a firm opinion about some issue, without the issue being squarely raised in the case, and without hearing proper argument about it? What happens then, if a case involving that same issue comes before that Judge? How would you feel if you were a party – for example, if your liberty depended on it – and you wanted to argue something different? You might feel that the Judge had pre-judged the issue, and that the Judge was biased. And there might be real grounds for that feeling. Justice would not be seen to have been done in your case.

It was for reasons of this sort that the Court did not entertain the religious qualification part of Ron's case. It's so obvious that that very question might arise, soon, in a real case. And that case will depend upon presently unknown circumstances, and it have to be fairly and properly decided.

Now – I can almost predict how some might respond: But the Chaplains are still in the schools, and their funding is presently illegal! Get them out!

There are two aspects to this: Broadly, past and future money. For the money already paid out by the Commonwealth (some of which has gone to the chaplains and some of which is still sitting in principals' bank accounts), the effect of the decision is that these people owe the Commonwealth a debt. The Commonwealth has decided to forgive those debts, and, IMO, there is nothing that can be done to prevent them from doing that, except to influence public opinion.

For the future, the Commonwealth cannot, and will not, pay more money without a new scheme. What then? It depends on the nature of the scheme. If it's a gift to the States, end of game. If there is Commonwealth legislation, it's a different question. And bear in mind that, if Commonwealth is crude and the programme infringes the religious qualification prohibition, and if there is another Ron Williams, the second time around the Court might grant an interim injunction to stop the funding, or bring on a quick final hearing to resolve the question.

I doubt if the Commonwealth will be so foolish as to just crudely call the bluff of a Ron Williams the second time around. There will be a very carefully crafted response. And there will be many more of these symbols :mad: posted in this forum in response ...

Too much red wine, time for bed...

… The only reason the HCA threw that part of the challenge out was that the chaplains were not directly employed by the govt. By making that finding, the HCA did not have to address the religious aspects of s 116. This approach is common in law. If there is an evidentiary flaw in your case, appeal courts will happily chuck it out without bothering to assess the merits of the appeal. You could have the strongest case based on an error of law but if you haven't proved the basic facts on which your position is based the HCA is not going to entertain it.

An analogy would be a case based on a speeding charge, where the prosecution has not proved who the driver was. It is a part of the section that sets up the law, and if it's not proved the section simply does not apply.

So it was the easy way out, but not surprising.

In the future, should a suitable 'vehicle' come along with a federal position requiring a religious test then I doubt that it would be dismissed without many pages of analysis. It would absolutely get past that first hurdle.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

Of course, they could have gone on to consider the merits of the religious argument to provide a useful precedent to the parties and the country as a whole, basing such a decision on an assumption that the chaplains were in a position that fell within s 116, but the HCA does not do so unless the facts match the issue squarely.

Yes. The problem is that there are intermediate possibilities and the outcome might vary depending upon presently unknown facts – see above.

[Blue Lightning]

On reflection, I'd add this to my post last night. There is a particular issue which is likely to arise if the Commonwealth legislates as I think it might. It was adverted to in the Joint Judgment (Par [91]), and I suspect it provided a powerful incentive for the Court to decline to enter into hypothetical issues. Some people in this forum have focused on the prohibition in s.116 upon establishing an office under the Commonwealth with a religious qualification. The Constitution also contains permissions or powers. Some of them are very broad, and some of them are very narrow. How might the permissions and the prohibitions interplay?

Some "set theory": Call X the set of all ways that the Commonwealth might establish an office under the Commonwealth with a religious qualification. Viewed in isolation, section 116 prohibits all conduct within the set X. Now, chose one of many other provisions of the Constitution which specifically permit things and call Y the set of all conduct matching the description in that permission. Viewed in isolation, the Commonwealth can do all conduct within the set Y. What happens if the Commonwealth does an act Z, where Z is an action that can be described as within both X and Y. That is, Z is a member of both sets X and Y. Can the Commonwealth do Z? In other words, how do you reconcile potential conflict between the operation of the specific prohibition and a specific permission? The answer depends a lot on the precise way in which the provisions involved are expressed. Hence, knowing precisely which of the permissions is being invoked and how, matters. Maybe s.116 trumps some of the permissions. Maybe some of the permissions trump s.116. There may be intermediate possibilities depending upon the words involved. In any event, the power conferred by, or the prohibition imposed by, some Constitutional provision might be different to what it would be, if the provision was viewed in isolation.

In the argument in the High Court, the Commonwealth pointed to several specific permissions which might allow it to fund chaplaincy in public schools, including, among others, s.51(xxxiiiA). The Court answered the Commonwealth by saying, in effect, 'that's all well and good, but you haven't done that yet. Since you haven't done legislated, what you have done is without power and unlawful. And until you do it and until we see your legislation, how can we possibly judge what the position might be?' They said:

91. ... Nothing in these reasons should be taken as expressing any view upon the scope of s 51(xxiiiA) or any other head of legislative power.

Six Judges agreed with that statement. Given the uncertainties mentioned above, they suspected that there might come a day when they would have to answer that question, and they were concerned about the types of issues I referred to in my earlier post.

[fudge]

quote:
"Several other institutions including sporting institutions, are now worried about their funding thanks to the court case. (Oh great, now everyone is going to hate 'us')"

I agree with this, this decision could open a 'pandoras box' of which the government is rendered more impotent than it already is.
Quess who is going to get the blame?
Ron and his supporters or the Chaplains?
I was asked if I was trolling, but I feel it is actually raising an important question. Something of which needs to be addressed to stop the poo flying off the fan and hitting us in the face

[Stubby]

Quess who is going to get the blame?


The federal government for not acting within the confines of the constitution.

[Fearless]

Fudge, if the oppositional parties to the high court case go out of their way to make a point by exposing things like sports clubs and other non intrusive projects, to attempt to pull funding based on the CP outcome, then it will expose them for the petty self centered people they are. It won't make them any more popular either. If they want to bring that upon themselves then I hope they are ready to lose more respect from the public and most likely face protest and court battles etc

The Chaplaincy scheme issue is far different from sports clubs and roads etc. They would be mindful to not make it seem of some form of retribution by making others suffer unnecessarily.

[Darwinsbulldog]

quote:
"Several other institutions including sporting institutions, are now worried about their funding thanks to the court case. (Oh great, now everyone is going to hate 'us')"

I agree with this, this decision could open a 'pandoras box' of which the government is rendered more impotent than it already is.
Quess who is going to get the blame?
Ron and his supporters or the Chaplains?
I was asked if I was trolling, but I feel it is actually raising an important question. Something of which needs to be addressed to stop the poo flying off the fan and hitting us in the face
Is government funding for sport a self-evident truth? Some may say it is just vote-buying, others may cite health benefits. But either way, correct funding arrangements is the way to go. Governments can't break the law, nor citizens, nor corporations, nor unions. There are two main questions here:
1. The legality of funding X
2. The ethics of funding X
In reality, some government funding is pork-barrelling. Both sides of politics do it. And of course, it is wrong. Because money is often diverted to where it is not needed, or needed less urgently, than elsewhere.

[Loki]

"dey was doing it too" is an argument most of us grow out of around age 6.

If the funding arrangement is illegal then it's illegal, regardless of any community value various groups might associate with it.

Securing funding through the mechanisms afforded by parliament provides transparency and oversight. Programs which are currently inappropriately funded but which have merit surely don't have anything to fear by the prospect of enabling legislation.

*They might legitimately fear having to run the gauntlet of partisan politics, but that is another issue.

[DanDare]

Government sport funding was always supposed to be for community sport, the stuff people actually get to play rather than just watched.

Anyway, back to the NSCP.

Chief Justice Robert French (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/23.html) made it clear the program does not accord with the "heads of power" under which the Commonwealth is permitted to pass legislation. Constitutional expert George Williams (http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/chaplains-safe-despite-high-court-ruling-roxon-20120620-20n2d.html) agrees, noting:
"The Commonwealth might go back and try and support the chaplaincy program with legislation but it's far from clear the High Court would uphold the chaplaincy program even with legislation." Yesterday, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, vowed to continue the controversial program. But it seems the government's only option may be to provide tied grants - also known as specific purpose payments (SPPs) - to the states.
This brings its own set of problems. SPPs are traditionally provided for the purpose of achieving specific and measurable outcomes; continued funding depends on the states delivering results. Yet, the NSCP has never been "outcome driven" - it is not based upon any research identifying the specific needs of schools or their students and has no clearly articulated or measurable goals.
States rushing to board the NSCP gravy train may be well-advised to remember the program was devised for political and ideological purposes rather than the achievement of positive student outcomes. While making no comment on the merits (or otherwise) of the program, even the High Court justices struggled with the technical difficulty of defining how the program provided a "benefit" to students.
Beyond anecdote, there is no evidence (bar one methodologically flawed and heavily compromised report (http://johnkaye.org.au/campaigns/education/chaplaincy-program-study-flawed-and-biased-conclusions-not-justified)) that school chaplains actually provide any tangible benefit or fulfil any clearly identifiable need. There is certainly no evidence that tax payers' money would not be better directed towards professionally qualified counsellors and youth workers or implementing programs designed to meet the particular needs of individual schools.
To date, nearly half a billion dollars has been spent on, or committed to, school chaplaincy; this, in the absence of any research which establishes that it is either safe or desirable to have substantially unqualified people with a religious agenda dealing "at the coal face" with "at risk" kids.
The Australian Psychological Society (http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-Submission-School-Chaplains-July2010.pdf) has branded the program "dangerous." An investigation into the NSCP by the Commonwealth Ombudsman (http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/files/commonwealth_ombudsman_chaplaincy_report_06_11.pdf ), slammed it as ill-defined, poorly monitored and not equipped to deal adequately with complaints. The Australian Education Union has called it "fundamentally flawed (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Media/President/Aeuchaplaincyresp2011.html)." At the High Court hearing last August, Justice William Gummow (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2011/198.html), clearly unimpressed with the program's documentation, grumbled from the bench, "This sort of stuff would never get through parliamentary council."
Following widespread criticism, Federal Minister for Education Peter Garrett instituted some changes to the program during 2011. But, on close inspection, these "improvements" appear to be cynically cosmetic.
The introduction of "secular" welfare workers captivated the media, but ...
Excellent full article (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/06/21/3530781.htm) at the ABC

[steveeeee73]

Hi David,
Sorry I am confused about the High Court Decision.

The 1981 D.O.G.S case (Defence of Govt. Schools) saw the High Court rule IN FAVOUR of religion (E.G. chaplains in schools) by quoting the s. 116 of the Aust. constitution.

In the High Court decision on Wednesday saw the High Court rule AGAINST religion (E.G.chaplains in schools). by quoting the s. 116 of the Aust. constitution.

So was it the High Courts interpretation of s. 116 of the Aust. constitution which has changed?

I am confused - is this corrrect? If you can answer me then a reply to this forum will do. Thanks

[wolty]

In the High Court decision on Wednesday saw the High Court rule AGAINST religion (E.G.chaplains in schools). by quoting the s. 116 of the Aust. constitution.



No, the court ruled against the funding model of the chaplaincy program. Eg. The way the money was disbursed to the states. It also draws into question other ways that the government disburses money to the states like road funding (black spot) and council monies. Lots of stuff.

[DanDare]

Hi Steveeee,

in the recent decision the high court dismissed the religious question as being not relevant to the case.

Instead they found the way in which the government funded the NSCP was unconstitutional, it was outside of the governments actual funding powers. You will also discover that some government minister in the current and previous governments, could have a case to answer for having committed felonies.

From the beginning this was Ron's target. To separate the government from churches by blocking the way they are providing funding. The s116 part of the argument was an ambit claim only.

However, I am disappointed at the court's reasoning in regards to the s116 question, I must say.

[fudge]

The latest I have heard from SUQ is that the federal government is taking the NCSP straight into parliament as early as tomorrow to make sure the funding continues............
No chaplains will lose their jobs and thanks to Ron Williams, any loopholes will be closed, so chaplaincy will be permanent, thanks Ronnie:mad:
Someone said it is a gradual process, this is a huge backward step

[Xeno]

Oh, hi fudge. I politely asked you some questions which you can find referenced here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=310303&postcount=51).

Care to answer?

[Bolero]

It does seem like a backwards step, but I hardly think it's Ron's fault. The response of the government in this matter is utterly shameful.

[Fearless]

I'll wait to see it happen before I comment more I think.

[steveeeee73]

Many people believe the High Court decision on School chaplains being banned is moot because the goverment will ammend the law and the chaplains will stay in schools. To ammend the law the govt. must get both houses of parliament to vote in favour of the ammended law and the fact that Labor and Liberal hate each other may work to the advantage of not ammending the law as it is unlikely not guaranteed that the law won't be ammended.

[GenericBox]

The commentary I saw seemed to suggest that the legislation changes will get bi-partisan support and even Royal Assent within days.

[Blue Lightning]

I've posted an update here:

This is the Government's press release on the new legislation

[DanDare]

The legislation is not about the NSCP per se, its about giving the feds the right to pork barrel using our taxes, so it will easily pass I suspect.

[Aldaron]

Already going through...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/school-chaplaincy-legislation-set-to-pass/4094186