Sunday, February 06, 2011

Religiously follow the rules, or catch church in bed with state

It was 30 years ago that the issue of government money being lavished on church schools got a good airing in the High Court. 

That was the Defence of Government Schools case, and what a furore it caused.

Commonwealth money was being applied by successive Liberal and Labor governments to curry favour with parents who packed off their precious offspring to Catholic - and Protestant-branded schools. It was the beginning of the enormous taxpayer largesse for private schools, significantly at the expense of the state system.

The constitution says that the Commonwealth cannot make a law for establishing a religion, or for imposing religious observance or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

Importantly, ''no religious test shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth''.
In 1981, in a case brought by the Defence of Government Schools people, a majority of the Barwick court said state aid was perfectly kosher and did not violate the constitution. 

Only Justice Lionel Murphy accepted an argument that decisions of the US Supreme Court which prohibited direct government support for religious institutions should be followed here.

The majority did not take a particularly broad view of our constitutional provision, confining the restraint to laws that sought to ''establish'' a religion in Australia. 

As long as the government did not officially identify itself with one religion or another, then all would be well.

This is unlike the situation in Britain, where the monarchy is tucked up in bed with the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

During the Howard era there were determined attempts by the government to reshape Australian community ''values''. They were, naturally, the values that were thought to appeal to people who might be supporters of the government.

Consequently, in 2004 the government tied school funding to flying the Australian flag. 

To get their slice of $31 billion worth of Commonwealth funds, schools had to have a functioning flagpole topped with the flag. 

The kiddies also had to do two hours of physical activity every week (but tuckshops could still sell junk food). 

The then prime minister also encouraged the singing of the national anthem at school assemblies. 

Could official photos of John and Janette in all classrooms be far off?

For schools without the requisite resources, there was a flagpole funding program of up to $1500 an institution, with a requirement that there be a plaque noting that ''this flagpole was a gift from the Australian government''.

By 2006 the inculcation of values had grown bolder. Migrants should be prepared to know about Don Bradman's Test cricket scores or the ingredients of a pavlova. 

There was one other challenging scheme: the national schools chaplaincy program. 

Some of the greatest political minds supported it: Barnaby Joyce, Greg Hunt, Louise Markus, Fran Bailey, Julie Bishop and Peter Costello. Each school could apply for funding to have a chaplain attend to the pastoral care and spiritual guidance of students.

It started with $90 million over three years and a maximum grant of $20,000 a school. Your average chaplain comes for about $70,000 a year, so the schools were expected to stump up the difference. 

Still, it's a nice subsidy.

Howard tried hard to be ecumenical about it: ''I'm quite sure that Islamic schools and Jewish schools will be as enthusiastic about this as Catholic and Protestant schools, and so they should be.''

In fact, hardly any Jewish or Islamic schools have applied for the money. 

Overwhelmingly the funds are heading to Protestant chaplains.

The ardent churchgoer Kevin Rudd said in November 2009 that the scheme would continue until the end of this year, and to that end he earmarked another $42.8 million.

In the run-up to last year's election, the non-believer Julia Gillard pledged an expansion of the chaplains program with an extra $222 million to see it through to 2014. 

Her government also allocated $1.5 million towards the celebrations for Mary MacKillop's sainthood.

In all, nearly $400 million has been allocated by successive governments to the school chaplains' program. Gillard said at the time of announcing the expanded funding that chaplains can help ''support the school ethos''.

Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby extracted an admission from the PM that despite her lack of faith, her ''values'' had been shaped by religion.

A lot of the chaplains' program is quite vague. They don't have to be ordained ministers, merely ''endorsed or accepted by a religious institution''. 

They are not supposed to proselytise but who's going to stop them if they do?

One parent from Queensland is out to do just that.

Ron Williams says his children have been subjected to religious zealotry by chaplains employed through the Scripture Union. 

He has persuaded the Sydney solicitor Claude Bilinsky and barrister Bret Walker to challenge the program on constitutional grounds in the High Court. 

The case will be heard in May, not as an appeal but as part of the court's original jurisdiction.

The grounds are interesting. 

The appropriations made could not validly authorise funds for this purpose because there is no specific legislation establishing this scheme. 

The argument is that appropriation for a new project such as this requires special legislation.

Then there is the crunch constitutional point. 

Any school chaplain engaged under this scheme holds an office under the Commonwealth. 

By requiring these chaplains to comply with certain guidelines, a ''religious test'' as a qualification for a government job is imposed. 

This, it is argued, breaches the constitution.

It's now a very different High Court from the Barwick era. 

It will be fascinating to see how the outcome affects the future of government-endorsed ''values''.