The Commonwealth Government (Government) is set to attempt to implement a new School Chaplains Program (Program), marking the third time that the Commonwealth Government has attempted to set up and run such a program.

The first two attempts were unsuccessful, with the latest iteration being ruled effectively invalid in June by the High Court due to technical funding reasons. The first attempt suffered a similar fate. The upshot of these decisions is that the Government cannot fund these programs directly.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Government will soon introduce a scheme that, like the previous attempts, will only support religious chaplains. It will not support secular (i.e. non-religious) welfare workers. The announcement has sparked mixed responses from educational commentators.

A little bit of history

Mr Williams is a father of six, a jazz singer, a Toowoombian, and a two-time High Court litigant. His audacious campaign to take on the Government in the High Court has twice been successful. This makes him a real-life Darryl Kerrigan.

In 2006, the then Howard Government introduced a religious chaplaincy program into schools. Mr Williams took issue with this program on the principle that the Government was funding religious teaching in state schools. After years of attempting to persuade Education Ministers to abandon the program, he challenged it in the courts.

The first challenge was Williams v Commonwealth, decided in 2012. Despite the onerous costs of litigating in the High Court, Mr Williams was able to raise enough money and gain enough assistance to take the issue to a full hearing. In this challenge, Mr Williams was successful on technical grounds, with the High Court holding that the Government did not have the power to fund the program. In response to this, the Gillard Government introduced legislation to attempt to cure the funding defects in the School Chaplains program.  The Gillard Government also expanded the scheme to include funding for secular welfare workers in addition to the religious chaplains.

The second challenge, decided in June this year, again succeeded, with the High Court finding that the laws purporting to fund the School Chaplains Program were invalid. The consequence of this was that the Commonwealth Government was unable to fund or administer the program, and it was discontinued.

A new scheme

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Government is set to revive the scheme for a third time, by granting funding to the states and allowing them to administer the scheme. The report goes on to say that 'under the new scheme, chaplains can be of any faith, cannot proselytise [i.e. convert students to a faith or religion] and must meet minimum qualification standards'. Although these 'minimum standards' have not yet been released, in the past chaplains who receive funding have had to meet requirements which include implementing measures to address child protection, complaint and grievance handing processes and other compliance needs.

In the new scheme, the Government will attempt to fund the $244 million program by using what are called 'section 96' grants, which empowers the Government to grant money to the states and territories on certain terms and conditions. These terms and conditions can be very wide.

The states may choose to accept or reject the funding. So far, Western Australia has given support for the Program in its current form, but South Australia and Tasmania have reservations, according to ABC News. The Canberra Times reports that the Australian Capital Territory will only administer the Program if it provides secular welfare workers. New South Wales sent a report to the Commonwealth Education Minister that shows the benefits that secular welfare workers (qualified non-religious youth workers) have provided, but it has indicated it will not turn down the funding on the grounds that it provides for religious chaplains only.

Williams No 3?

Mr Williams has condemned the attempts to revive a school chaplains program. It appears, from his website, that he is now pursuing a senate inquiry into the matter, rather than another High Court challenge. This may be because as the law currently stands, there are few grounds to challenge the Program in the form proposed. The Commonwealth has a wide discretion to grant funding to the states and territories to administer such programs, and previous arguments that the Program was invalid on religious grounds have already been dismissed by the High Court.

The result of another challenge will be by no means certain. But given the two successful challenges already, one would expect that the Government may baulk at attempting to introduce the Program for a third time on anything but strong legal grounds.

A little bit of context 

Whilst the merit of School Chaplains in schools may well be strong, in an environment where school funding is currently a hotly debated issue, the Government's continued pursuit of the $244 million program excluding secular welfare workers remains controversial.

Some argue that the policy of the Program is undermined by the requirement that chaplains are to have religious qualifications, but are not allowed to proselytise.  One commentator has said that this is like 'inviting clowns into the school and telling them not to be funny'. Other reports however, such as SBS News, point to the support that chaplains can provide for students and staff in times of bereavement, family breakdown and crises. Supporters of the Program also assert that 'chaplains can provide students of any faith with guidance in exploring religious or spiritual matters'.

Although many detractors of this policy recognise the pastoral care that chaplains provide, the proposed structure of this program has perhaps been challenged because there is no explanation as to why, or how, the model is the best available way of meeting the pastoral care of all students - irrespective of a school's diversity or demographics.

The new proposed scheme is yet to be finalised and put to the states and territories and it might be that they demand changes to the program in order to accept it. In particular, a request for schools to have the option to employ secular welfare workers if they wish to do so.

Do you support the proposed school chaplaincy program? Should secular welfare workers also be funded?