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''.