As with so many of the media writers-commentators and those I shall refer to as SLABs, Solicitors, Attorneys, & Armchair Barristers, this author has skimmed a few ill-informed newspaper articles and concocted a solution of his own.

Having been a modest donator to this man Ron Williams' cause I then engaged him in email contact, read the three days of High Court transcript and am ploughing through 227 pages of the decsion from last week.

The author might be well advised to at least read the High Court transcript to discover what aruguments were actually put, and the order in which they were delivered.

It is indeed a foolhardy SLAB who seeks to play down the skill level and professionalism of Mr. Bret Walker and his junior, Mr. Gerald Ng, who were clearly well aware of Pape and the Consitution when they took on this case.

Those who insist it is just a case of legislating monies for religion, that is, for making a law to fund religion, should consider the s.116, which potentially becomes active and ready for another High Court challenge.

Tied grants? Maybe, but with them go expectations of performance, and there are none of those in the NSCSWP because it is not a program designed to imporve anything beyond votes for weak politicians and the coffers of para church groups.

Besides, why would Gillard want to fund the three major LNP state governments and gain no credit for a scheme that will no longer be allowed to carry any 'national' tag?

The premiers will each mock Gillard for failing, and take all the credit for themselves.

But that is only if they pay no attention to the dangers to their budgets of taking on such a massive undertaking, being responsible for thousands of non-public servants in state schools, who they have no control over.

Read again Isdale, or perhaps, read deeper before scribbling again on OLO.

An excellent summary of Ron's case. Just one small quibble.

The 'religious test' aspect of Ron Williams' submission to the High Court was only ever peripheral to the main argument - an ambit claim. The main focus was *always* on the financial aspect.

Williams *never* intimated otherwise and those who represented him also repeatedly stressed that the key plank of his argument was the appropriation of funds and the government's failure to legislate.

Williams received legal advice that his best chance of success was to challenge the funding arrangement, so *that* is the avenue he pursued - and won. S116 was not the primary basis on which his case was argued. I sat in the court for the three days of the hearing, so I can say that with some authority.

Pre-hearing, we (Williams and his 'team') made every effort to explain this would not be another 'DoGS' (Defence of Government Schools) case. On "The Drum", I wrote:

"Williams's case does not canvass the separation issue. In fact, the DOGS case receives barely a mention in the submissions from the plaintiff, the defendants or the intervening states.

Williams's case focuses exclusively on the propriety of the funding agreement to provide a chaplain to his children's school ..."

In that article, the 'religious test' aspect is clearly presented as an 'add on' to the major issues.

I would not like anyone to think Williams misrepresented the main thrust of his argument. To the contrary, he took great pains to correct misconceptions. I would also not want anyone to think the failure of the 'religious test' argument was some kind of surprise defeat. It would have been nice to win it, but Williams knew it was the weakest aspect of his case and we never really expected it would succeed.

I've spoken to Ron several times since the decision and met with him yesterday. I can confidently say he is absolutely thrilled with the win, he is already developing strategies to continue the campaign for secular public schooling and in no sense is he 'disappointed' that the court rejected the S116 argument

Oh, and another point that most SLABs miss is that the funding does not go to schools, "and instead simply provided a monetary contribution to schools that wished to employ one", which is another problem with people who comment without having bothered to read any of the DEEWR material.

There might not have been such room for an outcry had monies gone directly to schools, to allow them to employ extra staff, you know, social workers or school counsellors, directly instead of deliberately and willfully designing the program to fund parachucrh religious organisations.

From what one reads about how poorly run and organised schools are, even a Commonwealth program to fund a teacher-aide per three teachers, or whatever figure might be worth considering, would have been a win.

But then, of course, had chaplains been employed by schools, they may have fallen foul of s.116 again, although with no state constitution disallowing the creation of a theocracy, maybe they would not?

Good summary from what I have been able to read of the decision. Essentially this decision runs on from the decision in Pape's Case and endeavours to keep the C/W within its patch, from which it has been creeping since or before the Engineer's Case.
The implications are of course that it could reset the balance between the Federal and State Governments - but not by much. The entities that may lose out the most are local governments which receive significant funding from the C/W directly, which they shouldn't do as the C/W does not have local government as a head of legislative power. If this funding in future has to come only by way of $96 grants then the earlier problems associated with the Grants Commission and now the distribution from the GST will compound further. So we are heading towards a bit of a mess in thsee areas - all the more reason (on top of many others) for a review of the Constitution itself - which may come when the Republican issue reaches a 'tipping point'.

One further point in passing. The author gave as an example justifying Executive payments of this nature money for "war". This is an even bigger issue, recalling Hampden's Case and more recently the manner in which John Howard committed Australian forces to Iraq. If the Executive had unfettered power (as sometimes it thinks it has) to spend money without Parliamentary approval we would be in real trouble! That would be the end of Responsible Government.

The funding of Chaplains introduced by Howard is one of a number of efforts to boost Christian religious Instruction in Public Schools.
Religious zealot teachers use opportunities to introduce their own philosophy and parents do request RI sessions from their School Councils, not always successfully.
I have firm views about maintaining secular public schooling and have clearly indicated on enrolment that my children are not to attend RI and instead must spend such sessions in enrichment reading in the Library and not to be punished by undertaking schoolyard tasks picking up rubbish.

The govt looks set to legislate to allow this program, and its govt funding to continue, and the coalition looks ready to assist?
This in spite of the fact of seemingly overwhelming opposition?
As a Christian country, we might specify only Christian Chaplains? And if we did, what's to stop other more fundamental or much more radical religions from also challenging any ruling or govt funded program?
Why not put this matter to a referendum, so whatever the govt might then do, it will have the peoples' expressed will or fair dinkum mandate, which I believe, trumps the high court?
And why not finally settle other contentious matters while we are at it, like say Gay marriage and whether/when we should become a republic? India is a republic that remains within the commonwealth! Ditto Canada! Why can't we?
Personally, I believe a so-called secular state should follow the meaning and intent of the constitution, and therefore, replace school Chaplains with professionally trained Counselers! Preferably ones with enough inherent medical knowledge to at least understand that homosexuality/heterosexuality is decided in the womb, and is not a product of choice or preference! It is said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but quite blatant ignorance is far worse and or, does far more harm!
There is a place for religion and or belief reliant religious teaching, and that's, I believe, in church! Ditto, quite blatant pulpit pounding, fire and brimstone bigotry!
Moreover, very young minds ought not be exposed to and form of belief based system or their often "ardent advocates", until they have thoroughly developed competent critical thinking.
Military Chaplains are different inasmuch as, the minds that are exposed to them and their particular or peculiar belief systems, are at least adult?
As a caring and concerned parent, I say, no theocracy here thank you? And, thank the Lord for the High Court!
Rhrosty.