Dear David,
So are you saying along with Chrys Stevenson that the program is valid, or at least not being contested, and only its funding source is legally questionable?

'Let's be clear here, Cameron Dick's claim that Williams is contesting 'the constitutional validity of Queensland's school chaplaincy services' is just plain wrong.' 

Dear Dan,

Whether the program is valid or not is not at issue. What is at issue is whether it violates the Australian Constitution. If so it should not receive any Commonwealth funding. The state government may still fund the program as the state government is not obliged to follow the Commonwealth Constitution. Whether the state government is willing to supply all the funding is another matter.

The Queensland government was obliged to provide secular education in its school under the Education Act. In 1910 the word, secular, was removed from the Education Act so the chaplaincy program is almost certainly legal in Queensland even though the Commonwealth government cannot legally fund it. There is a movement to restore the word, secular, to the Queensland Education Act, but so far it has not been successful.

David,
I'm trying to get my head around how something could be valid but unconstitutional. 

I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution. 

I don't think that whether the word secular appears in the education act is the telling difference. In Victoria, education is said to be secular but the federal government chaplaincy program is still applicable I believe. At least, I somehow doubt that the federal government is going to institute a program that only has relevance for Queensland. 

Dan wrote: I'm trying to get my head around how something could be valid but unconstitutional.

One meaning of valid is soundly reasoned. An action may be soundly reasoned but not conform to law as specified in the constitution.

Dan wrote: I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution.

You guess wrong. The Australian constitution does not allow an established religion like the Chirch of England is established in England. However, a state could establish a religion. In the US a state law has to follow the US constitution. In Australia only commonwealth laws have to follow the Australian constitution.

Dan wrote: I don't think that whether the word secular appears in the education act is the telling difference. In Victoria, education is said to be secular but the federal government chaplaincy program is still applicable I believe. At least, I somehow doubt that the federal government is going to institute a program that only has relevance for Queensland.

Education may be said to be secular in Victoria but what does the law say? I don't know what it says in Victoria. However, until a successful action is brought to stop a violation or the court determines that there is a violation laws will be violated. Regarding the chaplaincy program even if commonwealth funding is found to violate the commonwealth Constitution states can still fund the program.

Interesting point, Dan S de Merengue, one that hadn't occurred to me.

>>I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution.<<

david f's reply explains why the State Governors report to the Queen, and not to the Governor General.

We really need to sort this mess out some time. It makes less and less sense as the years roll by.

Thanks David. I didn't realise that a state was within it's power to establish it's preferred religion.

As for whether the federal gevernment is being complicit in this, we'll have to wait for the High Court's ruling. Do you know when that might be?