TBC, just because you are a donor to Williams, it does not give you licence to flame one of our authors. Isdale's analysis is in line with the court's findings which do not support the view put by Williams that it rested on separation of church and state. It didn't.

You're free to misrepresent the judgement, but not to abuse the author.

I think it's clear the states don't believe they will 'lose out' from the Williams' decision. After all, it was the states who not only supported Williams' argument on the spending power of the Commonwealth, but extended the argument in the High Court to such a degree that new submissions had to be made after the fact. I discussed this turn around in an article on ABC R&E http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/08/29/3304751.htm

It was the states who challenged the 'orthodox' assumption beyond Pape - not Williams. So, I can pretty much guarantee that the reaction of the states will be celebrating the decision, not wringing their hands about any perceived 'loss'.

What remains to be seen is, if having won a nice chunk of power back from the Federal government, the states now fall into the trap of accepting tied grants for chaplaincy. Tied grants, or SPP's, of course are a key area in which the Federal government controls the states. Funding chaplaincy this way means the Federal government takes the credit for its largesse, while the states do all the administrative work and cop the flak when the program fails to meet Commonwealth imposed targets or when something goes horribly wrong as it inevitably will when you mix largely unqualified workers with 'at risk' kids.

Flaming? Whose flaming?

Have you actually read the material Graham?

The author, and rather too much of 'the media', seem to think that the argument was based mainly on some s.116 issue.

It was not.

It was a very minor element of a complex argument that concentrated on the method of funding.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s307/2010
Catchwords

"Plaintiff contends that the payment or disbursement by the Commonwealth of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of the National School Chaplaincy Program, and therefore the Darling Heights Funding Agreement, was not supported by an appropriation made by law, as required by s.83 of the Constitution."

Forgive me if my eyes did not read something like, "Plaintiff contends that s.116 has been thoroughly trashed".

Perhaps the first Directions Hearing gives a clue to the uncontroversial nature of the case?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2011/5.html

HIS HONOUR: Are we in the area of proof of constitutional facts?

MR WALKER: The short answer to that has to be yes, though whether that is going to be contentious, we for one, I think, doubt whether that will be so.

At a later Directions Mr. Ng answers for Williams:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2011/116.html

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Before you get too deeply into that, can you just give me an understanding of the framework of the arguments which underpin these materials? You say, do you, first that there is no effective appropriation?

(The FIRST argument note)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. So that is the two branches of your argument. Is there a third branch?

MR NG: There is a third branch.

HIS HONOUR: The first branch being appropriation, the second branch being executive power, and the third being?

MR NG: The third being section 116 and in relation to that it is said, your Honour, that the test for who is eligible to be a school chaplain imposes a religious test upon an office or a public trust under the Commonwealth.

See, well down the list was something of an ambit claim relating to one aspect of s.116.

The case was fought and won on the main arguments.

Blue Cross is absolutely right in his assertion on this. I've had many discussions with Williams and, at the hearing, with one of his legal team. Never, at any stage, was S116 a central part of the case and when the High Court made it quite clear it wasn't something they were prepared to consider, there was no wailing and gnashing of teeth from either Williams or his legal representatives. It was a minor loss in the context of the case and treated by all of them as such. I know. I was there!

My hearty congratulations go to Mr Williams for his victory, and for mine no amount of mincing the verdict by politicians and interested parties makes it less momentous.
Whatever surreptitious actions the States now look to take to circumvent what was a constitutional disgrace, the issue of religion being foisted on State school children and funded by tax-payers has entered the public conversation. I predict that new State contrivances for ladling out the lolly won't be so easy to implement as some affronted parties now complacently suggest. Despite assurances to the contrary, chaplains in schools have hitherto been operating almost universally as a blatant and proselytising Christian influence, indeed a fundamentalist influence that is at odd both with the concept of education and the secular ideals prominent Australians love to boast about. And it's not just about a privileged cult in our multicultural schools, the chaplaincy program is effectively an opportunistic grooming-program that takes advantage of innocents in the first instant, who are then passed-on to larger and more intensive church-programs outside the school gate, where they don't have to be so sneaky.
This kind of federally or State funded outrage should be banned on ethical and pedagogical grounds alone, but even if our State leaders decide it's politically-pragmatic to continue the patronage, what about the money? Not only does the money flow straight to SUQ coffers, and that for chaplains who aren't empowered to do anything but proselytise surreptitiously, but it's topped-up by the fund-raising efforts of P&C's!
My kids are supposed to donate a gold coin to the chappy on free-dress days!
The genie's out of the bottle and tax-payers will surely demur when they're imposed upon by the States to keep the gravy flowing.
Speaking merely of QLD, what credibility would Newman have cutting funding to the Humanities while he spills the public purse for sectarian Christian influence in an educational setting?

Ah Squeers, long time no read.

Yes, readers outside of Qld might be unaware of the $1m Newman gifted to Scripture Union the other day, at the same time as cutting such awards as the Premiers Literature Award, and sports boxes (good one on the latter cut Campbell)and sacking 20000 workers because of the lack of finances.

Maybe OLO editors could organise a contribution to this page from DEEWR, outlining in fine detail the research they relied upon to establish what the High Court has recognised as a scam, as well as the later evidence Gillard relied upon to expand it?

That would be interesting reading, it any evidence existed, of course.