My initial reading of this article caused me to wonder if it was simply an attempt to attack the NSCP under the guise of discussing the Constitution and financial accountability of the Federal Government. We all know that's exactly what the recent court case was trying to do.

I then read over some previous articles from this author and my initial reading was more or less confirmed.

Argue against the NSCP by all means but please do so with integrity.

rational-debate, who deigns to sniff at the author's "lack of integrity" fails the integrity test him/herself. The author has provided information new to me, and I would think, to many others about the removal of the penalty of two years' gaol for an offence which would seem to have been committed through the funding of school chaplaincy services.

If I can add to rational-debate's discomfort and blood pressure, I would suggest a reading of this - gasp! - COMMUNIST argument that the chaplaincy decision shows that the Constitution is past its use-by date and should be rewritten:
http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/school-chaplains-and-constitution.html

The problem with School Chaplains, is their views and or advice is coloured/flavoured by a belief system that is faith based.
Not all that long ago that belief system included a flat earth just six thousand years old and at the centre of the universe!
Gospel, chapter and verse!
Today, the vast majority of "these people" are as equally rigid, inasmuch as they believe almost to a man, that homosexuality is something that people choose.
It is no accident that young men, as a demographic, have the highest suicide rates!
There's an absolute wealth of almost irrefutable scientific evidence, that our sexuality and preferences are created in the womb, along with a percentage of aberrations!
Why, every foetus created or conceived starts out as female!
Hormones, from the mother decide whether or not the baby continues to grow on as a female or become a male.
Sometimes, that function doesn't completely conclude, or is slightly over/underdone, particularly in conflicted families?
There is no element of choice as taught by pious Chaplains, solely on the basis of medieval belief, [not any scarick of scientific fact,] to incredibly impressionable children.
This is the most critical time in the development of children, before they learn critical thinking, when all their biases and prejudices are formed; and, inform their behaviour for the rest of their lives.
Some of which may include gay bashing, much of which is covert and may even include withholding best practise medical treatment; or, ostracising innocent family members, for daring to be born different!
This is why we need to replace chaplains with professional counselers, who will bring their science based training to bear on any perceived problem children might have, but particularly to emerging sexual responses!
If we need to change the constitution, that will require an act of parliament, and or, a referendum.
If religious advocates believe that their position has majority support, then there ought to be no reluctance to put their preferred position to the people?
Rhrosty.

"it would be hard to argue that the Government was 'dishonest' in setting up the NSCP"

No harder, I think, than to argue that the Board of Directors of a public company is 'dishonest' in making funding arrangements to prop up a subsidiary company at the expense of its own shareholders. The Federal Government exists to carry out the wishes of its electorate as expressed in their support for its platform. Actions which are outside the scope of that platform should only be taken when there is a pressing need and/or a clear public benefit. The chaplaincy program fits neither of these criteria. It is a bribe paid in the course of doing business, just like the Australian Wheat Board payoffs to the Hussein government. If one is 'dishonest', then so is the other.

As Meg points out, this issue extends beyond government support for religious evangelising. It opens the floodgates for government pork-barreling. If the new amendment to the Finance Act stands, governments can commit tax payers’ money to a whole range of vote-buying programs, without legislation and without proper public accountability. They have organized for themselves a huge government pork-barreling slush fund.

Whether or not you support the National School Chaplaincy Program, you should be extremely concerned at how readily the government has sold out parliamentary democracy and public accountability, thumbed its nose at the High Court of Australia, cynically circumvented the Constitution, actively manoeuvred to exempt its ministers from criminal prosecution 'after the fact', and, for good measure, thrown in a ministerial slush fund.

The amendment reads in part:

“To provide funds to support the provision of entitlements to the current Prime Minister, and to former Prime Ministers once they have left Parliament, the Australian Political Exchange Council and related activities, and political party secretariat training.”

It’s also important to note (as the Commonwealth Ombudsman has pointed out) that executive schemes (funded without accompanying legislation) are not reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) and the merits of decisions made under this type of scheme are not reviewable by generalist or specialist tribunals. In other words, as it stands, the government can spend money without legislation and avoid accountability to the watchdogs set up to monitor government schemes. It is truly outrageous.

What is at stake here, isn't just the National School Chaplaincy Program but Australian parliamentary democracy - the very foundation of our government. That's why I've made a sizeable contribution towards Ron Williams' legal costs for a return to the High Court. You'll find more information about this issue at the High Court Challenge website: http://www.highcourtchallenge.com

Thanks Mike - but I'm not entirely sure how my integrity is brought into question by my comments. Feel free to enlighten me sometime.

I read the link and was very entertained. I assume that was you goal in pointing it out?

I have no issue with the constitution being challenged but it is blatantly clear that this was only a secondary point for the author, as it was for Williams.

Say what you want people and don't hide behind other arguments.