The statement "There is no proof that there is a “spiritual” realm or such a thing as “spiritual wellbeing” in Simon's article, if presented as an arument to high students, is either another act of faith or a philospophical position, the interpretation and explanation of which is far beyond of what a high school student could possibly comprehend.

Grey, "...it is when they define their religion as 'neutral'". I agree completely, however I think to avoid misunderstandings one should distiguish between the metaphysical and psychological functions of religion. In the first case the "non-religious" is indeed the odd-man-out, but not in the second case. And when talking about chaplains/counsellors, it is the psychological function of religion that is relevant here.

A counsellor who does not recognise that there is a spiritual dimension, (in whatever sense, e.g. Buddhist), to human perception of the world and self is, in my opinion, comparable to a biology teacher who does not accept evolution, in any form.

However, I sort of agree with Michelle Gratan's statement, quoted on Simon's website, that "there are good reasons why — in principle and practice — the Government's chaplain initiative is a bad idea. It would be one thing if this was a wider counsellor program, within which people who were ministers, imams, or whatever would be eligible for the funding." However, I cannot see how this could be implemented fairly for all parties.

TurnRightThenLeft, "Abortions are a health issue, not religion.“

Nuclear energy, CO2 emissions etc. are physics/technology etc. issues not ethics or politics. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to argue about their need, usefulness or dangers from a political or moral position.

Public schools don't need chaplains. They need more teachers and trained counsellors. If parents want their kids to be exposed to chaplains, they should send them to religious schools. The government should butt out of religious matters.

It's quite simple, really.

I don't agree with the identified program, however, I don't agree that it breaches Sect 116 either. Could the money be better spent on counsellors? Probably. Would I like a pro-abortion humanist as a counsellor? Probably not.

George is correct: "Abortions are a health issue, not religion.“

Abortions are very bad for babies health prospects, regardless of their 'religion' or lack thereof. Governments should prevent such bad health outcomes, and doctors are ethically obliged to do the same, but, ethics went out the door with Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, in revised Hippocratic oaths.

I wonder if part of the Constitution is breached in this activity and its funding?

C J Morgan,
I agree completely with you, if you look at the schools section of the federal education budget, you will find that the 67% of students who attend a public school in this country attract 35% of the federal government's funding. We in the 67% bracket need much more funding for public schools to educate our young.

Spiritual needs are a private affair, if the federal government genuinely want to help public schools provide more funding and a social worker, or another allied health professional to help students with emotional problems.

Choice is fundamental you can choose the system that is provided from your tax, or if that does not suit YOU pay for any alternative, at our school we have had someone switch to private, only to be back 6 months later.

One thing that is not considered in this very interesting article and thread, is that the $20,000 is a quick way of giving extra funding to a school that already has a chaplain. Certainly, in my state - NSW, that means private religious - mostly protestant - schools. The vast majority of NSW public schools have let the $20,000 lie . There are many reasons for this, not least that public school parents (and I am one) have actively chosen non-religious schooling for their children. Another is that as public schools now educate the vast majority of our most expensive to educate kids (on far less money than most private schools receive by combining public funding and unregulated up front fees), many have school communities made up of a large number of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. One Sydney high school has 700 kids from 54 different backgrounds. You can imagine the hornets nest that would occur while they argued what religious background their chaplain should be from. The Principal, understandably, has shuddered in horror at the very thought. I wonder how she would have reacted if she'd been offered the money to fund another couple of days a week for a counsellor or ESL teacher or even asked what might help her school community most?
And by expensive to educate kids I mean public schools enrol 90% of indigenous kids, 80% of disabled, 85 % of the most disadvantaged, most rural and remote children and, of course, the newly arrived. Even, as Cardinal Pell recently admitted, 69% of the poorest Catholics. Funny, isn't it, how the supposedly godless, politically correct, values-neutral public schools are the only ones who take on the responsibility for our neediest and most disadvantaged children. Something about practicing what you preach being rather more valuable than merely preaching it, perhaps?

"Funny, isn't it, how the supposedly godless, politically correct, values-neutral public schools are the only ones who take on the responsibility for our neediest and most disadvantaged children."

ena, not only that, but this godless etc. State takes responsibility also for Medicare, pensions, unemployment benefits, defence etc. Or would you prefer an Australia run by an Ayatollah or some other theocracy, who then indeed could be expected to take responsibility for all these things, including "our neediest and most disadvantaged children"?

Let me repeat, one thing is to disagree with the idea of a Government funded chaplaincy (like I do) and another thing are the emotionally loaded arguments against it raised by people who do not have problems only with the idea, but with religion as such, especially its Christian version.