The Australian Constitution does not prohibit prayer or religious education in schools.
Section 116 says simply:

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

The USA constitution and 1st amendment in particular also do not make a separation between Church and State. That is found in 'letter' written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister, and is taken out of context and given a reversal of meaning to support cases in US courts used to supress religion in public life.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Jeffersons letter cannot be understood correctly without reference to the one he is responding to! The separation mean't by Jefferson was for non interference in religious matters by the state.. as requested by the Danbury Baptists.

An informative discussion of the US situation is found here.

http://www.oneplace.com/common/player/oneplace/CustomPlayer.asp?bcd=7/3/2008&url=http://swn.edgeboss.net/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/ffd/ffd20080703.wax&MinTitle=Focus+on+the+Family&MinURL=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/&MinArchives=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/focus_on_the_family/archives.asp&Refresh=&AdsCategory=MINISTRY.FOTF&Show_ID=132

There is no legal or consitutional reason why a state school cannot implement voluntary (heart) participation in public prayer at assemblies or graduations.
If their elected and appointed officials agree, then it should be ok.
No 'law' was created in this process. But to deny free prayer would be to make a law prohibiting, and be unconstitutional.

The main point of this thread is about 'mis-use of the constitution' not so much 'prayer in schools'.

Dear Polycarp,

Politicians will be politicians...

Wasn't it the Howard Government's initiative to provide 90 million dollars over 3 years to fund chaplains in private and public schools?
(For those that wanted it).

And even though religion has been separated from the
Government since Federation. The following website:

http://www.indopedia.org./Separation_of_church_and_state.html

tells us that,"The Australian Parliament still holds prayers at the start of each sitting day (and has since Federation). While these
prayers are technically optional, almost all Members of Parliament
attend them."

As Ian Robertson confirms in his book, "Sociology,"
"In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been closely intertwined...for example, in the US, the Pledge of Allegiance declares that the country is one nation "under God." Its coins declare, "In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths of office, party conventions, court room procedures, and indeed nearly all formal public occasions..."

The same may be said for Australia. The boy scouts give a "God and country" award And our politicians must always pay at least lip service to religious belief. Their sentiments are usually sufficiently broad to be acceptable to almost everyone.

Polycarp

As pointed out by Foxy, we enjoy a longheld and successful separation of church and state in Australia and for good reason.

If you want prayers in schools take your pick from any number of religious schools and attend one of them. Most of them I'm sure have prayers at assemblies and plenty more in the way of religious indoctrination, totally irrespective of the fact that taxpayer money funds them, and that most taxpayers would probably object to their money being spent on sectarian observance if they were asked.

Government schools have always allowed religious teaching on a regular basis and have now had religious chaplains foisted onto them. What more do you want? Prayers at assemblies? 'Voluntary participation'? What claptrap. What do those who don't want to 'voluntarily participate' do? Cover their ears? Get up and walk out?

Leave state schools to continue the secular tradition that has served both them and the country well, and stop looking for some obscure constitutional loophole to allow churches to further infiltrate our public schools.

Polycarp (unfortunate etymological choice of nom deplume)
That aside a constitutional Lawyer may disagree with your interpretation on the grounds of convention. A compulsion by any other name is a law in effect.
But I agree that access to prayer in secular schools should be allowed but like all other options it should be by specific opt in option.
Then there’s the practical issues like which version of Christianity?
Then because we are a secular state in fairness why not all religions say Islam, Hindu, Buddhist and Scientology etc.
Next where would these prayers take place?
In some good or reasonable sounding ideas fail the practicality test.
The only fair practical thing is to preclude all.
As already offered if a Christian educational regime is so important then this would be a personal choice over and above that which is reasonably supplied by the state and should be at the chooser expense. It should neither be expected nor demanded. Appart from this statistics show that "faith"(aka religion is a declining priority in community life. Shrinking church attendences etc

This would indeed be a problem, I think.

>>Then there’s the practical issues like which version of Christianity?<<

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) there are around 38,000 versions of worship that come under the heading of "Christianity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

But Polycarp tells us:

>>The main point of this thread is about 'mis-use of the constitution' not so much 'prayer in schools'.<<

So where is the evidence of this "mis-use"?

>>...to deny free prayer would be to make a law prohibiting, and be unconstitutional.<<

Excuse me, but how does denying free prayer (whatever that means) constitute the creation of a law?

Parliaments create laws. The rest of us simply abide by them, or break them.

If Polycarp is suggesting that when a school forbids a religious assembly it is breaking the law, that's well and good, and should be tested in court.

But describing such an action as "making a law prohibiting"?

I don't think so.

Or am I missing something very simple here?

All 38,000 versions of Christianity admire and recite the Lord's prayer as does many Parliaments, Counsils and schools. This has been a unifying social factor in Western societies.

Our Father who is in heaven
(Father = giver of life, heaven = perfect spiritual realm)
Holy be your name
(Holy = pure Name = character)
Thy kingdom come
(kingdom = place where God rules)
thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread
(an acceptance of our mortality and dependence upon a fertile earth)
Forgive us our debts
(An acwledgement of our failures to live pure lives)
As we also have forgiven our debtors.
(We recognise we must also forgive those that offend us by their actions or attitudes)
Lead us not into times of testing.
Deliver us from the evil
(the things that would destroy)

This prayer identifies the highest responsibility of purity in personal and social life. Such values are highly violated by cultures that neither accept or practise the values identified