Article by Cameron Spink

The National School Chaplaincy Programme (NSCP) was introduced in 2006 by the federal government with John Howard at the helm. Now secular groups are trying to claim that the program is unconstitutional and are seeking to test its constitutional validity with a High Court Challenge. I say bring it on.

Ron Williams is the man bringing the challenge and his contention is based upon section 116 of the Australian Constitution which states:

Now there are four different aspects to this section. In regards to the NSCP two of these aspects are not relevant as it is obvious that such a program is not prohibiting the free exercise of any religion nor is it creating a religious test.

Hence one of the options available to Mr Williams would be to argue that the NSCP imposes “religious observance”. However, such a contention runs into trouble almost immediately. One only has to go to the NSCP’s website and check out the frequently asked questions to realise that this service is a voluntary process. The website specifies:

It is not compulsory for students to participate. Schools must ensure that students and parents understand the voluntary nature of the Program and have the option of whether to utilise the services of a school chaplain.

It is axiomatically incorrect for a voluntary program to be seen as obligatory. Hence, a claim of imposition would fail.

The only contention left available to Mr Williams would be to argue that by funding the NSCP the federal government is in fact establishing a religion. There are several difficulties with such a position for the secularist’s. Firstly there is precedent that holds to a narrow interpretation of this clause in section 116. The DOGS Case[1] found that establishment of religion was “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others[2]”.

In essence a religion must be established as a “national institute” for this clause to be encroached. In regards to the NSCP this is not the case. A chaplain does not have to be a Christian. Surely existence of such a role as “secular pastoral care worker” under the NSCP makes it nigh on impossible to show that the federal government’s actions can be construed as establishing a religion.

So not only do I support the chaplaincy program on principle I also endorse its legality. It cannot be shown that it breaches section 116 of the Australian Constitution and Ron Williams’ challenge will be in vain.

Unfortunately the NSCP is up for review next year and, with an atheist Prime Minister, this case on constitutionality may become irrelevant. Despite the opposition let us pray that God holds sway in this country.