ABBOTT GOVERNMENT COMMITTED TO NATIONAL SCHOOL CHAPLAINS PROGRAM
The Abbott government has reaffirmed its commitment to funding the National School Chaplains Program notwithstanding the High Court's ruling that the legislation supporting the funding agreements was unconstitutional. See link to judgment: Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23.
The High Court decision was made in relation to proceedings challenging the funding agreement for chaplaincy services between the Commonwealth Government and the Scripture Union of Queensland ("SUQ"). The proceedings were originally brought in 2010 by Ronald Williams a father of four children attending the Queensland school which was receiving chaplaincy funding. Mr Williams challenged the executive power of the Commonwealth to fund the program under Section 61 of the Constitution. In 2012, the High Court ruled in favour of Mr Williams prompting the then Gillard government to enact legislative amendments (Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) ("FFLA Act") seeking to provide legislative support for the funding. The current ruling relates to the fresh proceedings brought by Mr Williams challenging the FFLA Act, this time as an invalid exercise of legislative power under the Constitution.
The High Court unanimously decided that the FFLA Act provisions were not, in their relevant operation, supported by a head of legislative power under Section 51 of the Constitution. The court identified that providing the services of a chaplain or welfare worker for the purposes described in the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) ("FMA Regulations") could not constitute a provision of "benefits to students" within the meaning of Section 51 xxiiiA of the Constitution. The Court observed that although "benefit" could comprise a service rather than only a grant of money, the benefit sought to be provided by the Chaplains Program was not a benefit providing material aid to provide for human wants of students in the sense established by the Alexandra Hospital Case.
The Government has promised to review the judgment carefully, which (according to academic commentators), potentially jeopardises other Commonwealth funded programs: Link and to make an appropriate response.
Their Honours noted that importantly, the benefit was not directed to a consequence of being a student in that while all students may use this benefit, and perhaps some should, none must use it.
It is expected that the Government will seek to continue the School Chaplaincy Program by provision of the funding through State grants under Section 96 of the Constitution to those schools that welcome this program. We await this action, else we might more appropriately call this development the "Not so Good News"?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
