Stop the National Schools Chaplaincy Program!

The following considerations may form the basis for a complaint against the Commonwealth for religious discrimination. The HREOC web site states that "for an action to constitute a breach of a person's human rights under the Act two requirements must be met, the organisation against which you are complaining must be the Commonwealth or one of its agencies and, the action you are complaining about must breach a right or infringe a freedom recognised in the international human rights instruments scheduled to or declared under the Act." Both of these international instruments have been declared under the HREOC Act and as such form part of Australian law.

•  UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR)

"Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (ICCPR)"

Fundamentally the NSCP says that we are not all equal in the eyes of the law. It asserts that there is a type of person, namely the religious, who are particularly suited to the task of helping children through being a school chaplain. This program is going to fund these people and the non-religious need not apply. It does not matter if a person is an expert on child welfare and/or development, with years of practical experience or advanced qualifications. If they are not religious they will not be funded.

The particular qualifications, skills and experience for the job of chaplain are not specified or explained in the guidelines and there are no formal educational or work experience requirements. It is merely asserted in the guidelines that the person be recognised as "an appropriate appointee and as having the skills and experience to deliver school chaplaincy services to school communities; and through formal ordainment, commissioning, recognised qualifications or endorsement by a recognised religious institution." The requirement is merely that the "local school community including the principal, parent body and/or school’s governing body" recognise you as suitable and that you at least be "endorsed" by a religious institution.

Such imprecision in the requirements of a position dealing with students and the expenditure of taxpayer funds should not be tolerated. In other areas of employment specific job descriptions are used, and candidates are judged on their suitability against selection criteria.

The tasks which a chaplain will perform are as vague as the job requirements and the selection criteria, namely to "assist schools and their communities through providing greater pastoral care, general religious and personal advice and comfort to all students and staff". The guidelines do elaborate somewhat, but much of what is described is contradictory. The program is internally inconsistent in that it requires chaplains to be religious, yet to put aside this religiousness in delivering services, a theme which is elaborated upon here. In reality, the chaplains will be promoting religion to students and will be conducting religious services in school time and at school premises with students and staff, an activity which is acceptable under the guidelines. As the Scripture Union who provide chaplains to schools state, "we aim to follow Biblical principles in all that we do and to emphasise the vital importance of prayer"..

In addition to the guidelines being vague, even the reported architect of the scheme, Mr Peter Rawlings is vague about what the chaplains do and why they are better at it than any one else. He told The Australian "he had seen a need for chaplaincy when he was in schools providing religious education lessons [and] has been asked many times about the qualitative difference between chaplains and secular counsellors and is hard put to describe it, but says there is no conflict between the roles in his area." Likewise, when asked the Prime Minister was vague about who chaplains are and what they do, but was adamant that they would need to be religious:

JOURNALIST: Mr Howard, you're calling them chaplains rather than counsellors…

PRIME MINISTER: Yes I am calling them chaplains because that has a particular connotation in our language, and as you know, I am not ever overwhelmed by political correctness. To call a chaplain a counsellor is to bow to political correctness. Chaplain has a particular connotation. People understand it, they know exactly what I am talking about. If a particular school with a non-Christian affiliation thinks the word chaplain is unsuitable and would like to call them, you know for want of a better expression ‘lay Rabbi' that's fine by me. But for generic purposes, it's a Chaplaincy Program.

JOURNALIST: Would you expect them to be people of faith though….

PRIME MINISTER: Oh yes...

Perhaps the most unsatisfactory part of the guidelines is their failure to even attempt to define religion, despite it being a program about religion. The guidelines state that a religious institution is "a body which is instituted for religious purposes. For a body to be... regarded as a religious institution and its objects and activities must reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object." This is obviously circular and is empty of any real meaning and is unacceptable in a Commonwealth Government document. Any high school teacher would put a big red line through such a "definition". Others such as the High Court (Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vict.) 1983 154 CLR 120) have defined religion in a more satisfactory manner, but surely the fact that it is so difficult to define what religion is should be reason enough for the Commonwealth to avoid programs directly funding or promoting religion.

In summary, the Commonwealth Government through the NSCP is engaging in religious discrimination in breach of Article 26 of ICCPR because the program is only open to the religious, and as such under the program all people are not equal "before the law".

•  Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief 1981 (Religion Declaration)

The Religion Declaration deals specifically with discrimination based on religion. It states:

"Article 1
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Article 2
1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.

2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis

Article 4
1. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life."

As explained above with regard to the ICCPR, the Commonwealth is discriminating against the non-religious on the basis of religion, as the NSCP is not open to the non-religious. The NSCP is an "exclusion" from access to Government funding, its effect being a "nullification" of the "exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms", namely access to taxpayer funded Commonwealth Government programs "on an equal basis".

To illustrate the issues in another way, imagine if the Government said that there was a program it wished to promote and fund to assist with student welfare. However, in this case funding was only to be available to non-religious applicants. Further, the government offered no justification for this exclusion. There would be an enormous outcry from religious bodies that the program was unfairly discriminating against them. This is precisely why the NSCP is discriminatory and unacceptable.