Pollies in a spin over chaplaincy challenge

Of course, it's all very well to bluster about how valuable and important a programme is when you're not paying for it – particularly when your support earns some much-needed political points in conservative Christian electorates. (I couldn't help but notice Kerry Shine in Toowoomba North and Michael Choi in Redlands have both been vocal in their support). But, what if Williams wins and the state government is asked to fill the breach? Dick and Cameron, Shine and Choi are so passionately in favour of school chaplaincy, surely they'll simply revert to the state funding model to ensure chaplaincy's continuation in Queensland? Or perhaps it's more 'strategic' to huff and puff about how the government is doing everything it can to defend the NSCP, but imply that a win for Williams will make chaplaincy in Queensland 'unconstitutional' and 'illegal'.

"Shucks, you know we'd love to pick up the slack and keep the programme going – and you know how hard we fought to keep the funding. But, we have to abide by the constitution. Our hands are tied here!"

If this is the plan, it's a win-win situation. The state government neatly shifts the blame to Williams for bringing an end to school chaplaincy in Queensland, placates the religious right with harrumphs of feigned outrage and happily divests itself of a programme that is deeply unpopular with many non-religious and non-Christian voters. As a bonus, the dosh saved on chaplaincy can be used for more productive pork-barreling prior to the next election. Christian vote? Check. Williams demonized? Check. Treasury coffers protected? Check. Religious monkey off political back? Check!

Both Wilson and Dick surely know that Williams' case will do nothing to stop chaplaincy in Queensland – provided the Queensland government picks up the financial slack. Curiously, Scripture Union's Tim Mander understands the limited implications of Williams' case, explaining that:

"… the case says nothing about chaplains' access in schools. It concerns only whether the Commonwealth may fund school chaplaincy under the terms of the current NSCP Guideline."

It's a strange old world when a former football referee seems to understand Williams' writ better than the attorney-general and the education minister.

I'm not sure why Wilson and Dick seem to find the whole thing so confusing. It's quite simple really. If the Queensland government is as passionate about school chaplaincy as they suggest, a win for Williams will do nothing to stop the Bligh government from filling the financial breach. The Queensland government provided funding for school chaplaincy before the NSCP and it can do so again. There may be many of us who regret this, but, even more regrettable are politicians who play 'loose with the truth'. Given Dick's and Wilson's outspoken support for school chaplaincy, I'm expecting an imminent announcement that the Queensland government will guarantee funding for chaplains - unless, of course, it turns out their passionate commitment to school chaplaincy is conditional on someone else paying for it.

Let's be clear here, Cameron Dick's claim that Williams is contesting 'the constitutional validity of Queensland's school chaplaincy services' is just plain wrong. Williams challenges the Commonwealth funding of chaplaincy services, not chaplaincy itself. It's an important distinction and, as a lawyer with a masters degree from Cambridge, it's inconceivable that Dick doesn't understand that.

Even more off-beam is Geoff Wilson's assessment that a win for Williams will make it 'illegal for chaplains to work in our schools'. That's just political hyperbole. It will do no such thing. Wilson is a highly experienced lawyer. If that is really his interpretation of Williams' writ, I'd respectfully suggest he books himself in for a cognition test or makes an urgent trip to the optometrist – perhaps both. But I don't think either is necessary. I think that Wilson, like Dick, is perfectly capable of interpreting Williams' writ correctly – he just doesn't choose to.

It would be easy to attribute Dick's and Wilson's misinterpretation of the Williams' case to stupidity or incompetence, and if either of them wishes to claim those as excuses, I'll happily believe them. But it simply doesn't make sense. To borrow a thought from Lady Bracknell: For one lawyer to misinterpret a writ may be regarded as carelessness; for two to make the same mistake seems like collusion. The only thing that makes sense isthat our Queensland pollies are indulging in a disingenuous game of political spin.