The government should remain neutral on religion

This paradox in the program is perhaps why the program authors and supporters consistently down play the program’s religiosity. They talk of pastoral care and student wellbeing. But if this is all the program is about why the requirement that those funded be religious? There is no requirement in the program that chaplains have any particular teaching, counselling or social work qualifications or experience.

Australian students deserve the most qualified and experienced people to assist with their welfare, whether they be religious or not. School students are caught in the Howard Government’s latest front in their ongoing “cultural war”, this time against secular counsellors, social workers and teachers.

One must note that Queensland has received a disproportionate amount of NSCP funding with more than 450 schools being funded, nearly all of them state schools. Business has never been better for SU Queensland, with a state government monopoly and now about $30 million of federal funds.

Parents can take their children to church services or other religious instruction if they wish. Children and parents can consult with religious persons any time. Chaplains should not be specifically funded by taxpayers as a part of the education system. Religious activities should be funded by the churches and parents who want it, not by us all through the tax system.

It is disingenuous for the Prime Minister and the Education Minister to trumpet the popularity of the NSCP as they have, when schools have the “choice” of funding for a chaplain or no funding. It would be interesting to see how many schools would have chosen a counsellor rather than a chaplain if given a choice.

The NSCP sets a precedent of directly funding religious activities that may well be used by supporters to argue for broader direct government funding of religious activities.

The Government should be announcing policies and funding that benefit 100 per cent of Australian schools, not just those who may share the Prime Minister’s ideological commitment to religion.