Aus School Chaplaincy program ruled constitutionally invalid

[weemadando]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-20/h ... ge/4081456

Not many details yet, but it sounds like a win on two fronts.
First reconfirming that the Commonwealth cannot discriminate or test eligibility or trust based on religious beliefs.

Second on the grounds that by funding an inherently religious program the Federal government had exceeded it's authority.

I now feel better about having a son who'll be school age soon as he won't be discriminated against due to these opt out, no alternative piece of shit feat mongering bigot factories.

The stories I read from parents who had kids come home street these classes... Geez.

[weemadando]

And the govt is already setting up it's end run to avoid this decision and keep Jim Wallace and the rest on side.

Simply shuffle the finding so it is paid by commonwealth funds given to the states.

Yay.

Because the problem was the way it was getting paid, not the horrible, intrusive and divisive way it was implemented.

[Xon]

First reconfirming that the Commonwealth cannot discriminate or test eligibility or trust based on religious beliefs.

Second on the grounds that by funding an inherently religious program the Federal government had exceeded it's authority.

This is actually completely wrong, did you even read the article?

Read the article again, it outright states;

He challenged the program on the basis Commonwealth officers are not allowed to be subject to a religious test under the Constitution.

The court dismissed that claim

The court document states:

The High Court held that the school chaplain engaged by SUQ to provide services at the School did not hold office under the Commonwealth. The chaplain did not enter into any contractual or other arrangement with the Commonwealth

It's the following statement which is actually the single most important part of the article which isn't elaberated at all:

but did find the Commonwealth had no power to enter the agreement which funded the program.

This article is actually very poor at representing on how remarkably and groundbreaking the results of this lawsuit is, and that the religious test was dismissed quite early. It's the funding aspect which took up most of the case.


Here is a better article

The majority said funding for the scheme was invalid because it exceeded the commonwealth's executive powers under the Constitution.

The government did not pass legislation to support the scheme but argued the funding was supported by its executive power under section 61 of the Constitution. The section says the executive power "extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the commonwealth".

Six of the High Court's seven judges said the scheme was not supported by this power, saying the executive could not simply spend money on anything.

Chief Justice Robert French said that, if the executive could, this would diminish the practical authority of the states in the areas over which they had power.

Four of the judges also said the executive could not spend on areas within the commonwealth's legislative powers, without legislation being passed by parliament.

The Greens welcomed this finding, saying it would force the government to a far greater extent to submit public spending to parliamentary scrutiny.

The entire reason this is a massive watershead for Australian Constitution law is that it confirms that the federal government can't spend money by apointment, and must pass legislation to spend or delegate the authority.

[Ford Prefect]

As a law student this is just a really exciting judgement. The chaplaincy program specifically is irrelevant, and though Mr Williams got what he wanted, it was never the important issue here.

[weemadando]

The article when I originally linked to it was about a 3 line summary, which combined with radio reports, I tried to paraphrase. Turns out initial reports were misleading.

[Stofsk]

As a law student this is just a really exciting judgement. The chaplaincy program specifically is irrelevant, and though Mr Williams got what he wanted, it was never the important issue here.

Go on, tell us what this means. From a legal perspective.

I know you want to.