National School Chaplaincy Program

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Education and Child Development a question in relation to the Schools Ministry Group's chaplaincy contract.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It was anticipated that a decision on whether or not to accept federal funding for the School Chaplaincy Program would be announced last Friday. I am advised that, should the state government not sign up to the National School Chaplaincy Program, tens of thousands of students will be without the valued pastoral support work, programs that are being offered by the CPS workers at the moment will be cancelled, and over 300 chaplains will lose their jobs, and this is imminent I understand.

Additionally, 64 per cent of government schools have a CPS worker and I am informed that, when given a choice, 95 per cent of schools choose to have chaplains. The Advertiser today reported that the Schools Ministry Group, colloquially known as SMG, may lose its program and its funding pending an investigation into claims made against them by the parent group Fairness in Religions. The minister was quoted as saying to the parent group (and I assume the quote is correct):

I agree with you that some of the actions of the Schools Ministry Group appear to be proselytising in public schools.

This allegation is denied by SMG who advise me that they follow their DECD agreement and adhere to guidelines and compliance requirements given to them. SMG advise that allegations made against them are yet to be substantiated in any way at all. I am further advised that there are 27 government schools who are assisted by student welfare workers engaged by their auspice organisation who are also funded by the same program but who are not subject to any compliance or state guideline framework in the way that SMG is. My questions for the minister are:

1. What examples or evidence have been presented to the minister in order to substantiate any claims of proselytising at all?

2. When can we expect a decision from the minister in relation to chaplaincy funding and in particular SMG's school chaplaincy contract in South Australia?

3. How does the minister propose to support the students and school communities who clearly value and have chosen of their own free will the chaplaincy program should this funding not be accepted?

4. What, if any, guidelines, policies or procedures exist for student welfare workers and their auspice organisation to ensure appropriate standards are maintained and observed within these roles in the same way that SMG have the requirements placed upon them?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:44): I thank the honourable member for his most important question and I undertake to take that to the Minister for Education and Child Development in the other place and seek a response on his behalf. It is important, however, that he understands and the chamber understands that it is not an easy proposition that has been put to us in this state.

I understand the federal government is on a bit of a hook given the High Court ruling and doubt about commonwealth ability to directly fund schools for this purpose. They are asking the states to help them out in this regard but they are also telling us they are going to cut the funding by a significant amount. They have not made that widely known. They are also telling schools that they are going to remove any element of choice; schools will have to take this money only for the purpose for which the federal government, via the state, is dishing it out. They do not and will not have the choice of having a secular worker.

I understand that the minister in the other place finds that to be somewhat puzzling, given the rhetoric we hear from the federal member for Stuart time and time again about giving schools more autonomy and more power to make choices on behalf of their school communities. In this situation you have the federal government removing that choice. They are hypocrites, Mr President.