Religious Instruction brings no Joy to Victorian public schools

What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost… What a commandment: Make disciples… Let’s go for it!

Evonne Paddison, CEO of ACCESS Ministries

Scott Hedges of Fairness In Religions In School chats to Doug Pollard from Joy FM’s Rainbow Report.

In a comprehensive chat they cover the FIRIS campaign, Special Religious Instruction (SRI), legislation, indoctrination in public schools, religious discrimination and the upcoming VCAT challenge. This alleges that the Education Minister’s interpretation of legislation is a violation of the Equal Opportunity Act leading to compulsory segregation based on attendance to SRI.

Scott touches on a point close to one of my own issues with government funding of religious organisations. That faith based welfare is vastly different to faith based practices. The former poised to benefit all, the latter designed to expand a belief system.

In this case we can compare the altruistic work done by religious welfare organisations to the intentional, calculated conversion of primary school children, both at taxpayer expense.

FIRIS parent Scott Hedges interviewed on Joy FM

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

ACCESS Ministries: Back to religious discrimination in Victoria

FIRIS Billboard hits on religious discrimination in schoolsStory here

Don’t be fooled by ACCESS ministries’ attempt to rewrite history and obfuscate their intention.

Victoria’s legislation provides for public school education about all religions. Yet this privilege has been usurped by a scheme to “save children” through conversion to Christianity.

In a multi-faith, multi-ethnic, secular community the choice of any religion or of no religion should be the right of every family. Not a struggle against a dominant force.

♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣

In her own words… again: Evonne Paddison seeks to rewrite history

♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣

Disunity for ACCESS

The decision by Uniting Church to form a task force and probe it’s relationship with ACCESS ministries, in addition to how best to teach Christian education, is welcome news. As reported UC have “backed away from supporting the beleaguered agency.”

It’s not difficult to see why. ACCESS ministries, under Evonne Paddison is broken. It can no more fulfill it’s obligations under the education act than Alan Jones can deliver a balanced lecture on climate change science. Despite all the fluff and damage control of late it’s clear even more now that as far as respecting parental wishes and acknowledging the flaws of proselytising nothing has changed.

From the earliest days of dissent with the ACCESS monopoly, to exposure of Evonne Paddison’s blueprint for converting students and raising congregations within schools, to the so-called Federal Inquiry into adherence to education guidelines, one theme has persisted. That aggressive secularism and atheism is behind the criticism of ACCESS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paddison is a victim of her own arrogance and delusion.

Her monochrome vision means one is either a Christian or an anti-theist driven by the need to attack the messengers of God. When it became manifestly clear that Christian families were dissatisfied with her manipulation of the secular system, she resorted to intimidation. In another theme that’s become all too common, the Education Department did her dirty work.

The feverish evangelical fervour of ACCESS ministries has proven time and again that it is at variance with mainstream Christianity and education guidelines that stipulate proselytising is forbidden. Concerned Victorians have been awarded lip service from ACCESS ministries and recidivist impotence from federal and state education ministers. Yet as so eloquently scribed by Rev. Ronald Noone in May this year, not only does Evonne Paddison believe her vision is just because “students are lost without Jesus”, such a claim is “manifestly untrue”. Elaborating, Noone continues;

There is, of course, a certain kind of evangelical Christian who believes the message is the same regardless of the context in which it is expressed. They believe this task is carrying out the God-given role assigned to them – to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all (Matthew 28). Given this is a primary text for many evangelicals, is it any wonder that conversion is an aim of their presence in school classrooms?

In contrast to a parish setting, a classroom is where formal education takes place and the overall aim is to promote knowledge and understanding of the ways in which human beings have made sense of the spiritual dimension in all of human experience. […] The classroom is a place to promote intellectual rigor and provide a context of genuine enquiry and where respect for religious traditions is matched by an honest and open appreciation of the theological, philosophical and exegetical complexities embedded in religious beliefs, texts, traditions and cultures. It is not a place for narrow forms of instruction.

As I noted recently, far from appreciating such an axiomatic notion, Paddison’s disdain for those who would articulate it came a week later in a Crosslight article, Christian religious education takes a secular beating;

What has developed over a few short months is a deliberate attempt by the media to start a faith war  – to divide Christians against other Christians; faiths against faiths; congregations against congregations.

It’s sensationalist journalism – find a schism in the foundation, a rat in the ranks, report the division and watch the Letters to the Editor or the news blog implode with atheistic comment. [….]

With 12 million Christians in Australia, and nearly 65 per cent of parents opting their children into CRE classes, Christians too should have a choice.  Detractors claim that CRE should be confined to Sunday. I’ve got news for them – God is with us, always, not just on the day of rest.

The tone is unmistakable and that anyone or any minister could be fooled into trusting such a person beggars belief. For thirty four minutes at the 2008 Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion Evonne Paddison spelled out her plan to save Australian churches from “a slow death march”, through the application of CRE. We can be in no doubt about, and must not waver toward accepting excuses for, Paddison’s intention to shirk legislative responsibility in favour of theocratic vision.

Much has been made of her comments to “make disciples”. But the speech contained far more insight into her conviction to the cause. It’s important Victorians never loose sight of this intent. Being a key stake holder for direction and tactics of the National School Chaplaincy Association, all Australians should be wary of Evonne Paddison’s arguably ruthless dedication to pure evangelism.

Proud to proclaim the ACCESS vision is “to reach every child in Victoria through the transforming love of God and His son, Jesus” (see video below) the 2008 EFAC performance is robust confirmation of her intent to use the privileged position held by ACCESS. This is no “bread and butter” Christian values at play here. The welfare of children or wishes of parents outside of “Christ’s new society”, as she calls it is of no moment. She seeks to;

…promote the same marks of discipleship for young people as those that the Bible presents to us. But of course, in a way that is appropriate and contextual to them. The first step in becoming a disciple is clearly believing, but so many of our young people have never heard the gospel.

Paddison stated that children and students are the greatest mission field for disciple making in Australia. Happy to admit classrooms are being used for ministry in place of education, “both at state level and at national level both in government and non government schools”, she goes further;

… but we must ask how much of that ministry is actually resulting in Christian conversion and discipleship growing and resulting in church growth? We have a huge challenge ahead of us. We must develop the right attitude and framework and goals and models in order to see not only Christian ministry taking place but conversion, discipleship and commitment to a Christian faith community.

We reached 250,000 children every week. Our goal is to double those numbers. However despite all the ministry going on here in Victoria and across Australia we need to recognize that what isn’t happening and what isn’t happening is a connection between school and church.

There’s no question that to be a Christian is to belong to Jesus’ church. Membership of a faith community is vital. And our model for discipleship must include this. [….] We need to be like Jesus who became one of us and pitched his tent in order to reveal grace and truth….

In this way we will show that Christ and his church provide a love more true than those available in popular culture. And importantly can I urge we must move them to an acceptance of the centrality of Scripture. Through modeling our own adherence to it. Making it central to any gatherings we have with them and showing it as a door or two growing in a relationship with Jesus.

One can be forgiven for being confused about the actual beneficiaries. Paddison even instructs her lackeys to hold to Trinitarian logic, “in our encounter with students”;

Our engagement must show that Jesus is the best of all choices. Do not water it [Scripture] down. We have to reflect the relationships of the persons of the Trinity in our relationships in Christ’s new society. As we develop this perspective in our encounter with students we will tap into their longing for belonging and acceptance that has grown out of a world of divorce and division.

What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity we have to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost…. Our churches in the West are on a slow death march. We have the opportunity to create life. It may be uncomfortable but so what? What a commandment, make disciples. What a responsibility. What a privilege we have been given. Let’s go for it.

As we know, Evonne Paddison did not budge, insisting that her speech had been taken out of context. Eventually in late July the Commonwealth Ombudsman criticised management of the National Chaplaincy Program. ACCESS went into damage control.

Paddison claimed to “strongly support” the finding of the Ombudsman. “Public debate about religion in schools is nothing new”, we’re told pleasantly and has “it’s genesis” in the case being brought before VCAT and the NSCP High Court challenge. Evonne could now “acknowledge” some debate arose about her speech, but ACCESS still had no compromise to make. In a video of Paddison reading from script we’re told;

I accept that parts of that speech could have better emphasised that ACCESS ministries does not and never has condoned proselytising in schools. I understand how people could have interpreted it otherwise… that was never my intention. What I meant is that ACCESS ministries has an opportunity to teach children what Christians believe.

ACCESS ministries forbids proselytising and we continue to respect the context in which we honour our privilege and serve the school community. The federal government recently conducted an investigation… and found no evidence that we had tried to convert in breach of government guidelines.

What a joke. It’s intriguing to imagine how she tries to pass off similar lies to honest colleagues, genuine educators and fellow board members with integrity.

Although her influence remains a problem, Paddison is foolish to think her legion of opponents can be tarred with the brush of “secular” and “atheist”. Which brings us back to Uniting Church. Barney Zwartz writes;

THE Uniting Church, one of the key partners in Access Ministries that provides religious education in Victorian primary schools, has backed away from supporting the beleaguered agency.

The church’s state synod (parliament) declined to vote on a proposal that the church continue to support the work of Access, instead forming a task group to explore the relationship between it and the synod, and how best to teach Christian education. [….]

Annette Blaze, a Uniting Church representative on the Access board, proposed that the synod support Access, suggesting the ministry was victim of a campaign to attack the Christian base of Australia’s culture and noting that investigations by both state and federal education ministers found criticisms of Access were unfounded.

But the synod opted for a proposal by Macedon Ranges minister Avril Hannah-Jones to investigate the Access curriculum. ”There have been complaints. Some, clearly from the secular and new atheist perspective, I thought we could discount, but some came from parents and Uniting Church volunteers which I thought were worth exploring,” Dr Hannah-Jones told The Age last night.

Hannah-Jones’ comments themselves should be cause for concern. Paddison may well be the most vocal, the most corrupt, the most malignant presence in a secular education system. But the impact of religiously inclined ministers is reflected in the confidence by which Hannah-Jones marks her territory. Those with a differing ontology to the steadily declining view that Christianity has merit, much less meaning, have been, are being and will continue to be discriminated against. Yet still their complaints may be automatically “discounted”.

Still, there is well earned and justified schadenfreude here for those who see the value of religious education in a modern secular society. As I said at the beginning the typical theme has been that any dissent can be written off as unwarranted attack. A plot, a plan, a conspiracy amongst the angry. How delightful then that all this time later, the defence is the same.

Despite Paddison’s grovelling act, ACCESS board member Annette Blaze can only resort to the standard mantra of fallacious personal incredulity. There is “a campaign to attack the Christian base of Australian culture”.

Although demonstrably false, the official line again it seems is that ACCESS is “a victim’.

Reaching every child in Victoria through the transforming love of God and His son, Jesus

Restricted ACCESS

Religious Education in Victorian public schools is a weeping sore of deception and dissatisfaction for providers and parents respectively.

ACCESS ministries provide 96% of classes in a strong monopoly crafted to convert students and save Christian churches from “a slow death march”. ACCESS apologists frequently point to the “other faiths”, Jewish, Christian Orthodox, Ba’hai, Muslim. The glaring absence in this well rehearsed mantra is the rapidly growing Hindu religion. As she’s proven time and again, ACCESS CEO Evonne Paddison and her minions see their mission as absolute. She has openly boasted that ACCESS is “in the business of transforming lives” and as God’s agents, will come under attack.

Deception, nasty tactics, foul politics and damaged children are as nothing to a divine calling;

We must give our children and young people a model of discipleship that promotes belief and responds to the word of God. And trains them to abide in it. It teaches and models for them the love of God and how to be in a community of faith to love one another and love God’s word. We need a model that is marked by fruit bearing and involves our young people in evangelicalism and disciple making. We need a model that points to the glory of Christ in his incarnation, his work on the cross his resurrection his exultation and sees his disciples continuing that work and reflecting it in his world.

We are constantly tempted to water this down in order to attract young people through our activities, our music, our fun, or whatever it is. Resist the temptation to replace substance with superficiality. Our gospel is not in need of massaging for acceptability. It alone will transform lives and bring salvation. [Source]

The arrogant, iron-like grip of ACCESS ministries backed by state and federal education ministers is like pouring salt on that weeping sore. Their dominance and rigidity has evoked strong responses from parents of all faiths and of no faith, who wish for a general education about different religious persuasions and doctrines. In our multicultural, multi-faith community the notion of a monopoly in one uncompromising faith doesn’t sit well.

Equally, the hint of dissent has evoked strong combative responses from defenders of RE and particularly Paddison who on June 1st bemoaned, “a deliberate attempt by the media to start a faith war – to divide Christians against other Christians; faiths against faiths; congregations against congregations”.

Understandable dear reader. If history has taught us anything it is that religious faith cannot possibly be responsible for creating any division or unrest. Much less “wars”. It must be those journalists. Those scribes! After all – Matthew 23:13;

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

And you thought the Murdoch dynasty was a mere three generations. But seriously, fortunately humankind saw the wisdom of the written word and the ideas it carries with it. Pharisees didn’t fare so well. Evonne Paddison may never see the irony in her far distant echo of the need to silence independent thought and stifle it’s distribution. Or the absurdity that the above nonsense comes from the very source of “truth” so many of ACCESS’ devotees depend upon. She further ranted that the Christian faith was under attack, taking a “secular beating” no less.

Parents who, due to current guidelines will be arguing religious discrimination against non-Christian children to VCAT this December, are “a rat in the ranks”. Questioning the Religious Education Act is “a schism in the foundation”, reported sensationally and promoting “atheistic comment”.

In one of her most memorably offensive and fallacious appeals to authority she waxes lyrical, lying about state and federal ministers “professing their faith for the first time”. Then taking Aussies for the fools she would dearly love them to be, unwittingly reminds us of the unwelcome political power of The Australian Christian Lobby;

Our own Prime Minister, an avowed atheist, even referred to the relevance of The King James Bible in one’s life

The entire article, Christian religious education takes a secular beating, is a fascinating read and I include it because of it’s divisive tone. Void of the so-called “values” ACCESS lay claim to, the undertone is distinctly vicious. It’s a snapshot of the ACCESS psychology. Not only unable to accept the ontology of others, this mindset is unable to realise that it’s own privilege exists, much less being unsustainable in the present day. Much has been, and should be, made of Paddison’s 2008 speech at the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion about the need “to go and make disciples”.

Indeed, far more damaging fundamentalist claptrap peppers that speech and we can be in no doubt it is the standard by which ACCESS has set it’s sights. ACCESS isn’t just about having faith or promoting the benefits of mature belief. The convictions held are in simple terms, right out there. Their God is one who talks to them, touches them, shows them the way and intercedes directly in our world on a daily basis.

As Christine Burford, ACCESS chaplain said on ACCESS Sunday, reciting a sermon formatted by Evonne Paddison;

No matter what it takes, God’s got a plan and he’s gunna bring it to pass, he’s Sovereign. The devil is “a living enemy” who (apart from tormenting Christine with temptations of “flesh”) “would want to undermine us as people”. People are “the helpless sheep”, saved by God.

Evonne Paddison’s blinkered view can in some ways be summed up in a simple observation she makes in the piece on taking a secular beating. Complaints had been received about children colouring in sheets saying “Jesus loves me”. Paddison observes, “If we can’t make that claim as a faith educator (my emphasis) what is left?” In truth if you make that claim at all you are not a faith educator but one who proselytises. One who fails to see the flaw in perpetuating an untruth about a purportedly magical Jew who may never have existed. This cult of the zombie messiah deeply, deeply offends so many millions today. It’s continued presence is testament in part to the tactics and power of it’s defenders.

Yet still today in the second decade of the 21st century we find the dominant voice is that in defence of religion’s “good”. Certainly confidence in this fact buoyed by political backing and theistic delusion spurred Paddison to maintain her rigid disdain for months. Not until the last week of July, when the Commonwealth Ombudsman criticised the National School Chaplaincy Program did Paddison blink. Suddenly debate about religion in education was “nothing new”. Ever so calm, she could “understand” why certain people misunderstood her 2008 speech. A video appeared on the ACCESS ministries website to this effect, although it’s a futile effort. Her “argument” of denial is deconstructed here, using her own words.

I’ve no doubt that despite clumsy attempts at damage control ACCESS ministries seeks to minister in Victorian classrooms, convert students and save those who “are lost”. A board member of Arrow Leadership which is bound by the evangelical manifesto, The Lausanne Covenant, she is committed to “making disciples of every nation”. Paddison’s devotion to this task is absolute. From 2008;

Reflecting his glory will inevitably mean following his path of humiliation and loss for the sake of bearing fruit. For the sake of winning others. These then are the principles for discipleship for all generations. Paddison quotes Amy Carmichael. “Can one have followed far who has no wound? No scar. Christ has called us to follow him through the glory of suffering to the glory of eternity”.

Belief is suffering. Suffering and humiliation for the purpose of converting others. Judged by ones scars, it’s unlikely anything as puny as respect for dissenting belief or no belief will permeate. Eyes front soldier – on “the glory of eternity”. At the ACCESS Forward Together rally last July 17th Paddison spoke of their difficulties, reminding that their faith;

“… remains firm, because the one we serve is the same yesterday, today and forever. And His purposes will not be thwarted!”

So I wasn’t terribly surprised to find that an afternoon for FIRIS parents to meet with Bishop Stephen Hale, Chair of ACCESS ministries (and fellow board member of Arrow leadership), offered little. It was billed partly as “primarily an opportunity for ACCESS to clarify it’s programme and philosophy and hopefully respond to any misunderstandings”. Under the auspices of interfaith General Religious Education advocate, Rev. Paul Tonson the law was laid down. Tonson wrote;

I am grateful today for a respectful phone call from FIRIS and the opportunity to show my openness to the viewpoint of the group. We will welcome at the conversation anyone who is prepared to respectfully promote a range of viewpoints, with the attitude of seeking understanding. However, this occasion will be primarily an opportunity for ACCESS to clarify its program and philosophy and hopefully to respond to any misunderstandings. It may be possible to hold a subsequent conversation with a FIRIS representative.

Members of FIRIS may be interested to know that there are those voices within the churches that would strongly advocate GRE approach to religious education, as for example is already well modelled by professional teachers of DAN, (Dialogue Australasia Network).

“However, this occasion will be primarily an opportunity for ACCESS to clarify its program and philosophy and hopefully to respond to any misunderstandings.” What we got from the 90 minutes was a highly choreographed and strictly coordinated affair consisting of something like a “One on One” with Bishop Hale (pictured). We were treated to his early years and how he came to Christianity. Determined to forgo his Confirmation his mother made sure he went through with it. He even attempted to fail an exam that applied at the time. Later he was drawn in by his brother…. The relevance to CRE quickly became a display of tokenism.

I sat there watching two grown men talking about God, Christ and the joys of religious instruction for children in a display of special pleading and argument from final consequence. The pointlessness of seeking rationale with the fundamentalist mindset was crystalised. These two men honestly believed their own accounts of abandoning reason and evidence were pertinent to Victorian education policy. As with so many times before, that feeling of deep offence took hold as our beautiful, inexplicable world we visit with this one imperfect, unique chance at life was metaphorically hacked into superstitious ramblings.

At times the discussion seemed like a predetermined agenda to protect Hale and the ACCESS creed. To resell a newly packaged scam with the “interfaith” jingle. It was quickly and subtly made clear that despite the import of CRE to those with no faith or an agnostic viewpoint that in essence RE would leave them on the outer. That each man was as atheistic toward the other’s beliefs as an “atheist” is to monotheism was evidently lost on both. Belief was elevated as a special virtue, reason ignored.

I appreciate Tonson’s general interest and intent. Yet there’s little doubt he’s suffering the existence of non theism. The term “coordinator” was an exaggeration. Whilst in a position to probe Hale about the reality of ACCESS’ abuse of a privileged position, or what was to be made of other theists, such as Rev. Ron Noon calling Hale’s bluff, he didn’t do so. Nor did he probe him on the growing dissent amongst Uniting Church members about the ACCESS direction or the gulf between Paddison’s blood and guts warrior worship and the gentle Salvation Army persona. In fact the entire topic of fundamentalism being called for what it was by countless of Christians and most of Victoria was studiously avoided.

His role seemed to promote Hale and stifle dissent when an answer was crucially needed. As one who seeks to instill religio-superstition as vital to ethics in the classroom I guess this isn’t surprising. As one who seeks to see education about religion spread more widely he is to be congratulated. Yet convinced that the corrosive and ineffectual nature of demonstrably false and malignant belief systems deserve a special role, he is quite simply in error. Hale’s boyish defences were the perfect cover for a member of Arrow Leadership. Intent to “make disciples of every nation”, brushing off the concerns of parents would be essential.

GRE must never become a free kick for the promotion of servitude as ethical maturity or of the intellectual paucity of belief as an educated, humane choice. Yet though Paul Tonson had intoned thoroughly on his intent to run the discussion, at times Hale was in control applying band aids to the wreck of ACCESS ministries. As time passed the hoped for opportunity that Hale would “respond to any misunderstandings” clearly became wishful thinking.

Hale was given a chance to reinforce that yes, being a Christian to him meant making disciples and being a disciple. But not to worry, ACCESS was not about converting children and “if Evonne was here, she’d be the first to admit”, her speech had been taken out of context. The bible of course is what is meant by “the gospel” and just a cursory little brush to see where Christian values come from, he fumbled. Reminiscent of Paddison’s account of Gillard reading the St. James Bible, Hale proffered;

Even Richard Dawkins says you cannot understand Western civilisation without understanding the bible

There was more clumsy damage control. Whilst at least not pretending to be about education, and admitting ACCESS was all about instruction, it was merely in those typical “values” that Christian apologists seem to think humankind is naturally bereft of. We got more of the falsehood that no complaints have been raised and no sustainable complaints with the education department were to be found. They’re only doing what the education act stipulates anyway and any dissent is as misplaced as it is bemusing.

After 45 wasted minutes we “broke for questions”. One parent stressed how the present system had distressed his children. One son had expressed how severe the ostracism was in dividing his small social circle. Hale was sorry. “It shouldn’t be happening”. John Bornas spokesperson for FIRIS challenged Hale over Paddison’s intentions, clearly spelled out as the ACCESS blueprint. Not only was she about making disciples she felt every child needed a relationship with Christ and that “without Jesus our students are lost”. Her aim was to make disciples who would make more disciples – become teachers and recruitment agents themselves.

Hale’s answer was to shrug off the meaning of these claims, again reinforcing that Paddison had been clear in tidying up this “misunderstanding”. He left out that she’d queried as a challenge how many church attendances and conversions were resulting from ministry at state and national levels. How much discipleship, church growth and school based congregation were CRE volunteers able to lay claim to. The gospel was “not to be watered down” but implanted in schools, Paddison had taught.

There’s no indoctrination, Hale insisted and the guidelines were clear about this. More allusion to doing what was expected of them. It was almost as if ACCESS was the messenger for the government. There are no complaints, you see. Another parent raised the issue of her children being segregated and curriculum time wasted, getting much the same vapid stare from Hale and mumbled assistance from Tonson that changes would be likely. Tonson did a good job of keeping Hale from pressured questions exerting his role as coordinator when the heat was on. Problems are the education departments responsibility. Being “sorry” was Hales.

After a short breather, Hale took centre stage again to discuss General Religious Education – GRE. This is what parents are wanting. An opportunity to learn about the religions of the world with personal religious and faith matters kept as private matters or if necessary, during out of school hours. This is also what gets ACCESS so worked up. The suggestion that their goal of converting be threatened. They must, as Paddison instructed, “promote the same marks for discipleship for young people as the bible presents. But of course it must be appropriate and contextual for them. The first step in becoming a disciple is believing”.

It’s known from the 2006 Census that Hinduism is the fastest growing religion in Melbourne. Acting CEO Rev. Denise Nicholls chimed in with a claim that she is in frequent contact with “her counterparts” from other faiths, who don’t want GRE. This is evidenced by the “seventy or so” Hindu volunteer positions that have been created.

So there’s no need for education about other religions. Instruction must stay – this is what’s wanted they misled the audience. Besides (repeating one of Paddison’s favourite misconceptions) it’s entirely voluntary. With one stroke the plethora of complaints and legal action stemming from this “voluntary” monopoly was swept aside. This is typical of Nicholls, with a history of lies to media interviewers and parents. Could anyone forget her smirking appearance on The 7 Pm Project in late May?;

We unashamedly teach the Christian faith, that’s what we do, that’s what we’re allowed to do in government guidelines, and that’s what parents are happy for their children to receive. We still live in a country of faith, where people have a faith and how important faith is to them will of course vary from person to person.

Hale did acknowledge that the most important factor in a child’s spiritual development are parents. If parents bring them up not to believe in God, “then that’s more than likely how they’re going to end up”, he offered with a hint of despair. It was clear this was not good enough for Hale. After all he’s devoted to “making disciples of every nation” and we’d just heard how important this very belief was to his entire life.

As if channeling Evonne Paddison’s complaint that “some children never know the gospel, never know Christ”, Hale slipped up trying to convince the audience ACCESS respect parents decisions. “We only have a very small window of opportunity every week but parents are the ones who have the full opportunity, and we respect that”. But we know this is false, as time and again Paddison relays stories of students who “come to Christ” thanks to ACCESS and as such are able to later convert their godless parents.

“Opportunity to do what?” John Bornas challenged. Hale began to open up about instructing the gospel. Bornas challenged, “But you just said….”, only to be rudely cut off by Tonson who could see exactly what was about to happen. Hale’s house of cards was about to fall down under the weight of his treasured half hour per week. I had trouble accepting that Tonson’s chosen sequence of questioners should take precedence over such an admission of deception by Hale. Was time really so tight? No. So, what was Tonson’s motivation for saving Hale from “responding to [this] misunderstanding”?

Sadly, the issue of volunteers receiving just 6 hours training was lost in the early claims of Tonson that – like him – so many volunteers were trained teachers. I wondered if Paul Tonson would have his front porch painted by a company with a handful of trained painters. Before anyone could get a chance to ask why ACCESS wanted a chaplain attached to schools with the view of making “congregations” of students, our time was up.

The forum certainly wasn’t a waste of time. It marks recognition of the need and right for discussion when previously denial was the norm. Chatting to parents later however, many felt it was more of the same. Concerns raised respectfully were of course, all dismissed as aberrations. ACCESS have no intention of changing course. The good train ACCESS ministries hurtles on with truly dangerous people behind the controls. We can expect nothing more than obfuscation in place of reciprocation.

That festering sore will for now, remain.

Peter Garrett welcomes changes to school chaplaincy program

Catch up on other NSCP posts here.

After scamming Aussies, Scripture Union QLD continues to maintain the fallacy;

Following changes announced today to the National School Chaplaincy Program. The Australian writes;

SCHOOLS will be able to choose whether to employ chaplains or secular welfare officers under changes to the federal government’s controversial chaplaincy program.

All new chaplains or youth workers employed under the program will also have to have a minimum qualification of a Certificate IV in youth work. Existing chaplains must have at least completed the mental health and making referrals units of the course.

The changes announced by Schools Minister Peter Garrett today include renaming the scheme the national school chaplaincy and student welfare program. Previously schools were able to use the funds to hire a youth worker only if they showed efforts to find an ordained chaplain had failed. […]

The school chaplaincy program is the subject of a High Court challenge, with Queensland father Ron Williams arguing the requirement for chaplains to be ordained is unconstitutional. [….]

The program also came under fire from the commonwealth ombudsman in July.

The Australian Christian Lobby of course, wants no part of independently contributing to sound “secular” care of student welfare. The tax payer can foot the bill just as for all things biblical;

HOBART 7 September 2011. Garrett announcement welcome

The Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, has welcomed today’s announcement to extend the National School Chaplaincy Program to include secular student welfare services.

Mr McKim commended the decision by Federal Minister Peter Garrett which will allow school communities to employ either a chaplain or a secular student welfare worker.
“I commend Mr Garret for his decision because these changes address much of the feedback I’ve received from school communities,” Mr McKim said.
“I am pleased the program is to be extended to ensure principals and school communities are able to choose the right person to fit the needs of their students and local communities.
“This will give schools much greater choice in deciding whether they want to employ a chaplain or secular student welfare worker.
“Growing up in today’s world has its challenges for our young people and today’s announcement will provide them with the support they need.
“There are 95 chaplains currently working in Tasmanian schools and colleges.”
“I have asked my department to ensure that all schools are made aware of these changes to ensure they are fully informed of the options now available.”

PETER GARRETT: This morning I wanted to make an announcement about some changes that the Government will be making to the National Chaplaincy Program. I want to highlight some of those changes to you but to begin by saying this has been a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports, and we’ve been through an extensive consultation process to determine what changes might be applied to the program in order to strengthen it and improve it. So today I can announce that we will broaden the scope of the chaplains program to include student welfare workers or secular workers in the schools as a part of that program.

We will strengthen the requirements for qualifications for those who work as chaplains in the schools under the program. We’ll also make additional requirements for the chaplaincy service providers, that they have strengthened requirements for the delivery of the program, and we’ll make available an extra $4000 to increase the amount for chaplains or the student welfare workers in remote, regional or disadvantaged communities from $20 000 to $24 000, to take account of the additional costs that can apply in remote areas.

What today’s announcement is about is taking a popular and positive program and making it better, with stronger qualifications and more choice for parents and school communities. And I’m really pleased that we’ve had the opportunity to take a program which is both popular and successful and improve and strengthen it. Now, I should add that in relation to those chaplains who are already working under the program and who don’t have minimum qualifications, the Government recognises that there is a need for them to have some minimum qualifications in the areas of mental health and referral qualifications that already exist under equivalent Cert IV qualifications. That will be a requirement for those chaplains already in the program, but the Government will provide them with the assistance to get those qualifications.

This is a program which is all about giving schools the choice about having a chaplain or a student welfare worker in their school. Schools are in the driving seat in this program.  It is a popular program and it is one that the Government fullysupports and, additionally, has provided funding for another 1000 schools to take the opportunity to have these services in their schools. I’m extremely confident that the changes we’ve made will deliver a program which suits the school communities right around Australia. I know this is a very popular program. It’s one that the Government fully supports and I commend these changes.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a High Court challenge in which the judgement’s due by the end of the year. Did the Ron Williams challenge play a part in making the Government expand its secular welfare movements?

PETER GARRETT: The consideration as to whether or not the program should be expanded for secular workers was one which was made prior to the High Court challenge that considered the chaplains program. It was an issue that had been raised in the consultation process that the Government had undertaken, and it’s an issue which we’ve always known is one which some parents and some school groups and organisations have raised previously.

QUESTION: With these student welfare workers, what do you mean?

PETER GARRETT: We’re providing the opportunity for schools to choose somebody who has an equivalent Cert IV qualification, someone who’s in a position to provide support and advice in the school community, as chaplains do, but effectively is a secular worker.

QUESTION: When you say student though, are they still at uni? Or is it do you mean that as in counselling a student? A youth worker or something?

PETER GARRETT: What I’m saying here is that schools can either choose to have a chaplain delivering the services under the program or a welfare worker delivering those services under the program, and there’ll be minimum requirements for both of those capacities, whether chaplain or a welfare worker.

QUESTION: Minister, there was a concern earlier that some of these chaplains were pushing religious views and trying to convert people to Christianity. Do you have concerns about the particular conduct of some chaplains under the program previously?

PETER GARRETT: I can’t stress strongly enough that the guidelines in the program are absolutely crystal clear that chaplains are not there to provide religious instruction or to proselytise, and that definitely remains the case. It is not appropriate that this is delivering religious instruction – and the guidelines and the code of conduct expressly forbid that. In those small number of cases where charges of proselytisation have been made, they’ve been investigated. I’m very confident that this is a program that is delivering into school communities the kind of services they think benefits students.

Remember, this is a voluntary program. Schools choose whether they want to have a chaplain or, now, a student welfare worker and I’m very confident that schools will make that choice, taking into account the views of their school community.

QUESTION: When will that come in?

PETER GARRETT: We will process the opportunities for those schools that want to continue the chaplain program over the coming week. We’ll also then start to process the additional applications for the thousand schools that additionally the Government is committed to. I do want to place on record my thanks for all of those groups that participated in the consultation process, the chaplaincy service providers, the principals and parents associations, and other interested parties. The fact is that we are fully committed to making sure that we put schools in the driving seat to determine whether they want to have a chaplain working in the school to help students or whether they want to have a welfare worker working at the school.

QUESTION: Minister, Labor power brokers say that Julia Gillard has until the end of the year to turn things around for Labor or there will be a change of Prime Minister. Should Julia be dumped as leader if she doesn’t turn things around by Christmas?

PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister has my full support and the support of the caucus. We’ll continue to prosecute what I think are the important issues that Australians do care about. That includes the announcement that I’m making today. That includes the reforms that we have underway with delivery of the National Broadband Network, the big education reforms that we’re rolling out, improving schools, making sure that kids get the best education they can. That’s what Australians are interested in us doing and that’s what I’m interested in talking about.

QUESTION: Why shouldn’t Kevin Rudd be given another chance as Prime Minister?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, I’m not going to provide a whole heap of commentary around these issues. I think that everybody wants to see the Government continue to deliver the reforms that we think are in the national interest and that’s what we’re going to do.

QUESTION: So will you be hoping she gets elected for another [term]?

PETER GARRETT: There’s no question about that.

QUESTION: And how long can the party afford to wait before action needs to be taken?

PETER GARRETT: Well, again, the most important thing for us to do as a government is what we are doing – making announcements such as the announcement that I’m making today, committing ourselves to improving the educational opportunities for young Australians and making sure that we continue with the significant health reforms that are out there, ensuring that we have a focus on those Australians – say, for example, in the disability area, who have not been given the level of attention that they deserve by our coalition opposition in the past and are now getting the level of attention they deserve from this government.  These are the things that count and these are the things that we’ll focus on.

QUESTION: Minister, will you be a Labor candidate for Kingsford Smith at the next election?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve always said that I intend to stand again and, at the moment, I’m absolutely relishing the opportunity not only to serve the people of Kingsford Smith, but also to bring forward policies which I think are better for the people of Australia. If Australians care about the quality of political leadership, then the Opposition Leader today should distance himself from the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cory Bernardi, who is providing a great succour to an extremist politician who has dangerous views which are completely at odds with Australian culture and Australian values.

And I am extremely concerned to see that Senator Bernardi, who has consistently put a hardline view on a range of issues, has now offered support to a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, whose views are extreme and dangerous. And Mr Abbott should show some leadership, discipline this Senator, remove him from his portfolio responsibilities, and ensure that he makes it absolutely clear that there is no place in a country like Australia, where our values are values of fairness and tolerance, for the kind of actions that Senator Bernardi has embarked upon in offering to support this extremist overseas politician.

QUESTION: Well, John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed from the Liberal Party in 1996. Are you saying Tony Abbott should have Cory Bernardi kicked out of the Liberal Party in 2011?

PETER GARRETT: It’s up to Mr Abbott to make clear what action he’s going to take in relation to Senator Bernardi’s dangerous and completely unacceptable offer of assistance to an extremist politician. The ball is in Mr Abbott’s court if he understands the significance of the actions that Senator Bernardi has taken, and I would like to think that he does understand the significance of them, then he ought to take the appropriate action – it’s in his hands.

QUESTION: Just a – do you support a return to offshore processing of refugees?

PETER GARRETT: I’ve already made my comments clear in relation to what I think the Government has in front of us following the High Court decision. You’ve seen the subsequent comments made by the Prime Minister and we’ll continue to deal with this issue in the most appropriate way, given the decision that the court has made. Thanks everybody.

QUESTION: I’ve just got one more question, sorry.

UNKNOWN: Just when you thought you were –

QUESTION: It’s about the chaplains or the secular workers actually.

PETER GARRETT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Where are the secular workers going to come from?

PETER GARRETT: Look, they’ll come from the community and from those areas of expertise of people who have those qualifications.

QUESTION: But the chaplains don’t get paid very much so you’re asking non chaplain workers who are supported by their churches to come and do the work with them for the same amount of money?

PETER GARRETT: Yeah. It’s the same figure for the chaplains or the welfare workers, other than that we’re providing the additional amount up to $24 000 for the remote and disadvantaged areas.  Look, I’m confident that there will be a source of people that want to come in and do this work. I know that we have people who are coming through the TAFE system, through the university system, through non government organisations and others, who have these equivalent qualifications who would relish the opportunity of working in schools, and providing assistance and support to kids in those schools.

QUESTION: For $20 000 a year?

PETER GARRETT: Well, I don’t have any doubt at all that in the same way as we’ve seen chaplains come into the schools for two days during the week normally, that the same opportunities will arise for the welfare workers.

QUESTION: Is the expansion of this to the secular workers a recognition that not everyone was happy with the religious nature of the program?

PETER GARRETT: The broadening of the program is a recognition that we want to provide schools with every opportunity to exercise a range of choice as to who they want to have operating in their school community. The fact is that the chaplains program has been a popular and positive program. It’s well supported by schools and given that it’s a voluntary program, I have every expectation that we’ll continue to see large numbers of chaplains in schools, but we’re also providing the opportunity for schools to make a choice about the kind of person they want working in their school. And if they do desire a secular worker in the school, then that opportunity is there for them.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, the $24 000 a year, that’s for ones in regional or remote areas – so is that outside capital cities? How would that criteria work?

PETER GARRETT: Look, there’s a series of definitions that the Department applies to those criteria and that will be made clear to the applicants.

QUESTION: So would the Central Coast of New South Wales be part of – considered regional or would that be part of the Sydney metropolitan for chaplains?

PETER GARRETT: Well, in terms of the Department’s definition, that’s something for them to determine but the point of the additional investment that we’re providing to the program is to enable schools that are in remote and regional areas and in disadvantaged communities as well to take advantage of this program. So the Department will have a set of indices that apply to that and the guidelines will make clear what they are and schools will have the opportunity of applying.

Thanks, everybody.