George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I do. I point out to Senator Singh that I was referring to a press release issued by the shadow minister for finance, Mr Burke, who made some very wild claims about the meaning of the decision. The High Court was asked a broad question and a narrow question. It answered the narrow question, 'Was the school chaplaincy program invalid,' by saying that it was. It explicitly declared that it was not necessary to answer the broad question. The effect of the case was to affirm the decision of the High Court in the earlier Williams v Commonwealth of Australia No. 1 decision, which did have very significant potential consequences for a range of programs. But Williams No. 2, beyond striking down the chaplaincy program, took the law as stated in Williams No. 1 no further.