The Claim
“Gave millions of dollars to subsidise the training of priests and other religious workers, using the money cut from public, secular universities.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the Abbott government's proposed higher education reforms announced in December 2014. Under these reforms, the government planned to extend federal funding to students at private universities, TAFEs, and associate degree programs for the first time [1]. This would have made religious teaching, training and vocational institutes eligible for a share of $820 million in new Commonwealth funding over three years [2].
The policy was part of a broader higher education package that included:
- Deregulating university fees
- Cutting university funding by 20 percent
- Extending federal funding to private colleges and TAFEs [1]
Specific institutions that would have become eligible included the Sydney College of Divinity, Brisbane's Christian Heritage College, Perth Bible College, and the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne [2]. These institutes, which previously charged students full fees, would have been eligible for an estimated $4,214 in funding per student per year under the reforms [1].
However, it is important to note that this was a proposed policy that was never implemented. The government's reforms were voted down by the Senate in December 2014 and failed to pass [2].
Missing Context
The Policy Never Passed
The most significant omission is that this was a proposed reform that was rejected by the Senate and never became law [2]. The claim presents it as an accomplished fact when it was actually a failed policy proposal.
Part of Broader Higher Education Reform
The funding extension to private colleges was part of a comprehensive higher education reform package, not a standalone religious subsidy. The government argued the reforms would "address inequity by providing significant subsidies for non-universities" and create a more competitive tertiary marketplace [2].
Not Exclusive to Religious Institutions
The claim frames this as specifically funding priests, but the policy would have extended funding to all private colleges and TAFEs, not just religious ones. As one commentator noted, "the private tertiary sector includes all sorts of institutions ranging from sports fitness, to naturopathy, to hospitality, to music, to agriculture, to wine-making" [3]. Theological colleges represented only one subset of private providers that would have benefited.
Misleading "Priests" Framing
The claim and original reporting emphasized "priests," but most theological colleges train pastors, hospital chaplains, military chaplains, missionaries, youth workers, and social workers—not just priests [3]. Additionally, many secular universities already offered theological education with government funding, including Charles Sturt University, Australian Catholic University, and the University of Queensland [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a mainstream Australian newspaper with a centre-left editorial stance [1][2].
Assessment:
- SMH is a reputable, established news outlet (Fairfax Media, now Nine)
- The article by Matthew Knott is factual reporting, not opinion
- However, the framing emphasizes the religious angle over the broader policy context
- The article includes responses from both government spokespeople and critics, showing basic journalistic balance
- The political context (December 2014) was during heated debate over higher education reforms, which may have influenced framing
The SMH article is factually accurate regarding the proposal but presents it with a particular emphasis on the religious funding aspect that could be seen as politically charged given the newspaper's centre-left orientation.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
National School Chaplaincy Program:
The Coalition was not the first government to fund religious programs in education. The National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) was actually initiated by the Howard government in 2007 and continued under Labor governments [4]. This program provided federal funding for chaplains in public schools.
The Gillard Labor government continued and expanded the NSCP. In 2012, the High Court ruled against the government's funding mechanism, but the program continued through parliamentary legislation [5]. The program remained active throughout Labor's tenure.
Australian Catholic University (ACU):
The Australian Catholic University has received public funding as a fully accredited university since its establishment. Originally established by an act of the Victorian parliament, ACU has long received federal funding for teaching biblical and theological studies [3][6]. This precedent of public funding for religious education existed well before the Abbott government's proposal.
Comparison Summary:
While Labor did not propose extending Commonwealth Supported Places to private theological colleges specifically, they maintained and funded:
- The National School Chaplaincy Program ($244 million in Coalition-era funding continued a Labor-era program)
- Public funding for the Australian Catholic University
- Various faith-based educational institutions through existing funding mechanisms
Balanced Perspective
Policy Intent vs. Perception
The Abbott government framed this as addressing "inequity" where "public universities receive federal funding but religious colleges and other private providers do not" [2]. Education Minister Christopher Pyne's spokesman stated: "Consistent with current practice, the government will not distinguish between faith-based and secular higher education institutions for registration and funding purposes" [1].
Legitimate Concerns Raised
Critics raised valid concerns about church-state separation. Labor higher education spokesman Kim Carr noted: "This raises serious questions about relationship between Church and State. The Church has traditionally funded the training of its own personnel" [2]. Greens spokeswoman Lee Rhiannon argued the policy would "rob Australia's public and secular university system to pay private, religious colleges" [1].
Context of Theological Education
Theological colleges offer academically rigorous programs including ancient languages, philosophy, ethics, history, and pastoral care—not merely religious indoctrination [3]. Many are accredited by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and maintain research profiles comparable to university departments [3].
Bipartisan Context
Funding religious education is not unique to the Coalition. Both major parties have supported:
- Faith-based schools through funding mechanisms
- Chaplaincy programs in public schools
- Theological education at public universities
The key difference in this proposal was extending Commonwealth Supported Places to private theological colleges, which was new—but the underlying principle of public support for religious education has bipartisan precedent.
Final Outcome
The claim implies this funding occurred, but the policy was defeated in the Senate in December 2014 [2]. The Abbott government never succeeded in implementing these reforms, meaning no "millions of dollars" were actually transferred from universities to religious training institutes.
FALSE
3.0
out of 10
The claim is factually incorrect because:
- The policy was proposed but never implemented—it was rejected by the Senate in December 2014
- The framing suggests a direct transfer of funds from universities to priests, but this was part of broader higher education reforms affecting all private colleges, not just religious ones
- The claim omits that both Labor and Coalition governments have historically funded religious education through various mechanisms
- The "priests" framing is misleading—most theological colleges train a range of religious professionals, not just priests, and many already received public funding through different channels
While the Abbott government did propose reforms that would have extended funding to theological colleges, the claim presents this as an accomplished transfer of funds when it was actually a failed policy proposal with bipartisan precedent for religious education funding in Australia.
Final Score
3.0
OUT OF 10
FALSE
The claim is factually incorrect because:
- The policy was proposed but never implemented—it was rejected by the Senate in December 2014
- The framing suggests a direct transfer of funds from universities to priests, but this was part of broader higher education reforms affecting all private colleges, not just religious ones
- The claim omits that both Labor and Coalition governments have historically funded religious education through various mechanisms
- The "priests" framing is misleading—most theological colleges train a range of religious professionals, not just priests, and many already received public funding through different channels
While the Abbott government did propose reforms that would have extended funding to theological colleges, the claim presents this as an accomplished transfer of funds when it was actually a failed policy proposal with bipartisan precedent for religious education funding in Australia.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
9news.com.au
Priests’ training at private colleges would reportedly be subsidised by the Federal Government for the firs...
9news Com -
2
standard.net.au
Taxpayers may subsidise training of religious workers for the first time under the Abbott government's proposed higher education...
Standard Net -
3
onlineopinion.com.au
Theological colleges teach a variety of courses on subjects like ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, introduction to philosophy, ethics, Reformation history, overseas aid and development....
On Line Opinion -
4
tandfonline.com
Tandfonline
-
5
peo.gov.au
Explore milestones to find out how the work of the Parliament has influenced the development of Australia since Federation.
Parliamentary Education Office -
6
acu.edu.au
Australian Catholic University (ACU) was opened on 1 January 1991 following the amalgamation of four Catholic tertiary institutions in eastern Australia.
Acu Edu
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.