They are a politically very powerful organisation. There are churches and parish schools all over the country. They are in marginal seats and have people and money that can be mobilised to those seats. That's probably why they've been able to hold on to the golden handshake for so long. Simon Birmingham sought to right that wrong and was successful. The drums have been beating for a battle in marginal seats. Really? It will be interesting to see how a Christian church argues in marginal seats that they should get more than another school in the same position.

Will they say their kids are more important? More meritorious? That message doesn't have an egalitarian, Christian ring to it. Will they say that school fees will have to go up? As that isn't true it would be a very risky business.

Being truthful and honest are important character traits one expects to find in Christians. If a Christian organisation went into lying to the public it would be a very bad look. They're getting more money, so they can't say their funding has been cut. So that doesn't leave a very strong public campaign.

If they choose to run a campaign from the pulpit they might have a bit more success, but I don't think so. Presumably people who go to church regularly have not only their faith but faith in their local priest as well. If the priests exert influence it may make a difference. But even though that would be a sotto voce campaign as opposed to a public political one, they will still be hamstrung by those essential Christian characteristics of fairness and honesty.

Can you imagine a local priest arguing to his flock that they should vote Labor because a Liberal government has decided to treat them equally rather than give them an advantage over others? Here's the short form: "Don't vote for them, they took away the unfair advantage we had over less well off." I can't see that happening.