2.1
This chapter outlines the proposed amendments to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 (ACARA Act) and the Australian Education Act 2013 (Education Act) by the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 (the bill). The chapter then discusses the rationale for the bill using examples put forward by Senator Pauline Hanson on behalf of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. The compatibility of the bill with human rights is also examined.
Proposed amendments
2.2
Item 1 would amend section 7 of the ACARA Act by adding a provision that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) must ensure Australian school education provides a 'balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues'. It also would require that, where opposing views exist, ACARA is to ensure the teaching profession is provided with the information, resources and support required to provide a balanced presentation to students.
2.3
The bill would place an obligation on ACARA to develop a balanced curriculum for adoption by all states and territories and would seek 'to tie federal education funding to the existence of…legislation which prohibits indoctrination in schools'.
2.4
Item 2 would insert conditions into the Education Act to force states and territories to enact laws requiring schools and their staff to provide an unpartisan education to students while consulting with parents and guardians on the extent this had been achieved. Funding supplied to the states and territories under the Education Act would be subject to enforcement of the new legislation.
Rationale
2.5
In her second reading speech, Senator Hanson highlighted two subjects, climate studies and gender studies, taught in schools to argue why she considers the amendments are required. The following is a summary of those arguments.
Climate studies
2.6
Senator Hanson argued there is an inherent bias within the Australian Curriculum that only supports one theory about global warming. She suggested climate science is far from settled and 'students need to be open to the possibility they will be misled and lied to by scientists'.
2.7
To support this argument, Senator Hanson referred to a 2007 case in the High Court of the United Kingdom (UK) that ruled on the appropriateness of including Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, in the British curriculum. The film follows former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate people about global warming. Although Mr Justice Burton found the film to be 'substantially founded upon scientific research and fact', he did accept that, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, the science can be used to support a specific political statement or political program.
2.8
Mr Justice Burton identified nine inconsistencies in the film that the Claimant argued to have departed from mainstream science and into the realm of alarmism. He also accepted the argument that teachers with expertise outside the fields of geography and science may not possess the necessary knowledge to encourage informed discussion on the subject.
2.9
The court ruled the film could continue to be shown in schools throughout the UK with updated Guidance Notes for teaching staff that addressed the issues mentioned above.
Gender studies
2.10
Senator Hanson argued some teachers within the public education system have an unhealthy preoccupation with gender identity and attributed this to an alleged increase in children identifying as transgender. This 'plan to get children preoccupied with gender issues,' she argued, was a consequence of identity politics that undermines Australia's democracy.
2.11
To support this argument, Senator Hanson alleged that teachers in Queensland are reading a book to children aged between four and five called, The Gender Fairy. Senator Hanson considered that the book shows 'young children that they can choose their gender because their body parts don’t make them a boy or a girl'. She expressed similar concerns when claiming that, in Western Australia, eight-year-olds spend time in the classroom dressing up as the opposite sex 'using a government supplied box of dress-up clothes'.
2.12
This 'transgender agenda', as Senator Hanson described it, was seen to be reflected in the decision by a Queensland high school to provide only unisex toilets for their students after it opened in 2020. Senator Hanson explained that, following protests from parents and students, the school converted their toilets to segregate males and females. This example is one of many provided by Senator Hanson to highlight the perceived transgender policies within the education system that prioritise the rights of a few at the expense of the majority, 'particularly girls and women'.
Human rights implications
2.13
The explanatory memorandum states that the bill does not engage any applicable rights or freedoms and is compatible with human rights and freedoms recognised in relevant international instruments.