3.1
There was very limited support for the bill from submissions. Stakeholders expressed a variety of reasons why support was not forthcoming, including a lack of key definitions, undermining education philosophy and the professionalism of educators, interference by the Commonwealth in areas of state and territory jurisdiction, and uncertainty as to the consequence for non‑compliance. The following sections consider these reasons in more detail.
A lack of key definitions
3.2
Multiple submissions considered the bill to be vague in its definitions of key terms and concepts. Of particular concern were the proposed amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013 (Education Act) that would require a school to:
(i) consult with parents or guardians of students at that school to ascertain the extent to which staff members (however described) have provided students with a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues as such issues arise in the teaching of a subject; and
(ii) have regard to any feedback received as a result of those consultations.
3.3
Dr Bruce Baer Arnold cautioned that it was not clear which parents or guardians should have their views taken into account:
It does not identify which parents determine the curriculum. All parents? All parents at a specific school? All parents across the state? Parents whose views are at odds with most of their peers but who seek publicity by complaining and who seek to override the views of other parents?
It does not provide guidance to courts that would be requested to provide orders where angry, bigoted or merely attention-seeking parents seek to impose their idiosyncratic choices on the curriculum and on the children of their peers.
3.4
The Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales (P&C Federation) warned that the lack of a clear definition of 'indoctrination', or what is meant by a 'balanced presentation of opposing views', had the 'potential for an individual parent to legally disrupt any part of an approved curriculum that touches on political, historical or scientific issues'. The P&C Federation concluded:
The uncertainty this would create within education could potentially be catastrophic to the delivery of a uniform curriculum, and place schools and teachers in untenable positions.
3.5
The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) also concluded that the lack of clear guidance around key terms and concepts within the bill would increase the risk of legal challenges from various stakeholders. DESE observed that there was no guidance on what constitutes an 'opposing view' or a 'balanced presentation', or how they would be provided and considered.
3.6
Mr Alastair Lawrie argued that the notion of 'balance', as represented in Senator Pauline Hanson's second reading speech, was problematic.
It appears Senator Hanson would like to provide an equal platform in the science curriculum to climate change denialism alongside evidence-based climate change science which irrefutably shows the earth is heating, and that this heating is caused by human activity.
To do what Senator Hanson proposes – to provide space in the science curriculum just because some people believe it, rather than because it is based on evidence – would undermine the very nature of science itself.
3.7
Another submission considered that until the term 'balanced presentation' is defined, the bill would be unworkable. To argue their point, the submission questioned how the bill would affect the curriculum of a Catholic school:
Under the proposal, would Catholic primary schools be required to present the beliefs of Mormonism and Scientology on an equal basis with Catholic doctrine?
3.8
DESE was also concerned the limited definition of key terms within the bill may have unintended consequences on faith based schools. In particular, DESE highlighted that states and territories interpreting key terms differently could negatively affect the way faith-based schools are governed. DESE suggested:
The limited clarity may alternatively result in faith-based schools finding themselves defendants to legal challenge if a balanced presentation of opposing views of religious instruction are not provided.
Undermining education philosophy and the professionalism of educators
3.9
The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEUA) recognised the highly skilled teaching professionals in Australia and expressed concern that the bill would represent a move away from an education philosophy in Australia based on scientific facts. The IEUA considered that the proposed amendments would undermine:
…teacher professional capacity; the nature of school education provision (including schools of a faith-based commitment); the high quality Australian curriculum; and the foundation principles of our liberal education commitment.
3.10
Several submissions considered the professionalism of educators in Australia and argued that teachers and school leaders are most appropriate to make informed judgements about how content is taught in schools. In their joint submission, the Australian Association of Christian Schools (AACS), Adventist Education Australia (AEA), and Christian Schools Australia (CSA) contended that:
…our highly qualified school leaders and teachers, working in collaboration with the school community, are best placed to be making informed, professional judgements about how content is taught in their classes.
3.11
The Australian Education Union (AEU) asserted the current framework for curriculum development and debate must adequately represent the views of teachers, students, parents, and appropriately qualified experts in the field. The AEU argued:
Teachers and school leaders, as qualified experts and deliverers of frontline education services, must be trusted to make the professional decisions that are in the best interests of their students and school communities.
3.12
The Australian Council of State Schools Organisations (ACSSO) discussed the term 'indoctrination' and concluded that an indoctrinated person is not able to think independently and has an inability or unwillingness to consider alternative ideas. They argued this is exactly the opposite of Australia's curriculum ideals that 'endow people with rationality, autonomy, and cultural openness'. The ACSSO also highlighted:
…that the Australian Curriculum does not support the indoctrination of Australia’s students, rather it assists students develop critical and creative thinking skills as they learn to generate and evaluate knowledge, clarify concepts and ideas, seek possibilities, consider alternatives, and solve problems.
3.13
This sentiment was echoed by Family Planning NSW who also argued that the existing Australian Curriculum, developed in consultation with field experts, already meets the 'current and future learning needs of students', providing the 'skills that enable them to meaningfully participate in society'.
Commonwealth Government overreach and mechanisms for compliance
3.14
In their joint submission, the AACS, AEA, and CSA, made clear that teaching professionals within their schools are kept accountable by their school leadership and parent community. They emphasised that it was 'not the place of courts to enforce a certain teaching program in schools' and that it was 'over-reach for Government to be legislating in this space'.
3.15
The AEU shared these sentiments and identified education in Australia as the constitutional responsibility of the states. It explained:
The Education Ministers Meeting (formally Education Council) is comprised of representatives of the states and territories and federal government, and the Education Ministers Meeting is the forum through which strategic policy on curriculum can be nationally coordinated.
3.16
The IEUA also highlighted that education of school students is the responsibility of individual states and territories. It argued the proposed amendments would result in unnecessary interference of the Commonwealth Government in state and territory matters.
3.17
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is an independent statutory authority that provides advice on, and delivery of, national curriculum, assessment and reporting for all Australian education ministers.
3.18
ACARA currently reports to state and territory Education Ministers, in the form of the Education Ministers Meeting, who approve the national school curriculum and set the strategic direction of ACARA. Item 1 of the bill would amend the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 (ACARA Act) to require ACARA ensure that:
…the national school curriculum is developed and administered to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues; and
information, resources, support and guidance that promote a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues are provided to the teaching profession.
3.19
The IEUA suggested that the amendments to the ACARA Act would result in 'further interference by the Commonwealth into the affairs of ACARA'. The IEUA considered that ACARA should remain an independent statutory authority that reports to the Education Ministers of each state and territory.
3.20
DESE was concerned that these amendments appear to indicate that ACARA would have day-to-day oversight of functions traditionally managed by state and territory agencies. This would effectively mean ACARA would have 'regulatory or compliance oversight for the Education Ministers it currently reports to'.
3.21
DESE also questioned what assurance or compliance actions to fulfil this regulatory role would be made available to ACARA, or what the consequences would be for instances of non-compliance.
3.22
Similar issues arose in DESE's assessment of how the bill would affect the Education Act. The Education Act is the vehicle in which state and territory education funding is provided from the Commonwealth Government. Item 2 of the bill inserts a clause into the Education Act making funding from the Commonwealth Government conditional on requiring 'schools to consult parents or guardians on the extent to which staff are fulfilling their requirements to present a balanced presentation of opposing views'. DESE argued:
The introduction of this level of specificity and direct oversight of the operation of schools presents significant overreach by the Commonwealth in directing the manner that states and territories, and in turn schools and teachers, provide education to students.
3.23
DESE also pointed out the unclear nature in which this new clause in the Education Act is intended to be monitored by the Commonwealth Government. They questioned how the Commonwealth Government could be satisfied compliance was being met by states and territories as the bill does not require states and territories to enforce the law.
Committee view
3.24
The bill's vagueness when discussing key terms, such as 'indoctrination' and 'a balanced presentation of opposing views', has the potential to cause inconsistencies in the way states and territories interpret the law. The committee believes these poorly defined terms would potentially disrupt the relationship between teaching professionals, parents and guardians, and students. The committee is concerned that the lack of specificity in the bill could increase the risk of legal challenges and may result in unintended consequences in areas beyond the original intent.
3.25
The committee acknowledges Australia's high quality curriculum and the professional capacity of Australia's highly trained teaching professionals. The committee believes the proposed amendments would undermine trust in teaching professionals due to the increased risk of parents and guardians legally disrupting any part of an approved curriculum that touches on political, historical and scientific issues.
3.26
The committee is also concerned that the bill would result in significant overreach by the Commonwealth Government into the day-to-day operation of schools which, under constitutional arrangements, are the responsibility of the states and territories. The committee agrees with the assessment made by DESE that the bill:
…proposes a core change to the way in which the national curriculum is created and disseminated that may undermine the current consensus by Education Ministers.
3.27
The Committee recommends that the Senate does not pass the bill.
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Chair