Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Bass. Having listened to the member for Bass, I would have to say that if one were to mark his contribution today he would get zero out of 10 because he was plagiarising. He was plagiarising the Minister for Education, Science and Training’s contribution of three weeks ago when she sought to rail against the state and territory authorities, whom she claims are not providing proper education services to children in this country. I think it is fair to say that this motion arises out of the Howard government’s intent to centralise school curricula in its own image. But, firstly, I will outline my support for the second paragraph of the motion, calling:

... on the Commonwealth to work cooperatively with the State and Territory governments for greater consistency in both school curricula and standards for every ... school student ...

Where it is both appropriate and feasible, there should be greater federal corporation in areas of public policy, including the education of our students. To that extent I accept that part of the motion moved by the member for Bass. If there are areas which can be improved, areas where there are inconsistencies that should not exist or where there is not a capacity for education to be portable across the state boundaries of this nation, then clearly one should move in that direction. But it might well be the case, however, that we should also consider the different needs in different parts of the nation. It is not so much a matter of different standards as of accepting the different peculiarities of and perhaps different emphases in what each state is doing. So there should at least be some recognition that there would be differences across what is a very large nation.

One has to question the sincerity and intent behind this motion given that it follows the commentary by the federal minister for education. Three weeks ago the minister launched an attack on the curricula of state and territory education departments. The minister’s original speech, which was doctored prior to delivery, accused the states of teaching themes which come ‘straight from Chairman Mao’. One has to ask whose cultural revolution the minister was helping to impose upon the schoolchildren of Australia. Lacking any sense of irony, in one breath the minister concocted the notion that our schools are in the grip of Maoism and in the other outlined her plans to centralise our education system.

It would appear that the ambitions of the Howard government have no bounds. Once a devout federalist, the Prime Minister, since obtaining a Senate majority, has set about getting his hands upon everything within his reach. We must ask ourselves: why should a political party that once eschewed centralism seek to wrench these matters from the states and territories? The answer lies in part, in my view, in the government’s ambition to impose its ideological views upon all areas of our society. The Prime Minister sees himself as a cultural warrior in a cultural war, and it would appear that the school system is to be his next conquest. If the government wanted to assist students in my electorate, it would ensure that Commonwealth expenditure for schools is determined on a needs basis.

As for the minister for education’s view that students are brainwashed by left-wing ideologues, I see none of that. That is not to say that schoolteachers themselves would not have particular views. The member for Bass talked about the existence of partisan teaching. I accept that there would be examples of partisan teaching, but I would have to say that that partisanship would come from more than one spectrum of our society. It should not be acceptable, but to believe, as the minister for education would have us believe, that there is some systemic partisanship across our education system is indeed false. I cannot imagine, for example, the member for Bass, in his years as a secondary schoolteacher, asking his class to critique Shakespeare from a Marxist perspective. But what if he did? If our youth could even tell me who Marx was I would say that was a triumph of the education system. Why not get them to critique Marx? Better still, get them to read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. I support this motion insofar as it encourages cooperative federalism. But this motion seems to be dogwhistling to society: it is attempting to suggest that each teacher in school has an agenda that is against this government when in fact I would rather trust the teachers of this nation and the other governments of this nation in the way in which— (Time expired)

See this speech in context