Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the second opportunity I have had to make a contribution to a debate centred around a national curriculum. My comments will be specific to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008. I will reiterate that, as a major in the Australian Army, I was constantly hearing of the problems faced by Defence families and, in particular, the children of those families who had to move interstate, on average, every two years. The social dislocation for children or young adults is one issue. It is very difficult to overcome and will always cause problems for families. I know that Defence is always thinking about that and working on it, but the issue of a standard curriculum across the country is a bit easier to resolve. It just needs the cooperation of the states, which appears to have been achieved after the obstructionism, brinkmanship and empire defences that have characterised their intransigence for some years. Yet, despite the need for a common start date, I remain concerned about some aspects of a national curriculum. To illustrate these issues I will refer to elements of the Minister for Education’s second reading speech and highlight what was said in the context of the national curriculum.

In the minister’s introductory remarks, she mentioned the education tax refund, which she stated was for educational expenses incurred since July this year. I am sure that with this bill the government wants eventually to have the opportunities for education standardised across the country, yet whenever I hear the government speak about the education tax refund I do not know whether they are talking about the same bill as the one for the refund that I have seen. After all, the government’s refund applies almost entirely to computer hardware, software and peripherals. I can assure the government that education expenses are much broader than that. At the local state school my children attend, there are expenses for uniforms, excursions, incursions and voluntary P&C fees, which all have to be paid by parents, and yet the education tax refund does not assist with those expenses. Recently I had a conversation with one of the local union reps in one of the schools in my electorate. She had seen a copy of some of my comments when I spoke on the education tax refund bill, and it concerned me a little when she said that the union had been saying exactly the same sorts of things that I had said in my speech. But I think we can agree that there is common ground when people are concerned about what is best for children and their families to make sure they have the best opportunities.

I would like to refer to another school in my electorate, the Blackmore Primary School, in Girrawheen, because this year that school will close after 25 years. I emphasise that for 25 years the staff have been assisting the children of Girrawheen, or more correctly of the western area of Girrawheen, along the path to a good education. The school is to be closed after an unfortunately irreversible decision by the former government of Western Australia and in spite of the strong support for the school from the school community and, indeed, from the wider community in that part of Girrawheen. I will speak about Blackmore Primary School because Girrawheen is a suburb that struggles with a lower than average socioeconomic standing. It is because of those challenging socioeconomic circumstances in Girrawheen that the need for education is so fundamentally important for the children who live there. Every opportunity must be given to lock children into a culture of attendance and participation. Only then will the considerable potential of the suburb be transformed over time into a reality of opportunity and great success.

The question then becomes: how is this best achieved? Undoubtedly, the attitude of parents is central to such an outcome, but close to that is the need for a child to fit in. It is important for a child to feel like a full participant in all school activities. They want to belong. This is very important to a child, and it is all the more important in areas where there is disadvantage. So I would again encourage the government to look at extending the list of expenses for which the rebate can be claimed—that is, if the improvement of educational outcomes is what the bill is all about. I am confident that the majority of children in Girrawheen and in other areas with great potential want, first and foremost, just to fit in. I know that the final graduating class at Blackmore Primary School wishes to have graduation or leavers shirts and I know that their parents would like to have the education tax refund apply to those shirts. They would also like to have a tax break or refund that takes into account the need for their children to fully participate in all school activities. Yet under the Rudd government’s education tax reform, none of these actually count. But if a family can afford $1,000 for a computer at home they will be able to participate, or if they want to buy software that also is included. I say again that there are schools around this country where the children would prefer to fit in by just having a uniform on—for them that is a priority before the selection of software. I also say incursions, excursions and participation are more important for them than thinking about having a printer installed.

Before moving on, I will just wish the staff, parents and children of Blackmore Primary School all the best for their future. At a recent assembly I spoke to the students about how they should go out to their new schools and add value. They should be positive and take what they have gained at Blackmore to their new schools. I also take this opportunity to thank the leaders at Blackmore Primary School—Russell Hahn, the principal, and Darrilyn Dawson, the deputy—for their leadership in difficult times, always maintaining the focus on quality education. I also acknowledge Tory Clerke, a mother and strong advocate for the school, for her unwavering support for the school and the Girrawheen community. I will leave the education tax refund there and move on.

I have also spoken previously on the alternative curricula, in particular the International Baccalaureate as well as the Montessori and Steiner systems. In looking over past and recent statements by the minister on the future of these options, I would say that they are less than reassuring. As recently as Monday, 10 November, the minister was not able to state unequivocally that these options would be able to continue under the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority; instead, she laid it on the authority. I would have thought it was a simple question and I think it is unbelievable that the government struggles with an unequivocal answer on the subject. I cannot believe that the government is contemplating any form of attack on alternative education systems, so why not just run with a straight answer that, yes, they will be allowed and that the authority will take steps to make sure that these systems are recognised?

A case in point and an area of concern that I think remains unanswered is the future of some of the alternative education schools. I recently visited the ALTA-1 school in Landsdale. It is a private independent school which provides education for young people aged between 15 and 19 years. The education it provides is very practical, with English, vocational maths, beliefs and values, independent living, personal development, vocational readiness and workplace learning being the subjects and the focus. The school caters specifically for young people who really know what it is like to come from a background of disadvantage. Some have disabilities, many have lived on the streets and some have been abused in the worst possible ways. The reality is that all have done it tough. The staff provide specific and personalised education. It depends on volunteers but it does not fit into the normal curricula, and ALTA-1 and schools like it need the appropriate consideration by the authority. I would also like to acknowledge the commitment of the staff at ALTA-1, led by Dave Stevens—Mark Godfrey, Karlee Abbott, Joshua Brown, Joshua Hotchkin, Kerry Stevens and Teena Jennings—and also their dedicated volunteers, Scott Jones, Chris Abbott, Rachel Abbott and Emma Abdula.

I would next like to turn my attention to the threat of ideological bias in a national curriculum. It would be good to see a government repudiation of all things ideological in the curriculum to be developed. Clearly, selection of those involved to drive the curriculum should have been easily able to show how none of those selected had any forms of bias coming along with them. The term ‘transparency’ is appropriate, or should have been, in this matter. Academics are the appropriate ones to provide advice in curriculum development; that is without question. I say again that no evidence of bias, no history of political bias and no background of party membership or political affiliation should have been prerequisites for those entrusted with the development of a curriculum that the government wanted to be balanced and objective. Perhaps that is true. If the government really wanted a balanced and objective curriculum, then those entrusted to develop it would have met the criteria that I just described. I hope the point is not too subtle in this place.

I think that it is reasonable to assume that there are many academics across this country that could easily meet the minimum standards of balance and objectivity that I have described. There are plenty of academics with a history of writing works that are even-handed and who have a track record of encouraging their students’ inquiring minds and conducting classes or tutorials where alternative viewpoints are respected—provided, of course, that they are backed up by reasoned argument.

I know that, when speaking of the history curriculum, much has been made of the lead contributors’ allegiances and consequently a particular view of the world, such as a former member of the Communist Party who published works on Marxism and the Communist Party in Australia. I think it is fair to say that a question remains about the balance and objectivity of such a person. I therefore worry about the view of Australia’s past that will shape the future.

I will draw on a recent example of what the ABC provides as a documentary: The Howard Years. I find it very interesting because, while it provides much fact, it does not seem to delve into the reasons why a lot of the initiatives were actually required. A great example was a mention of the funding cuts in the first term. I do not recall any mention of the undisclosed previous government’s deficits. It is therefore appropriate that the national history curriculum is developed with a strong emphasis on the assessment of our history with balance and a consideration that decisions were made on the circumstances of the time rather than assessing the past from the perspective of the present.

It also goes without saying that debate should be allowed with respect being given to alternative viewpoints. I know that alternative viewpoints seem to be discouraged greatly in this place with the change of government. You only have to sit in this place for a while to know that some alternative viewpoints are not respected and are treated with great intolerance—for example, the debate on the wide and varied science of human produced climate change. That debate is constantly restricted. Those that offer alternative viewpoints are derided as sceptics or deniers, tags delivered with a sneer and a level of contempt which is pretty odd given the shortage of all but one real scientist in this place. Nevertheless, come the inquisition on this matter of religious zeal, I am not sure if it will be today’s heretics who are the ones that will be burnt at the stake.

Similarly, the extreme views about past decisions of former governments now seem to be able to be made without any balanced or opposing views being accepted. I would just briefly like to pay a tribute to one of the rare examples of balanced reporting that still remains in this country. I refer to the Debate magazine published by the Australian Christian Lobby under the leadership of editor David Yates. Prior to a meeting with the ACL, I had another read of Debate and I would say that it is a rare magazine that offers those holding opposing views the chance to be printed. For example, both sides of the euthanasia debate were covered, and I commend the Australian Christian Lobby for their balance and objectivity in this matter.

I would like to move back to the matter of bias in education, and to emphasise the point I will refer to some of the public submissions made to the Senate inquiry into academic freedom. What these comments clearly show is the need for protection of students from bias. I would like to see the national curricula offer such protections in the future.

I will read from some of these submissions. Here is the first one:

I am a year 12 student and this year we were required to study Industrial Relations.

…            …            …

Although the assessment task at the end of the term made it open for us to be for or against the topic of the new IR laws and unions—

This obviously relates to last year and the year before—

all the information that was given to us was against the Howard government, against Workchoices and encouraging anyone who works to join a union.

…            …            …

I sat there throughout this topic with the children around me in class dumbfounded and confused as to why Howard was such a ‘horrible’ prime minister and had such ‘little’ care for the average person and to me that is an incorrect motion for children to have in their minds. Yes, I totally agree that this issue does need to be taught in school, but it doesn’t need to be so biased towards one way of life, one government or one person’s ideas.

This is another one

This is my first year studying social sciences at university. I have found the constant Liberal-bashing, jokes and Labor pushing agenda threatening and frustrating.

…            …            …

In particular, during Aboriginal studies week the staff constantly highlighted that past and present Labor governments dealt with Aboriginal issues more effectively and that the Howard Government has ‘gone backwards’. I thought University was about freedom of speech, I have not found that—it can’t go on any longer. I would really like it if lecturers and tutors were neutral.

Here is another comment:

Those who influence student opinion and attitude for the purposes of their own political agendas should not be in one of our society’s most fundamental positions. Again, the trust given to teachers can be abused, by forcing radical unilateral opinions onto the nubile minds of our youth. Perhaps better work standards should be employed for educational institutions to ensure that teachers don’t turn their classrooms into re-education camps.

Here are some scans from a textbook, Economics, Business Ethics and Law, a text book written by a lecturer from the School of Law at the University of Western Sydney. The language of the text, which is apparently the main source for the course, is pretty much along Marxist and socialist lines. Here is a great quote:

The capitalist ruling class want a system of laws capable of protecting their wealth and privilege and facilitating their market operations. At the same time, they want laws that in no way impinge upon or restrict their own profit maximising operations.

Here is another one:

Such ‘public order’ offences as strikes, occupations, pickets and demonstrations declared illegal by public authorities have a clearly political dimension, as direct challenges to capitalist property relations and capitalist power. Given the centrality of the social class struggle involved it is not surprising that it will probably be the more organised and class conscious elements of the working class that are mainly involved.

It would seem that a lot of this stuff is linked back to the 1920s, following the Bolshevik Revolution, but I am afraid it is very recent stuff indeed. Here is another high school experience of one of those who made a submission to the Senate:

One of my high schools (a well-established public selective high school) was a stellar example of how bias works in practice. The graduate they were most proud of was “Justice” Michael Kirby, they have “Not happy, John!” signs posted prominently at the front gate, our keynote speaker at our graduation was Gough Whitlam, and Carmel Tebbutt seemed to be a reasonably frequent visitor there in my final year. The themes of Mr Whitlam’s, Ms Tebbutt’s and Mr Kirby’s speeches were overtly political and critical of conservative view points.

They only received one side of all the arguments. I will not pursue any more of those comments.

What I would say about this matter is that the government have taken this opportunity, and they appear to have got the states onside, to create a national curriculum. That is good provided it has due respect for alternative systems. I look forward to that being clearly stated by the minister, hopefully; if not—if she does not want to say it—then by the authority in due course. The greatest concern I have is that there is a sense of balance and that the viewpoints of one side—any side, really—is the only side of the argument, whether it is political, sociological or historical, that children in our schools hear. I think that is a great tragedy if that is the case. There seems to be plenty of evidence that this is most definitely the case in universities where conservative viewpoints are derided and do not offer the same opportunity for marks as more left-wing options. But in schools in particular there are some teachers, unfortunately, that promote one side of things. Through the national curriculum I would hope that the government and the authority can deliver a balanced and bias free education.

See this speech in context