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

Before I was interrupted by the business of the House last night, I was reflecting on the clear link of one of the Safe Schools program's authors to her clear, self-proclaimed interest in a Marxist future. With regard to Marxism, communism and socialism, obviously these are failed political and economic systems, which stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. They fail because they try to lock in no rewards for hard work or better ideas. They denigrate free thought and alternative ideas. As I have shown, activities taking place within this program attack alternative viewpoints without tolerance.

The opposition and Senator Wong in recent days have tried to censure debate with their moral catchwords or by calling critics 'right wing'. But the real concerns that Australians have cannot be dismissed with a trump word; more substance is required than that. It may have been okay when Stalin made a decision just to dismiss alternative views; it may have been okay during the days of the Soviet Union just to decide what was best for everyone and follow the party line, but over here we do have our own views. We are not thrown out of the party for having an alternative view; whilst free speech may be stomped on in caucus and everyone follows orders if they do not want to lose their pre-selection, that is not the way we operate over here. Nor is it the way this country should operate either.

Those opposite are reduced to name calling, and the moral trump words of which I speak are terms such as 'homophobia'. To take that case in point, it is defined to mean an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuality. This is therefore a much-used word to stomp on any form of commentary on issues such as this, but it is also used wrongly. I have never met anyone that displays an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuality. I have an Army background and a sporting background and never have I met anyone who has such 'fears'. It is not properly used to reflect reality, it is merely used to stop people from talking or commenting on any issue to do with same-sex matters.

Clearly, this is exactly the way that term is being used in the current public debate. Furthermore, stories in recent days in the media have also brought back one of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's favourites—again, from the trump word school of censorship. Just call anyone you disagree with 'extreme'. This example is from The Sydney Morning Herald recently:

But the move was slammed by the Australian Education Union, which said Mr Turnbull's decision was a "disappointing capitulation to extreme conservatives within the Coalition".

Then they also had this quote:

Labor education spokeswoman Kate Ellis said the Prime Minister had bowed to a "misinformed scare campaign" and "put the views of extremists in his party ahead of the interests of vulnerable young Australians".

It is my view, as I have said before, that this program is fundamentally flawed and should be axed. But if that does not occur, every parent in this country must have their permission sought before this program or any one of its documents are used in any school.

I say this not because of any lie about me having an 'extreme or irrational fear', as I have no phobias of any kind, but surely because there is evidence of the legitimately held views of young Australians being intolerantly maligned based upon the influence of the Safe Schools program. I do raise these concerns, not under the shadow of an 'extreme' viewpoint but because there is evidence of standover tactics to belittle and isolate young Australians. As the evidence in recent days clearly shows, those opposite do not care about such tactics, and they clearly stand by them with their comments.

Safe Schools is apparently about stopping bullying. Interestingly, I note from the Bullying. No Way! federal website, the suggestions do not mirror what Safe Schools is about. With regard to schools helping students, Bullying. No Way! talks about teaching and learning programs to develop students' communication, social, assertiveness and coping skills. It includes increased teacher supervision, support from school counsellors, mediation, technology access changes, class changes and disciplinary action. This is what is required, rather than the enforced doctrine of Safe Schools. No wonder this program is questioned so strongly. It needs to end now.

See this speech in context