Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of this legislation is to give parents the legal right to protect their children from indoctrination at school. Educators argue there is no need for legislation to protect children from indoctrination because schoolchildren can use their critical thinking skills. That is a cop-out, because students are no match for an adult using their positional power to instruct. Parents have the responsibility to decide how their children will be educated, provided it is in the best interests of the children. Parents want their children educated, not indoctrinated.

Firstly, the bill seeks to prevent indoctrination by placing an obligation on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to develop a balanced curriculum for states and territories to adopt. This is currently not the case in many subject areas, including climate. The current climate curriculum states as fact that near-surface temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising and mountain glaciers are melting. Further, the Australian curriculum says most agree that human activity is responsible for the majority of measured global warming. Climate science is far from settled, however, with no-one knowing the climate's sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Secondly, the bill seeks to tie federal education funding to the existence of state and territory legislation which prohibits indoctrination in schools. Gender fluidity theory is widely taught in schools, even though it is a medical and scientific fact that inheritance from your father of a Y chromosome makes you a biological male and inheritance from your father of an X chromosome makes you a biological female. Most parents do not support the promotion of gender fluidity theory being taught in schools, and they are quite right because it is dangerous. Parents can move their children to another school or homeschool them, but they ought to have the right to challenge indoctrination when it occurs.

I am going to use climate studies and gender studies as two examples of why we need the laws proposed in this bill. In 2007, Mr Stewart Dimmock challenged the way climate studies were being taught in English secondary schools, where the government had beliefs identical to the ones now being taught to our children. The court had the power to look at Mr Dimmock's concerns because sections 406 and 407 of the UK Education Act 1996 dealt with indoctrination in schools. The case concerned teaching materials described as 'the English secondary schools climate pack', which included Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

Two graphs presented in the film relate to a 650,000-year time period. One graph shows increasing CO2 and the other increasing temperature. Al Gore says the two graphs provide evidence that increasing CO2 has caused increasing global temperature. The judge did not agree, and found that the two graphs simply showed increasing CO2 and increasing temperature had occurred over the same time period. The two graphs equally support the two opposing theories at the centre of the climate debate, which are, firstly, increasing CO2 is causing an increase in global temperature and, secondly, increase global temperature is causing increasing CO2. Either Al Gore made an interpretative mistake or, like the writers of the Australian curriculum, decided to support one of the theories about global warming.

Al Gore is a climate crusader with no obligation to present both sides of the debate. In the UK, teachers in schools are obliged to present verifiable facts and provide a balanced presentation of theories which explain those facts. Unfortunately, Australian teachers in schools are not under the same legal obligation. The British government gave an undertaking to the court to correct all the factual areas in the film, including Al Gore's mistake.

Three years after the An Inconvenient Truth case finished and the judgement had been written, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, owned up to a shocking scientific fraud concerning the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. If the judge had known that a media release from an activist group was the source of the scientific claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting, it would not have relied on the IPCC documents tendered to the court as evidence. Sadly, Australian teachers in schools are still relying on IPCC reports that make claims that are not supported by science. The IPCC is a repeat victim of dodgy scientists and dodgy science, meaning that the IPCC can no longer be considered an authoritative source on climate. The Australian climate curriculum would benefit from the study of the case of An Inconvenient Truth, glacier-gate and climate-gate scandals, because students need to be open to the possibility they will be misled and lied to by scientists.

So how did teachers and teacher unions in the United Kingdom respond to the findings of the high court of England? They were outraged that the teacher guidance notes were rewritten to include references to all the errors in the film. They were further outraged that the court found teachers were not experts in climate studies and would be required to warn pupils that there were other scientific opinions on global warming and that students should not necessarily accept the views in Al Gore's film. The largest teacher's union in Wales questioned the right of any judge to say what should be taught in schools and how. I expect this attitude is widespread here in Australia, because educators feel they know better than parents.

The growing lack of quality education provided means that some students are worried about the future of planet Earth. This indoctrinated young people believe the severity of the current bushfire season is attributable to man-made global warming, but, like Al Gore, they lack the necessary critical thinking or research skills to discover the real reason. The real reason for the tragic loss of live and property in the past few months is the direct result of the government's failure to reduce fuel on the floor of national parks and the government's failure to allow landowners to clear their properties. Exaggeration about global warming comes from groups like Extinction Rebellion, who want to replace capitalism with socialism. Their environmental interests are just a means to that end.

I now want to turn to gender theory indoctrination in schools, which involves some teachers in schools pushing the idea that a child's biological sex does not determine whether they are male or female. It is based on the theory of gender fluidity pioneered by Alfred Kinsey, who believed children were sexual from birth and that the age of consent should be lowered to seven. The fathers of transgender theory, Dr Harry Benjamin and Dr John Money, liked Dr Alfred Kinsey's theory of gender fluidity and his ideas. They ruined the lives of an unknown number of children, including the Reimer twins, but still some teachers and schools in Australia are attempting to encourage gender confusion among children. These teachers and schools have had some success, because gender confusion is increasing among young children and teenagers. Even the Australian Medical Association is worried about the dramatic increase in the number of children seeking hormone and surgical treatment for gender confusion. In Queensland it has been reported that the number of children and teenagers seeking hormone treatment has increased by 330 per cent in the past five years. The preoccupation with gender identity among some teachers and in some schools is correlated with an increase in children identifying as transgender, which is why I say these educators are transgendering our children.

How do educators create gender confusion at school? In Queensland, some teachers are reading stories like The Gender Fairy to four- and five-year-old children. The Gender Fairy shows young children that they can choose their gender because their body parts don't make them a boy or a girl. In Western Australia, some eight-year-olds are spending learning time dressing up as the opposite sex using a government supplied box of dress-up clothes. By the time these students are in year 9 they will have a new vocabulary based on gender diversity theory and they will have been taught the art of sex texting and advanced sexual techniques.

In Queensland the government has decided that parents cannot be allowed to know whether the safe schools program is being taught in a school their child attends. The Safe Schools Coalition has labelled Queensland parents homophobic and transphobic, and it says the government's decision to keep the program secret from parents is justified. Well, I don't agree. Advocates for the safe schools program say this program and others like it promote equality of opportunity and combat bullying at school. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth, because girls are being bullied into losing their rights. Students who do not show the required level of enthusiasm for the radical LGBTQI agenda, including materials like 'the genderbread person', are humiliated and embarrassed by teachers, according to reports from parents.

School policies in every state and territory are based on the belief it would be discriminatory to separate biological males from girls with whom they share the same gender identity. Transgender policies in the education system mirror policies underpinning the laws in Australia where biological sex has been redefined to include chosen gender identity. These policies provide a small number of transgender people with rights at the expense of the majority, particularly girls and women. The following recent case came before a Canadian court but could just as easily have come before the Human Rights Commission in Australia. Jessica Yaniv now identifies as a transgender woman. Jessica has also sought relationships with underage girls. In 2018, Jessica complained to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal because several women in beauty salons had declined to provide waxing and other beautician services to Jessica's male genitals. Jessica argued that the women were guilty of transphobic discrimination. The case was lost in 2019, in part because the court found Jessica was motivated by money and revenge on South-East Asian women who held ideas hostile to LGBTQI people.

The point I want to make is that the redefinition of a person's biological sex as gender identity in law will be abused. Policymakers say they want to protect minorities. There is nothing wrong with that. But when educators protect the rights of a minority by stripping girls of their rights then something is wrong. We all see that in the decision of education bureaucrats who provide unisex toilets at the Fortitude Valley State Secondary College. I understand the school, which opened in 2020, has now changed its unisex toilet policy and returned to segregated toilets. This decision followed angry protests from parents and students. But that does not end the matter. The Queensland government needs to explain why boys and girls aged 12 and 13 had to give up their right to dignity, safety and privacy. It is to accommodate the needs of one transgender child who may attend the school. If the schools suggest that all they are doing is creating the same situation as the children have at home, I can tell them that that explanation met with outrage at another school. The decision to force children to use unisex toilets is just part of a larger plan to get children preoccupied with gender issues. Other policies which aid gender preoccupation include gender-neutral uniforms, library policies by gender theory affirming books and teachers putting gender theory stores on reading lists.

How did we get to this situation where schools are preoccupied with gender theory issues? It begins with the belief that our experience is rooted in our membership of a gender group, and that membership of that gender group makes it more likely we will suffer discrimination and oppression. These left-leaning beliefs see life as one long battle of identity groups for social justice. Identity politics causes division and undermines democracy, which is precisely what socialists and progressives want, because it undermines our democracy, which is based on common interests. We need to stop that kind of indoctrination at schools where it starts.

In 2017 President Trump rolled back the transgender rights put in place by Obama. We should do the same. Our children deserve an education that will allow them to reach their potential, and will, as the late Roger Scruton stated, 'provide society with a store of knowledge to be passed from one generation another'. We want our children educated for life, not indoctrinated so they can be controlled by others. We need laws to guarantee parents' rights to challenge indoctrination.

Australian 15-year-olds are falling behind their counterparts on global tests of literacy and numeracy. The curriculum is overcrowded. I suggest teachers in schools focus on the basics so our children don't leave school with skill levels three years behind their global counterparts. In my view, parents should be required to give their consent to their children's participation in the teaching of LGBTI+ theory. Parents do not have the right, but they can move their children to another school or homeschool them.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our schools play a central role in equipping young Australians with the knowledge and skills they will need to successfully participate in the workforce and make their own way in the world. This government understands that we need to ensure children are provided with the right skills and the right knowledge to get the best out of their education. The best way to ensure the Australian curriculum is working to provide this necessary knowledge and necessary skills base to Australian students is promoting discipline specific knowledge in key areas such as maths, science, English and technology. This government has a sharp focus on decluttering the curriculum where appropriate to ensure teachers can get on with teaching the fundamental skills to students—the skills that students will need to prepare them for the future.

We are committed to working with the states and the territories to support quality schooling for all students, and the provision of successful pathways to further education, training and employment once students complete their learning. The government is already working to ensure the Australian curriculum is providing students with the skills that they will need to have a successful education and success in the workforce and their community post education. There is no more important time for us to be considering this as right now when we are experiencing an economic crisis due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the federal government of the day, of any day, plays an important role in education nationally, it is vital, in considering this private senators' bill before us today, to be clear about the primary role of state governments to deliver education. The states run schools in their respective jurisdictions. Where there are instances of schools or individual teachers teaching something that is against the curriculum, or is just simply inappropriate or wrong, it's primarily the state governments and their education departments which need to take responsibility for putting a stop to that, and that is largely the issue that the government has with this bill and the method it is proposing for attempting to regulate content in schools around the country.

To ensure that the Australian curriculum is working for students, the Morrison coalition government formally commenced a review of the curriculum in July this year. The terms of reference were agreed at 12 June 2020 meeting of the Education Council of federal, state and territory education ministers. The review will be undertaken by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. This review is an important step forward in addressing concerns that the Australian curriculum is not providing students with contemporary knowledge and essential skills to lift Australia's performance in literacy, numeracy and science. Given the central role which states play in delivering education, as I said earlier, having primary responsibility for running state schools, this seems to be the most appropriate way to improve the Australian curriculum and ensure that those improvements actually flow through to the students in schools regardless of which state they live in. This review will de-clutter the Australian curriculum so it better serves students' needs and promotes academic excellence.

ACARA has undertaken extensive research and monitoring of the existing curriculum and will be engaging with teachers and stakeholder groups. ACARA will report on its progress, with the initial learning areas of mathematics and technology to be considered by Education Council in June 2021 and all other learning areas in September 2021. The review of the curriculum, as I said, is an integral part, a very important part, of what the Australian government is doing to support quality education in Australia.

The government has concerns about the practical effects of what this Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill is proposing. The bill would give the Commonwealth the power to make federal education funding to a state or territory conditional on the state or territory having laws enforced that prohibit a staff member at a school promoting partisan views or activities to students and require a staff member of a school when teaching a subject to ensure that there is a balanced presentation of opposing views in relation to that subject.

I spoke in my maiden speech about my own experience with civics education from a wonderful teacher at my primary school who insisted that it was possible for us to learn about how Australian political systems and Australian parliaments operate without necessarily providing us with a partisan view on that operation, and I certainly stand by that. Students at school should not be subjected to partisan political views in a learning environment from any side of political thought. One of the most important reasons why we have civics education at school is so our young kids can learn about how politics operates and, I hope, later in life, determine their own views on what they think about the world and how they think the world operates; it shouldn't be imposed on them by someone providing that education.

Under Australia's constitutional arrangements, the states and territories have responsibility for education in their jurisdictions, and any compliance with the balanced presentation of opposing views proposed in the bill would fall to them in the first instance. But requiring the teaching of two different views on a range of issues also opens up the possibility of unintended consequences. We wouldn't want to see a situation where a teacher or a school has been teaching a particular subject absolutely correctly and appropriately but suddenly feels compelled by this legislation to also present an alternative interpretation or view which most parents would agree is clearly incorrect.

There are also legal considerations to take into account in regards to this proposed bill. This bill does not provide clarity on what constitutes a balanced presentation of opposing views, which is a subjective legal standard and, therefore, difficult to implement. The proposed amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013, I'm advised, run a substantial risk of being subject to constitutional and other legal challenges and may be difficult to interpret, implement, comply with, and enforce.

As I said earlier, it is important that state governments take responsibility for the content taught in their state schools. Parents have a right to expect that their children are being taught factual content, along with basic skills in core subjects such as reading, writing, mathematics and science. And as I said, there is no more important time for us to be considering the alignment of the skills and training that our young people receive in this country, and how those skills and that training will prepare them eventually for the workforce than during very difficult economic times that we now find ourselves in.

But, from time to time, we do see examples around the country where a school or individual teacher strays from this concept that children should be taught factual content—and parents, quite rightly, express concerns with that. One of the areas where I believe it is incredibly important for children to be taught factual, age-appropriate information is in the area of science and biology. I've spoken in the Senate a number of times previously about institutions and elements of our bureaucracy that repeatedly conflate gender identity with sex to the point where some of these bureaucrats can't even tell you what the definition of a woman is. There is very good reason for parents to be concerned about what will be taught to children in schools when government agencies like human rights commissions present misleading information about differences between the two sexes and the laws that are in place to protect sex based rights and services.

As an example that's been raised with me since I've taken an interest in this subject, the Queensland Human Rights Commission advises schools that it is not lawful for school athletics carnivals to operate on the basis of sex because an athletics carnival does not count as competitive sport. This is official advice from the Queensland Human Rights Commission to Queensland schools, yet it is so clearly wrong. Both the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act clearly allow for sport for children 12 years and older to be operated based on sex. It's absolutely beyond dispute that boys at that age have inherent biological advantages over girls, and to suggest that a school athletics carnival isn't competitive is just farcical.

We also know that there have been numerous examples of schools in Australia teaching students unapproved content about gender fluidity—materials like The Genderbread Person. Parents are entitled to be concerned about this when there is significant contention in the medical community about why there has been such dramatic rise in the number of young children—particularly, and sadly, girls—seeking medical intervention to block puberty or change their bodies to affirm their identified gender. So, in terms of schools having a responsibility to be accurate in what they teach and to avoid teaching opinion or activism and presenting it as fact, that is certainly a concern that is raised often with me and, I suspect, all parliamentarians, and I've spoken about these concerns in this place many, many times.

But this bill that we are debating here today does not seem to be the right way to deal with that issue. It's certainly important for parents to be engaged in their child's education and to be comfortable that what is being taught to their child is accurate and appropriate. To achieve that, there needs to be a joint approach between state governments, the federal government, education departments, schools, principals and teachers. But, given the legal issues that have been raised about the constitutionality of this bill that we're debating here today, as well as the practical considerations about how it could really be implemented, I do not think that this bill can be supported.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes this bill, the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. These amendments would undermine evidence based teaching in our schools and would allow the teaching of fringe conspiracy theories to Australian kids. The curriculum taught to Australian kids should be informed by evidence and expertise. While it's important for students to learn about opposing political views, this bill extends to opposing views on science and historic events as well and could theoretically include any event over which opposing views allegedly exist. Our kids need to be learning the facts about science and history, not about conspiracy theories. The bill is offensive to teachers, who, like other essential workers, have been working incredibly hard during this pandemic. This bill is damaging, poorly drafted and should not be passed.

It is not surprising, but it is disappointing, that One Nation are debating this bill today. When One Nation get an opportunity to present legislation to the national parliament, this is what they choose to prioritise. In the middle of a recession, in the middle of the worst jobs crisis since the Depression, all they care about are these tired culture wars. They're putting all of their energy into the content of education classes, but they go missing when Queenslanders are losing their jobs. Why aren't they talking about the hundreds of jobs lost in Rockhampton at the Central Queensland University? Why aren't they talking about the government's push to make mine workers permanent casuals? One Nation love to profess their support for workers, but, when they have a chance to actually help them, they present us with this.

This discussion on these issues is always devoid of fact and it's about spreading conspiracy theories, creating fear and division. We know what this bill is really about. We know from the contribution of the government senator before this what this bill is really about debating. We need to understand how we got to this point. What has led to the introduction of this bill and an environment where it would be considered possible to debate conspiracy theories in this parliament? We know part of Senator Hanson's motivation is to fuel outrage, which is self-serving and wholly aimed at whipping up Facebook clicks and media reporting. It is not about supporting Queenslanders.

But the other reason that we got here is this: it has become necessary for these crossbench senators to compete with the conservative views within the Liberal Party because the true Liberal Party is far from modern or liberal. These so-called modern Liberals are unable to stand up to the hard Right of their party room. The Liberal Party is being taken over by the hard Right, as we saw from media reports of branch stacking in the Victorian Liberal Party designed to punish and purge socially progressive MPs. Senator Hanson hasn't introduced this legislation in a vacuum. We know that there are climate change deniers in the Liberal party room. That is why they haven't taken any credible action on climate change ever. Liberal Senator Rennick has accused the Bureau of Meteorology of changing temperature records to fit a global warming agenda.

On this side of the chamber, we believe in science and we trust scientists. We don't try to peddle discredited conspiracy theories, but we know that that is happening in the Liberal party room. We also know that, while public support for marriage equality silenced many hard Right conservatives on gay relationships, the hard Right of the Liberal Party, jockeying to outdo each other when it comes to preselection, is still at its core deeply opposed to LGBTI equality. Since the COVID-19 crisis began, Liberal Senator Chandler has made at least two speeches in the Senate on these issues, trying to veil her transphobic views as faux feminist values. In her second reading speech on this bill, Senator Hanson said:

… when educators protect the rights of a minority by stripping girls of their rights then something is wrong.

Well, we know where Senator Chandler's getting her speeches from, because she said in a speech to the Senate:

I stand with JK Rowling and millions of women around the world who are determined to ensure our rights as women are not traded off in the name of diversity.

Liberal Senator Stoker has an active petition on her website. She says:

How can you stand up to the transgender agenda

She's asking people to sign this petition. She says on that website:

These issues are not hypothetical. They are coming up for debate in the parliament and in our public discourse all of the time.

Well, these debates are happening, but they are happening because the Liberal Party is having them, because they are giving speeches, creating petitions and endorsing views of this kind in the middle of an economic crisis, when youth unemployment is skyrocketing, especially in regional Australia, because fuelling self-serving outrage to protect their own jobs is more important to them than protecting the jobs of young Australians.

The biggest concern for young people and their parents right now is the huge surge in youth unemployment. They're concerned about how they're going to get a job, the quality of the TAFE course that they're considering or whether there will be enough university places for them. Parents and kids aren't sitting up at night worrying about the lack of conspiracy content in their local school; they're worrying about their jobs and whether their kids will have jobs in the future. Will they get the same opportunities that other generations have had?

It occurs to me that there may have been some contributions to this debate today that were incredibly hurtful to young people, especially LGBTI youth and their friends and their families, so I want to finish today on a positive note. Last Friday was Wear it Purple Day. Wear it Purple Day is about showing young LGBTIQ people that they have a right to be proud of who they are. It is about creating safe spaces in schools, universities, workplaces and public spaces to show young LGBTIQ people that they are seen and they are supported.

In Australia, 75 per cent of LGBTI youth will be bullied because of their identity, and 80 per cent of those people will experience that bullying at school. These kids are vulnerable. They are at risk of suicide. It was only three years ago that they watched a public debate take place about whether their relationships were worth the same as their peers', and we are here again debating their worthiness, their existence and their equality. I was one of those kids once, and now I am standing in the Senate to tell them this important message. They have every right to be proud of who they are, and they have every right to feel safe and to feel supported. If you're an LGBTI kid, it doesn't just get better; it gets really awesome. Labor opposes this bill.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 which has been introduced by Senator Hanson of One Nation. The bill amends the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 to require ACARA to ensure that school education provides what the bill refers to as 'a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues'. It also amends the Australian Education Act 2013 to make financial assistance to states and territories conditional on them having certain laws enforced that would also prohibit what Senator Hanson calls 'indoctrination' in schools.

The Greens vehemently oppose this bill. This bill is transphobic. This bill is antiscience. This bill has nothing to do with historical issues that Senator Hanson wants to talk about. Let's start at first principles. There is no doubt that there is benefit in ensuring that Australian schooling exposes students to diverse viewpoints and to diverse perspectives and enriches them through a comprehensive education. Students benefit from having their thinking challenged and from considering ideas and subjects through multiple lenses. But let's be clear that ensuring this is not the intention nor the anticipated outcome of this piece of legislation that we are debating here today. This is a dangerous and pathetic piece of legislation. There is no more or less to say about it. It is an attempt to force a rewrite of the curriculum to require teaching of climate denialism and harmful conservative ideas of gender and sexuality.

Senator Hanson's tabled second reading speech on this bill was not given much attention at the time—and probably for good reason—but, reading it back and listening to the senator this morning, it's clear how much of this push for so-called balance is driven by her contempt for transgender people. This is nasty stuff. This bill is pretty hate filled, and it will hurt and damage our LGBTIQ community. Here is the right-wing victim complex at its most paranoid and on display for all to see. Senator Hanson seems convinced that our schools are brainwashing children by teaching them about the science of climate change, for instance. Senator Hanson honestly believes that sinister education department officials are plotting to turn our children into communists and revolutionaries.

This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt and a poorly considered attempt to bully teachers and curriculum developers into feeling they aren't doing their jobs unless they jam the curriculum full of right-wing conspiracy theories. Obviously neither Senator Hanson nor anyone in this chamber has any direct power over what goes into the curriculum. The curriculum should be based on independent evidence and expertise, not Senator Hanson's latest bigoted thought bubble. As for Senator Chandler, there is absolutely no reason for parents to be concerned about what is being taught in schools. I think this should be very clear to every person in this chamber.

This belongs nowhere but in the bin. Senator Hanson's spurious claims that human-caused climate change is unsubstantiated and that schools teach gender fluidity and realignment to infants can go with this bill in the bin. It's vital that every child learns the reality of the climate crisis, the truth of Australia's settler colonial past and how to have respectful relationships in the context of comprehensive sex education in schools. Teachers, working with educational experts, do a great job of supporting students, often working without the resources they need. They certainly don't need One Nation's meddling and bullying. The Greens oppose this bill.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. As my fellow senators—from this side of the chamber, at least—have already stated, the government will not be supporting this bill, no matter how well intentioned the senators from One Nation think they are being. That's not to say I don't have some sympathy for what they're trying to achieve. All too often I've had complaints from parents and heard from their children about being scared to death at school by lessons on climate change—not just the fact, but about how they should be scared—and scaring of children is not something that should happen in the classroom.

There is no doubt that we believe that schools, universities and vocational training institutions all play a central role in equipping all Australians with the knowledge and skills they all need in order to live and work successfully in the 21st century. In many ways the challenges of the current COVID-19 environment, with disrupted learning, remote classes and fragmented assessments, has meant that getting that education delivery right is fundamentally important for properly equipping Australians for the challenges of the modern world. But it is interesting that when you talk to parents there is still a strong emphasis from them on the key skills of reading, literacy and numeracy—or, as we used to say, reading, writing and 'rithmetic. As a result, the government is wary about a growing push for soft skills at the expense of disciplined, specific knowledge. We know that well-developed, deep subject-matter knowledge is the key to success in today's modern society.

As such, this government believes there needs to be a focus on providing the foundations for deep learning within Australia's national curriculum, equipping the next generation with the deep foundation skills needed. This can be done by simplifying and decluttering the education environment, focusing on the basics—as I said before, reading, literacy and numeracy—to ensure that Australia's children, especially those in the early years, to year 10, get the basics right. This simplifying of the learning environment not only ensures that children acquire the foundations for deep learning that will ensure that they gain the skills early to have successful professional lives but also supports teachers. This simplification ensures that teachers can get on with teaching the basics and frees them from excessive red tape—something I'm sure Senators Hanson and Roberts will be very supportive of.

This bill crafted by One Nation would preoperatively give the Commonwealth the power to make federal education funding to a state or territory conditional on that state having laws in force that require a number of things. Firstly, it would prohibit a staff member at a school from promoting partisan views or activities to students and would require a staff member at a school, when teaching a subject, to ensure that there is a balanced presentation of opposing views in relation to that subject. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide clarity on what constitutes a balanced presentation of opposing views. As I'm sure the good senators from Queensland know, the determination of what constitutes balance is a subjective test and is awfully difficult to implement even as a legal standard, let alone as a teaching standard.

The proposed amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013 put forward by Senator Hanson run a substantial risk of being subject to constitutional challenges. As I'm sure this chamber is aware, subjective tests are hard to prove and are difficult to interpret and comply with or enforce. One of the situations that we do not want to see with our education system is teachers wasting their time dealing with disgruntled parents who are upset about the level of balance provided within the classroom. By imposing such subjective tests, you are guaranteeing that teachers right across the country will be spending half their days justifying their classes' subject matter, rather than teaching children to justify their math problems. As we move into a world where STEM subjects are going to be more vital and more important, I know what I would rather our teachers be doing.

Under Australia's constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are responsible for ensuring the delivery and regulation of school education to all children within the jurisdictions. That is why we must work in partnership with our state and territory counterparts to achieve the best results for our children—not dictating to them, as One Nation would wish the federal government to do. I'm not going to say that such a partnership is an easy thing. To get the balance right requires the involvement of governments, parents, teachers and, of course, the students themselves. However, it would never just focus back on the age-old debates of school funding—debates exacerbated by the Gillard government's much lauded, but never funded, Gonski review on school funding. As this government has done, it should focus on the content and quality of the education students are receiving and the skills and knowledge of those providing it.

That is why in 2017 the government commissioned the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools. The report called for a prioritisation of learning progressions for literacy and numeracy in curriculum development in the early years of schooling to ensure that the core foundations for learning are developed by all children by the age of eight. The report recognised that school education needs to maximise individual learning growth and attainment to ensure that every student is ready to succeed in a changing world. Following on from that process, the Foundation-Year 10 Australian Curriculum review formally commenced in July this year, despite the challenges of COVID-19 for the education system.

The terms of reference of this review were agreed at the 12 June 2020 meeting of the Education Council of federal, state and territory education ministers. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is tasked to undertake this review. The review will declutter the Australian curriculum so it better serves students' needs and promotes academic excellence. Although the review aims to concentrate content in all learning areas, priority will be given to the primary years. This process is an important step forward in addressing an overcrowded curriculum and lifting Australia's performance in literacy, numeracy and science.

What this bill fails to do, though, is recognise that curriculum is only part of what makes a great education system. Part of it is also about those people who seek to have a career in teaching by encouraging them into the profession, ensuring proper training and rewarding those who achieve high standards in delivering that education. Despite the objections of some in the teaching unions, this government is committed to supporting teachers to go back to basics, focusing on literacy and numeracy and developing students' understanding of essential content. Without these foundational building blocks, it is difficult to develop strong educational outcomes down the track.

The Morrison government has implemented and continues to implement national reforms to improve the quality of initial teaching education. This includes reforms focused on strengthening selection requirements for those entering initial teacher education programs as well as providing confidence in those graduating from initial teacher education. All those studying teaching must meet clear literacy and numeracy benchmarks before graduation and, through the introduction of final year teaching performance assessments, demonstrate they have the practical skills required to be classroom ready. Even in these unprecedented times, maintaining an expectation of high-quality teaching is vitally important. As such, the requirement for initial teacher education students to meet the standard of the literacy and numeracy test prior to graduation remains in place. Under the National School Reform Agreement, all governments are working together to develop a national teacher workforce strategy, which will further strengthen the teaching workforce.

Many schools in regional, remote and low-socioeconomic areas experience significant challenges attracting staff and finding teachers with the subject expertise they need. The Australian government is investing $28.7 million in our future teaching workforce by funding the High Achieving Teachers Program. The program provides two alternative pathways into teaching for high-achieving university graduates. In 2020, 170 participants with experience and qualifications from a range of industries commenced the program. In 2021 and 2022, the program will attract and train a further 280 new teachers. These high-achieving individuals will work exclusively with schools experiencing teacher workforce shortages, including in regional, rural and remote communities. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has impacted the delivery of the program in schools in 2020. Providers are working with the Australian government, state and territory governments and partner schools to continue to support the education of Australian secondary school students through this unprecedented time.

As you can see, through the hard work of Minister Tehan and working in partnership with states, parents, community and students, the Morrison government is working to modernise, simplify and declutter the current education system and is working closely with industry to ensure that our children are equipped with the skills today for the jobs of tomorrow, bringing education back to the basics—reading, literacy and numeracy—and getting the foundations right for deep learning within key areas. The bill proposed by Senator Hanson does not support the government's agenda. It will do nothing to support the education of our children, and, as such, the government won't be supporting it.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the opportunity this morning to listen to Senator Green's, Senator Faruqi's and Senator Van's speeches in relation to this bill, the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020, and I might just reflect briefly on Senator Van's contribution. I thought it was a thoughtful contribution to the debate. While I largely disagree with many of the conclusions that Senator Van reached, it underscored the importance of the way in which we disagree and how important it is in this place that we spend a bit of time reflecting carefully on what it is we're going to disagree about. I think it would be useful to have a debate about the curriculum in education and the balance between the hard skills that Senator Van was talking about—he said, colloquially, 'reading, writing and 'rithmetic' but I think he would concede that could go more broadly across the sciences, geography and a proper appreciation of English literature and the great things that can happen for students in the study of English literature—and how much we value critical thinking, the spirit of inquiry and research skills. Those are useful things that this place could spend its time debating and considering.

I also think that the contributions from speakers before me emphasised how difficult these unprecedented times and the necessary public health response have made it for students, particularly students in years 11 and 12. All of us in this place should send a message to those students and their teachers across the country, but particularly in Victoria, where uncertainty has made studying much harder—where accessing content and lessons through Zoom, or whatever the platform schools are using, has made their work more difficult—that we appreciate their work and wish them the best and that, no matter how this year and next year go, those students and their teachers will be supported.

Labor opposes this amendment bill because it undermines evidence based teaching. It would mandate the teaching of conspiracy theories in our schools. It appears to have, on the face of it, significant constitutional difficulties, and, even if you accept Senator Hanson's outline of the desired intent of the bill, it's very unlikely that it would be able to achieve its objectives. We in this place should be focused on the overall performance of our schools. We should be focused on equality of access to top-quality education. We should be focused on inclusion: including all of our students in a decent, high-quality education in a school system where they feel valued and supported and where they can make choices about deepening their study and acquiring the skills that will support them in their later lives. We should be about excellence, equity and participation.

This preoccupation by some with matters of sex, gender and climate change as the focus of what the parliament should be talking about is unnecessarily prurient. It is an effort by some to frighten people in the Australian community and create division and, indeed, hatred where there should be excellence, equality, inclusion and a focus on making sure all of our kids in the school system are looked after. That means low-income families, disadvantaged families and regional families should all have an equal go. All kids should be included, regardless of their gender or gender identity, their sexuality or their background. It is a confusing and challenging time for kids, particularly around issues of gender and sexuality. It is hard enough for adolescents, without making it worse, without us in this place making it tougher for kids.

The curriculum taught in our schools should be based on evidence and expertise. This amendment would undermine evidence. It would undermine evidence based teaching and would allow fringe conspiracy theories to be taught in our schools. The teaching of science is vital to our national interest. There should be more science, more maths and more evidence based material taught, not less. Now there comes from a fringe of conservative politics—a bit overrepresented in this place—a challenge to empiricism, a challenge to rationality in the post-Enlightenment era. These characters want to return to a sort of pre-Copernican and Middle Ages era where one person's superstition had as much value as scientific inquiry, and we should not indulge it. It might be in some people's temporary political interest to indulge it, but we should not indulge it.

We've seen over the past months the acceleration of climate change denialism being weaponised and fuelled by some in the Liberal and National Party. We've seen an acceleration in this unprecedented period of anti-vax conspiracy theories and 5G conspiracy theories. We've seen Mr Kelly, who's an enthusiastic proponent of conspiracy theories. We've seen his conduct over the course of the last few months. Never forget that Mr Kelly was Scott Morrison's preferred candidate in the recent Cook preselection. There was an enormous effort to overwhelm the local voters in Cook, who'd had enough of Mr Kelly's blatant—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Ayres. I think you mean Hughes.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I get my shire seats confused sometimes. Their boundaries change so often that it's sometimes difficult to know whether you're in Cook or whether you're in Hughes. Sometimes their local members appear indistinguishable, and one wonders whether the views of their local members are the same. Why would Mr Morrison have fought so hard to get this climate-denying, hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorist back into the parliament over the views of locals otherwise? It's hard to understand.

Mr Kelly, of course, threatened to go to the crossbench—arguably, where he belongs. He's done enormous damage to the standing of the Liberal Party, and the damage continues. He has spent a significant part of his parliamentary career on late-night television as an avid climate denialist. He's probably done more than anybody in the House of Representatives to wreck successive governments' efforts to have a coherent energy policy in Australia. If you're worried about power bills going up, think about Craig Kelly and his climate denialism. If you're worried about emissions going up, think about the member for Hughes. If you're worried about investment in generation capacity going down, you can think about Mr Kelly again. He's done more than anybody else.

But, more concerning, more immediate is his conduct and behaviour in relation to conspiracy theories that undermine the public health effort. Last week he was promoting theories in relation to 'compulsory COVID vaccinations for everybody coming soon', which he posted. 'No, you are not dreaming, and this is not a sci-fi novel,' he said. That video's title, shared by the biggest oversharer of far-right memes in Australian politics, is, 'Bill Gates Says Everyone Has To Get His Vaccination'. The week before, he said that the Premier of Victoria should go to prison for 25 years.

There hasn't been a moment where the Minister for Health or the Prime Minister has rebuked Mr Kelly. No-one in the leadership of the Liberal Party has made any effort to send out a clear message that these sorts of ideas are rejected by the leadership and by the parliament in here. Nobody has done it. So you do wonder what the commitment of the Liberal Party and the National Party really is to science, what the commitment of the Liberal Party and the National Party really is to evidence and what the commitment of the Liberal Party and the National Party really is to focusing on the real needs and public confidence in the public health effort that is so needed to fight back against the COVID-19 virus.

Mr Kelly is more protected than the koala bear. His meme was shared by Mr Evans, a cook, who is an avid conspiracy theorist about 5G and all sorts of things. The health minister has declined to comment. Last week, there was an enormous effort in the House of Representatives to defend Mr Kelly from a censure motion brought on by Mr Bowen. Instead of rejecting this madness, the government has shielded Mr Kelly from criticism. Instead of clarifying the issues, the government has obscured the issues.

If Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party won't act in the interests of science and evidence, the school system becomes even more important. School students should leave school with the skills and the facts and critical thinking capacity to be able to reject this kind of behaviour. I have enormous respect for teachers all over the country who are working hard in our schools to deliver an inclusive and excellent education. The Liberal Party and the National Party think that teachers are the enemy, part of some cultural Marxist plot to undermine educational standards. We should be elevating teachers and supporting them, not denigrating them in this place.

There is a base political strategy at operation here. It's all about donations and clicks on the internet. It's not just a One Nation strategy; there are members of the government parties who engage in this behaviour, who want to frighten people and want to encourage fear and division. They make wild claims about what is taught in our schools, which on closer examination turn out not to be true. But the modus operandi is to just keep making the claim. The claim is made. It is refuted. And then we move on to the next claim. There is a bewildering blizzard of misinformation out there. The purpose here is not to change the law. The purpose is to add to the confusion. The Minister for Education should be there in the House of Representatives setting the record straight, and his representative here should be doing the same thing.

Haven't we made progress on some of these questions? Many Australians are uncomfortable with frank discussions of sex and gender. Fair enough. But the dial has shifted in the right direction. Kids feel included. They feel loved and looked after in our schools. Why on earth are people in this place making it harder? Why on earth are we trying to shift the dial back from acceptance to rejection? I realise that I've run out of time—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.