Proposed laws to regulate lesson content

By Pat Byrne President

It is 2022. A history teacher gives a Year 10 class a lesson covering the Holocaust.

The lesson is presented in accordance with ACDSEH107 of the Australian Curriculum.

The subject is part of the depth studies component, in this case World War II in which “Students investigate wartime experiences through a study of World War II in depth. This includes a study of the causes, events, outcome and broader impact of the conflict as an episode in world history, and the nature of Australia’s involvement.”

In accordance with the requirements of the curriculum, students investigate the scale and significance of the Holocaust using primary sources.

The next day an angry parent arrives at the school, demanding to see the principal.

The parent complains that the teacher failed to teach students that some people feel the Holocaust never happened, that it is all a giant hoax cooked up by powerful figures who want society to be run by a new world order of shadowy figures.

Two days later a writ is received by the school. The parent has applied to a court for an order enforcing the teaching of the theory that the Holocaust never happened.

A week later the school has been served with an order that every time any lesson is conducted around the Holocaust there has to be equal time given to the belief that the Holocaust was a hoax.

The school is found to have breached the provisions of an amendment to the Australian Education Act 2013 which reads as follows:

22AA Conditions of financial assistance— prohibiting the indoctrination of children

(1) A payment of financial assistance under this Act to a State or Territory is subject to the condition that the State or Territory has in force laws that:

(a) prohibit a staff member (however described) of a school promoting partisan views or activities to students when teaching a subject or administering the school’s affairs; and

(b) require a staff member (however described) of a school to provide 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

(c) enable a court, on the application of a parent or guardian of a student at a school, to make an order for the enforcement of the provisions of any laws that give effect to the requirements set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; and

(d) 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.

(2) In this section, school includes a non government school that provides distance education to students.

(3) This section does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.

The state government in which the case is brought decides to fight the ruling but loses. The 20 per cent of funding of state schools previously supplied by the Commonwealth Government is withdrawn, with the Commonwealth citing the provisions of the act as justification. The state concerned loses millions of dollars in funding.

Of course, one could argue this is fanciful, a clever invention to make a point.

No. This is a very simple example of what can, and undoubtedly would, happen under legislation which is before the Australian parliament right now. This frightening scenario is all too real a prospect.

The Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 has reached the stage of being referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which is due to report on the first Monday in July 2021.

The justification for the introduction of this bill was outlined by the sponsor of the bill thus:

“The purpose of this Bill is to give parents the legal right to protect their children from indoctrination at school. Parents have the right to move their child from a school or to home school their child, but they do not have the right to challenge teaching in schools such as gender fluidity theory and man-made global warming.”

The sponsor of the bill is Pauline Hanson.

The first part of the bill reads:

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008

1 At the end of section 7

Add:

(6) The Australian Curriculum,

Assessment and Reporting Authority must perform its functions and exercise its powers to ensure that school education in Australia provides a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues.

(7) Without limiting subsection (6), the

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority must ensure that:

(a) the national school curriculum is developed and administered to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues; and (b) 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.

Now of course it would be easy to dismiss all this as dangerous nonsense. That would be wrong.

The Morrison Government has just passed legislation abolishing the Family Court. This was done in the face of opposition from just about every judge and legal expert in Australia.

But the legislation was sponsored by One Nation. The Morrison Government needs One Nation’s votes in the Senate so what Ms Hanson wants, Ms Hanson gets.

The chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee is the Hon James McGrath, a Queensland Liberal Senator.

The danger here is real. Whatever your political views, the idea that one parent could direct how a teacher teaches and take them to court to impose that view is abominable.

I urge you to take an interest in this issue and support the SSTUWA’s efforts to make sure the bill is opposed and never comes to pass.