Amends the: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 to require the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to ensure that school education provides a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues; and Australian Education Act 2013 to make financial assistance to a state or territory conditional on the state or territory having certain laws in force.
From the explanatory memo, one key part of the proposed changes:
[One section of the bill] will make federal education funding to a State or Territory conditional on the State or Territory having laws in force that: prohibit a staff member at a school promoting partisan views or activities to students; and 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.
And another:
in order to receive funding for schools, State or Territory laws will need to require schools to consult parents or guardians on the extent to which staff are fulfilling their requirements to present a balanced presentation of opposing views
The bill should be supported because it promotes educational fairness by ensuring that students are exposed to multiple perspectives on controversial issues, rather than being subjected to a single narrative. This aligns with the principle of Non-Discrimination as it prevents the domination of the educational agenda by any one ideology, thereby respecting diverse viewpoints.
By requiring a balanced presentation of views, the bill also fosters critical thinking and informed decision-making, key components of Pro-Democracy. Engaging with a range of perspectives can empower students to participate more actively and knowledgeably in democratic processes [Judgment].
Normative bases
This bill supposedly seeks to ensure that “teachers are prohibited from conducting classes in a way that would result in the indoctrination of children” (from explanatory memo). However, what it actually does is attempt to make education funding conditional on an ill-defined notion of “balance”. This does nothing more than create a lever for partisan political influence over education from the party in government. It also attempts to make funding conditional on consultation with parents, which in no clear sense assists the stated objective. Therefore, there is little indication that this bill could succeed in achieving the objectives it purportedly seeks.
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, included in the same memo, arguably reveals very stark political objectives that underlie the rhetoric of balance: “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 manmade global warming.” This reveals the partisan intention behind the neutral language.
2020-02-10
Senate
Before Senate
HANSON, Sen Pauline
Unspecified
Education, Civics, Discrimination / Human Rights