Senator BARTLETT (8:19 PM) —I wish to speak tonight about an issue of significance to my electorate of Queensland; an issue which is, I think, of concern to many people. Despite the fact that these people might not be listening at this particular point in time, I think putting these words on the record is important. The issue is the newly developed curriculum in Queensland called studies of society and environment, SOSE. Whilst I certainly do not have a problem with debate and analysis of school curricula—or anything else, for that matter—the single-minded ferocity and selectivity of some of the ongoing attacks on this new curriculum ring disturbing alarm bells for me. I am old enough—only just—to remember some of the hysterical attacks that were made by extremist forces in Queensland on another education model called SEMP back in the 1970s. These attacks were led by a arch-conservative woman called Rona Joyner, who has been a regular candidate for the Call to Australia Party, and subsequently the Christian Democratic Party in Queensland. I certainly do not denigrate her for expressing her concerns as an individual, but the views that she expressed back at that time—which were quite clearly at the very extreme level of what might be called fundamentalist Christian, with a capital `C', conservatism—were very concerning to many people. All the more concerning was the fact that those attacks were successful in the undermining and eventual scrapping of a progressive school curriculum which had been developed around that time. This was back in the days when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Premier of Queensland, and I suppose that in that circumstance one could understand how such an outcome could occur. I have experienced a sense of deja vu about this brand-new curriculum that has been developed, given the very similar sounding attacks made upon it. Apparently those attacks are starting to get some currency in Queensland, with significant amounts of media coverage, and that causes me a great deal of concern.

The first article printed about the new curriculum appeared in the newsletter of the National Civic Council in June this year. The NCC claimed that this curriculum would have a cumulative effect on a child's thinking causing them to be able to `deconstruct the Western Tradition with its Judeo-Christian value base, which has shaped Australia as we know it today'. I do not usually pay terribly much attention to what the NCC puts in its newsletter.

Senator BARTLETT —I am sure Senator McGauran pays much more attention than I do to what they put in their newsletters.

Senator McGauran —You said Bob Santamaria was one of your heroes, in your maiden speech.

Senator BARTLETT —That is a completely false assertion, Senator McGauran. I invite you to go back and read my first speech, and you will see what I actually said.

The next I heard of this curriculum was when my office was approached by a Liberal Party member who warned of the dangers to Queens-land children because they were being asked to study Ho Chi Minh but not Captain Cook. Then my good friend—but nonetheless I think in this case mistaken colleague—Senator Mason from the Liberal Party got in the picture when he claimed that the curric-ulum would feed children `a steady diet of crude leftism masquerading as know-ledge'.

Then what followed these attacks was an all-out assault by the main paper in Queensland, the Courier-Mail, on anyone who appears to favour the curriculum and a stream of ridicule for those who developed it. We saw over the weekend terms such as `Armani Marxists' being used to describe proponents of the new curriculum, and an editorial claiming that it has `searched in vain for anyone other than those involved in the development of the curriculum who praise or even defend the approach it has adopted'. I am in no doubt why proponents of this curriculum would question the paper and those criticising it. If you look at the direction the criticism has come from, it appears to be based significantly and predominantly on politics, bearing little relationship to the real and very important world of education.

Let us take a look at the schools which have actually adopted this curriculum. It will be compulsory for all state schools when it is adopted, but what surprises me is the range of excellent independent schools which have already taken up the curriculum and which, according to reports—even in the press in Queensland—are happy with the results so far. They include independent schools such as St Hilda's on the Gold Coast, Anglican Grammar School in Brisbane, Toowoomba Grammar School and the Christian Brothers school, St Lawrence's, at South Brisbane. I would not necessarily seek to put all of those schools in the same box but I certainly would not see any of them as breeding grounds for Armani Marxists—or any other sort of Marxist for that matter. Just in case we think that, somehow or other, the critics have got it wrong and it really is a curriculum for conservatives, it also has the support of the Queensland Teachers Union, the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens, and the Independent Parents Association of Queensland.

This new curriculum does offer significant flexibility. Those who support it welcome the opportunity for children to learn about culture, government and civics as well as history and geography. Developing a curriculum is a difficult task, and there will be always be critics—I certainly do not have problem with people voicing concerns or criticisms—but the extent, and detail, of some of the criticism of this curriculum has, frankly, left me quite astounded. It is always a balance trying to figure out the best way forward as we try to ensure that our children have an understanding of the range of issues in an increasingly complex society. Without trying to revisit my sadly somewhat long distant youth, it is crucial to try to give our children the most broadly based education possible. Back when I was at school, while I am sure many of the issues that I had to examine—the fine detail of maths, physics, et cetera—were very valuable, they were not necessarily of much use to me. It is a concern that I was not able to have exposure to some other subjects relating to history, biology and geography in the detail that I think would have been of benefit to me.

Today I spend as much time as possible speaking to school students at high school level, as I am sure many parliamentarians do. A frequent concern expressed is that students do not have a full enough understanding of our system of government, of our electoral system and of what are broadly called living skills and social issues. I think the attempt to develop a curriculum that provides some exposure to some of these issues should not be seen as some sort of social engineering, leftist experiment but as an important attempt to try to expose our children to a range of issues that they need to have an understanding of and at least some exposure to.

Unfortunately, at the moment we seem to be having a debate with a range of people criticising the fact that the curriculum mentions Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung and does not mention Captain Cook, and a few bizarre examples like that. Plus, there are some others who are concerned that the curriculum does not pay significant attention to history and geography in their own right but tries to squeeze those two together. It is always going to be difficult to try to cover every aspect in sufficient detail. Why try to throw out a curriculum that has been developed over a long period of time with extensive consultation—a curriculum which encourages analytical learning, is focused and intellectually demanding in terms of the way students are expected to learn, and is in tune with the more dynamic way of history and the changes that we are continually experiencing today—when all those things are important? To try to basically throw out that entire curriculum because of concerns such as those that have been expressed is incredibly shortsighted. In many ways it is very dismissive of the enormous amount of work and the enormous amount of expertise that have gone into the development of this particular curriculum.

I in no way wish to suggest that the whole curriculum is perfect in every way. Indeed, I do not even want to suggest that I have a perfect answer. In some ways, there are many people more qualified than I am. But, both from my own perspective and from many of my constituents who have contacted me, I know that many people involved in education have expressed concern about the quite extensive attack that has been made on this new curriculum. I think it is time to say that we need to pull this debate back into perspective. We need to pull it back into a recognition of what is best for students today, for our children today. We need to take it out of the ideological, extremist straitjacket that has characterised much of the debate today. We need to recognise that we live in a fast-changing, very dynamic world, and our students need as comprehensive an education as possible. Ridicule and scaremongering are not the way to go. (Time expired)