2017-05-24
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — It is somewhat disappointing to be going over old ground here with this particular motion. If I could begin by addressing the first part of the motion, which is:
That this house —
(1) notes —
(a) the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 26(3) …
Of course there are two clauses before article 26(3) which I think are worth reading out to provide some context for the benefit of the chamber. Dr Carling-Jenkins decided to mention just one part of the article.
Article 26(1) states:
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Article 26(2) states:
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Article 26(3) states:
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
The motion starts out with a selective rendering of article 26. The rest of article 26, which is about education, points to the right of all children to access free compulsory education, particularly at the elementary level.
As Ms Shing said, no-one is denying that under article 26, and also the Victorian Education, Training and Reform Act 2006, there is a right for parents to choose which schools they send their children to, whether they be government schools, whether they be independent schools or whether they be Catholic schools — which of course receive a lot of government funding in any case — or indeed whether they choose to homeschool their children, and Dr Carling-Jenkins mentioned that in the case of Victoria less than 1 per cent of parents choose to do that. We started out with a very selective rendering of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The motion continues to be very skewed in the way it is written by going on to say:
… the government has limited this right by failing to sufficiently consult parents in the implementation of the Safe Schools and respectful relationships programs in Victorian schools and early childhood education …
There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the Safe Schools program; in fact the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee had to sit through some terrible questioning by the member for Kew during budget estimates. Instead of focusing on the wide range of subjects that could have been focused on in terms of the funding of education, the committee had to sit through a lot of quite offensive questioning by the member for Kew with regard to that.
But in the interests of time — and we do have a time limit on this motion — it is worth saying what Safe Schools is. According to the website of the Department of Education and Training:
Safe Schools is a formal and public commitment —
by the department and by the government —
that schools make to create an inclusive and safe environment for their school community, including for LGBTI students, families and teachers. This commitment recognises that creating a safe and inclusive environment is key to tackling bullying, discrimination and harassment at schools, particularly arising from homophobia and transphobia.
That is what the program is about; it is about raising awareness of the bullying and discrimination that these children, their teachers and their families do suffer and about educating all students that this type of bullying and discrimination and harassment is not acceptable. The statement goes on:
All students should be safe from bullying and feel included at school. Students who don't feel safe or included at school cannot learn effectively.
We have been through this before. The website continues:
Safe Schools is not a subject in the curriculum, nor is it prescriptive in any way.
Schools have the discretion to use as many or as few of the resources, training materials, and other support that the program offers to help them deliver their commitment.
…
It is important for all children and young people to understand that not everyone is the same and to respect this.
It is an important part of the program and it is an important part of all school education programs that people understand this.
It is worth stating again what I said in the similar debate in October, that all young people have a right to feel safe at school. However, many LGBTI students have negative experiences in Australian schools. LGBTI young people experience high rates of bullying, and the vast majority of this occurs at school. According to the website:
61 per cent of LGBTI young people report experiencing verbal homophobic abuse;
18 per cent report physical homophobic abuse;
69 per cent report other types of homophobia, including exclusion and rumours;
80 per cent of respondents experienced the reported abuse at school.
This is why we need the Safe Schools program. It is about young people being safe at school — it is as simple as that. It is an evidence-based program, and that is what should be supported in the schools.
With regard to respectful relationships, again I could have a lot to say on it, but I will be brief. We have a problem with family violence and we have a problem with gender violence in the community. Everyone knows that, and there has been a lot of focus on it over the last few years — and rightly so. You will discover this if you just go straight to the final evaluation report of the pilot program, where it says:
Children and young people have become one of the most important populations for the prevention of gender-based violence. The unacceptably high rates of gender-based violence, in particular, violence against women and their children, are well established and there is a clear opportunity to change the story for future generations via the education system.
…
Schools play a central role in the intellectual, social and emotional development of children and young people.
And it is in the schools when talking about respectful relationships between people that we can make inroads into changing the culture that is behind the gender-based violence that we see in the community. The executive summary and recommendations states:
… the whole school approach is the single most important criterion for effective violence prevention and respectful relationships education in schools.
It states that this program takes an evidence-based and a comprehensive approach to respectful relationships in schools:
… including a rigorous approach to action research and evaluation aiming to measure different dimensions of change …
et cetera. It goes on:
A growing international and national evidence base tells us that effective respectful relationship education must include the following core elements:
(1) Addressing the drivers of gender-based violence;
(2) Taking a whole school approach …
(3) Integrating evaluation and continual improvement;
4) Providing resources and support for teachers;
5) Utilising age-appropriate … participatory curriculum …
Including in primary schools and even in early childhood, where these behaviours can start manifesting themselves, and that is where they need to be addressed. The final core element is to have a long-term vision and approach.
On the homeschool education issue, which is covered by paragraph (c) of Dr Carling-Jenkins's motion, like others I have received a lot of correspondence about this issue. I have spent a lot of time looking at the correspondence and the points that have been raised. I have compared the proposed changes to the regulations with the existing regulations, and I have considered what I am told by people in emails and their responses to the responses that I make — I reply and I get another reply back. I have also met with representatives from the Home Education Network. Despite what they are telling me, I do not see an awful lot of difference between the two sets of regulations. There are some changes, but there are not very many and they are not very wide or comprehensive. It is worth saying that in terms of the regulation of homeschooling, Victoria is the least regulated state with regard to homeschooling. In other states it is much more highly regulated, including New South Wales. We need to put it in that context.
However, I did write to the minister on 18 April. I asked him the following questions. What is the rationale for requiring a child to attend a mainstream school while waiting 28 days for homeschool approval? Has the department undertaken any research regarding the further study and employment outcomes of homeschooled children, and if not, will it be commissioning such research? What will be required to be included in the proposed homeschooling plans? Will the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) be provided with additional resources to oversee homeschooling plans and reviews? What procedures will apply for parents of homeschooled children to appeal any decisions made by the VRQA? I have still not received a full response from the minister, although I have received an acknowledgement, and I am also hoping to meet with the minister to discuss the regulations.
I am not sure that parental concerns with these programs, which I think are being wildly overstated, and the regulations have been ignored. I know that individual schools tailor their respectful relationships and Safe Schools programs to their schools and do consult with the parents in those schools.
With regard to the rights of parents to freely choose their children's education, of course that is part of the declaration; it is part of the legislation, but it is not absolute either. There does need to be some oversight by the education department in the interests of children because education is about children and the question should be what is in the best interests of the children? Children's rights and welfare need to come first, and I do not agree that these rights are being inhibited by the state.