Wednesday, 22 June 2022

Motions

Sex education

Debate resumed.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:46): I rise today to speak to the motion that expresses its strong support for the protection of childhood innocence, calls on the Minister for Education to replace programs responsible for the early sexualisation of children and requests more age-appropriate human development programs. At the start of this year I struggled to support the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, and one of the main reasons why I could not support that bill was the lack of parental support or lack of parental rights to be told what is being discussed with their children, what is being taught to their children and what the parents’ role is. I support this motion today for the very reason that parents have the right to know what is going on and what their children are being taught in schools. Our children are our future, and we need to protect our children’s innocence and happiness for as long as possible.

I am always interested in this conversation about how we as a Parliament and we as a community could actually do better in looking after our children’s wellness and wellbeing, especially after the last two years with the lockdowns that this government imposed on them—not allowing our children to go to school or to have a childhood protected from COVID and from lockdowns. Wellness is an interesting topic for children. A lot of schools now have great wellness centres, but there are a lot of schools in my area that are lacking. They need state government funds to support those services within the schools.

Another thing is, rather than just talking about sexualisation and talking about sex at school, I think there is not enough conversation about love. I do not think we as a community actually have a great conversation around love, what love is and how it is taught, especially to children and especially to teenagers, because there is many a survey that says a child or a teenager will actually tell you that they feel a lack of love, they feel lonely and they do not actually know what love is. That might be shocking for some. It might be shocking for some that children actually need to be taught love and that they might not be receiving love at home and might, when they go to school, not even feel love at school.

My daughter actually brought this up with me. She gave me a book recently which she has read, which is called All About Love by bell hooks. I do believe love should be taught and spoken about and we should have public meetings and this Parliament should actually talk about it more. There are not enough public discussions on love in our community. Youth culture today is actually critical. If you spoke to a teenager, they would be critical about love. And there are a lot of adults that are very critical about love. I will quote the book. It says in one paragraph:

I am afraid that we may be raising a generation of young people who will grow up afraid to love, afraid to give themselves completely to another person, because they will have seen how much it hurts to take the risk of loving and have it not work out. I am afraid that they will grow up looking for intimacy without risk, for pleasure without significant emotional investment. They will be so fearful of the pain of disappointment that they will forgo the possibilities of love and joy.

So there are many young people who are not feeling loved and do not feel loved enough, which makes them feel very nervous and makes them feel scared. If you do not know love, how are you meant to feel secure? So we as a community need to actually love more. We need to teach it and we need to speak about it. There should be lectures to the community, and we should have more of a community conversation about love. In this Parliament I do not think we speak about love or our feelings enough, and feelings are quite important. That is why I support this motion today. It is not just about sexualisation. When you do not actually know what love is, you can really struggle in life.

True love is obviously a lifelong dedication to beauty, and love is unbreakable and love is strength and love is profoundly tender and love is warm and love is passionate. It is affection, and love is pure. Love is actually a pure feeling, and true love is a strong lasting feeling of fulfilment and passion and happiness. This is something that we need to instil in our children and instil in our community—that we should show love to one another. It is the foundation of happiness, and if we want a happy community, that is something that we should not be afraid to discuss. We should not mock it, we should not be afraid to talk about it and we should actually show it as much as we can.

For me, I would love, love, love it if our schools actually taught it, more often and every day, and our children actually felt it—and our teenagers especially. If we actually had a lot more love in the world, love in our schools, love amongst friends, we would not have a lot of the problems that we have today with children feeling insecure. The wellness of our children is so important, and to think that there are many teenagers and children walking around not feeling love or understanding what it is and then going into their adulthood being afraid of it is quite sad.

I support this motion wholeheartedly. I hope that this Parliament can go towards looking at ways that within our school curriculums this is something that is taught, that our children’s wellbeing is at the forefront of all of our minds, especially within this place, and that when we make laws and when we go out as a Parliament we make sure that our children feel it. Our children are our future, and I and others would have said in this place, ‘When it comes to marriage, love is love’. So let us hope that we go forward. I support this motion today.

Sitting suspended 12.55 pm until 2.04 pm.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:04): There has been some interesting discussion in this debate, and I think something that really strikes me is that when we have debates in this chamber—and of course as part of democracy it is very important that we do explore issues that impact community and the like, and that is certainly part of our role as MPs representing our constituents—we bear in mind the responsibility that comes with the debates that we undertake and the potential impact of such discussions, subject to the manner in which they are conducted, upon those in the community who may be impacted by the debate at hand.

So something which has personally caused me some discomfort with this particular motion is that I fear that, owing to the frame upon which it is premised, it may cause some significant concern, and it may cause pain for those who certainly in the community are quite vulnerable and have been the subject of hatred and bigotry over time. I am thinking specifically of members of the LGBTQI+ community, and I am just concerned. We certainly should have debates when it comes to so many issues in this chamber, and I do not want resile from that, but I certainly think that such debates should be undertaken with sensitivity for the impact which they may have on everyone in our community. And so this is certainly a concern for me when we look at the frame upon which this particular motion is premised.

Certainly when we are thinking about teaching students about their bodies, their brains, relationships and health with evidence-based programs appropriate for their development and led by a trusted source, I would like to contend that that is actually important before they discover potential misinformation surrounding these topics online or in the playground. Rather than the inference that somehow young minds are being poisoned or are being tainted or are being influenced in a negative or a pejorative way, couldn’t it be said that actually the curriculum or the purpose and the rationale behind the curriculum is actually to empower young minds and to prepare students for the future in a very complicated world? I would like to think that rather than the very negative inference that has been painted here today regarding the Victorian curriculum in this regard, perhaps—just perhaps—when you actually look at the curriculum in detail and you look at the rationale behind it, the purpose and the outcome are actually very good and very sound.

We are as a government committed to ensuring all young people are able to make safe, responsible choices and are equipped for a healthy and fulfilling adult life. I am not sure why there is so much conjecture about our government backing in and implementing this kind of education and empowerment, I would say, in our schools. Age-appropriate, school-based sexuality education is one of the core teaching responsibilities a school undertakes, and in Victoria it is compulsory for government schools to provide age-appropriate sexuality education within the health and physical education curriculum. Many Catholic and independent schools also teach the Victorian curriculum, which supports students to learn about their bodies, brains, respectful relationships and health. So I am truly perplexed about this motion here today and what it is seeking to achieve—because I fear that the actual motion could cause more harm than good, and I fear that some of the most vulnerable people in our community are the direct target in the end, unfortunately, as a result of some of the inferences that have been expressed in the chamber today.

In particular, if we zone in on things such as Respectful Relationships, this was introduced by our Andrews Labor government. Respectful Relationships is an initiative to support schools and early childhood education settings to promote and model respect and equality. The $82 million invested in Respectful Relationships includes funding for professional learning for teachers. It includes topics of consent, which some of my learned colleagues have already spoken to today—an incredibly important concept—and to embed that in an age-appropriate way is surely a gift to a student rather than a hindrance to their better development and a healthy and happy life. Also, on topics such as sexual harassment and building positive, respectful relationships, since 2016 more than 35 000 educators have participated in this training at more than 1950 schools, including at more than 380 non-government schools as well. The Respectful Relationships whole-school approach recognises that schools are a workplace, a community hub and a place of learning. Everyone involved in our school community deserves to be respected, valued and treated equally. We know that changes in attitudes and behaviours can be achieved when positive attitudes, behaviours and equality are lived across the school community and when classroom learning is reinforced by what is modelled in our school community. It also supports educators to teach our children how to build healthy relationships, resilience and confidence.

I think in particular when we are looking at this issue of equality, key underlying determinants and contributing factors in the perpetuation of violence against women include: a lack of gender equality, rigid gender roles and identities, weak support for gender equality, masculine organisational cultures and a masculine sense of entitlement; secondly, cultural norms around violence—for example, social norms and practices that are violence supportive, weak sanctions against violence or violence against women and previous exposure to violence; and a lack of access to resources and support systems—for example, support for privacy and autonomy of the family, unequal distribution of material resources and limited access to systems of support.

On this wide, sweeping kind of slash against bits of something or nothing—I do not know—I am not sure what sort of detailed investigation has been undertaken in the lead-up to this motion being brought to Parliament. I suspect not the most in-depth investigation has been undertaken, because when you look at some of the fundamental values-based educational components of the Victorian curriculum which are seeking to manifest some fundamental cultural change which can lead to a much fairer, more equal and, dare I say, less violent society, what is the problem? I really do not understand. I know as a child we had a certain amount of education on various matters, and I am very grateful for that growing up, but I am just really pleased to see how far we have come—that we can recognise in an age-appropriate way that children can be empowered at a young age to understand the importance of respecting each other and to have a sense of why all genders must be treated equally.

That is why I am perplexed about this motion, because when you actually look at the curriculum and you look at the detail, you can see that it is actually only lending itself to the betterment of our community, to a more equal and empowered community. For goodness sake, what is wrong with teaching children the importance of consent and what it actually means? Surely that is a value and something to be fostered.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:14): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by Mr Finn. Yes, every child is worth fighting for, and we are fighting for every single one of them. It is a policy and a priority of the Andrews Labor government to support and educate and give a good start in life to all students, including those in three- and four-year-old kinder and early childhood education. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our minister, the Honourable Ingrid Stitt, for the very historic project and the $9 billion to be rolled out in the next few years to make it universal for every three- and four-year-old, because we know that for a child 80 per cent of their brain development is taking place between the ages of zero and five years old, so that is very important.

And we do not stop at that. We have a very supportive and very high quality program for primary and secondary students in not just academic areas but also general skills in life. In Victoria it is compulsory for government schools to provide age-appropriate sexuality education within the health and physical education curriculum. Not just public schools but many Catholic and independent schools also teach the Victorian curriculum, which supports students to learn about their bodies and also respectful relationships and health and to understand about consent.

The Department of Education and Training provides optional teaching and learning resources for schools to use in delivering sexuality education, such as the evidence-based and developmentally appropriate Catching on Early resources. These resources were developed in partnership with experts to support primary schools to teach the sexuality education component of the curriculum. The resources also include information to be sent home to parents about the nature of the lessons, the intention behind the lessons and suggested discussion points between the parents or the carers and the children. The children and students are encouraged to speak to their parents or carers about their experiences growing up but are never required to speak about sex. Parents and carers play an important role in the shared responsibility of sexuality education, and they are encouraged to discuss any concerns about the delivery of the sexuality- and puberty-related curriculum directly with the school staff at the local school of the children.

We have also introduced Respectful Relationships. It is an initiative to support school and early childhood education settings and promote and model respect and equality. In fact the Andrews Labor government have invested $82 million in Respectful Relationships, which includes funding for professional learning for teachers and also includes the topics of consent, sexual harassment and building positive, respectful relationships. Respectful Relationships is a whole-school approach and recognises that school is a workplace—not just a place of learning but also a workplace—and also a community hub. Everyone involved in our school community deserves to be respected, to be valued and to be treated equally. In the health and physical education curriculum, students develop the knowledge, the understanding and the skills to strengthen their sense of self and build and manage safe and respectful relationships.

We also teach about consent. The Minister for Education also announced in April last year, 2021, that age-appropriate consent education would become a mandatory component of the Victorian curriculum from term 2 of 2021 onwards. In the primary years the curriculum focuses on relationships, body awareness about the changes associated with puberty and age-appropriate information on how babies are conceived and pregnancy. This is very important understanding and education. I can give an example. When I was in secondary school, no longer a primary student, and I went out with my girlfriend at the time, days later she was so worried because she thought that holding my hand would make her pregnant. That is a true story. I wish I had had those lessons about some of the things that have been outlined here.

I want to take the last few minutes to talk about Safe Schools and also to dispel some of the misinformation about Safe Schools. As I said, we want Victoria’s children and young people to not only achieve academically but also be happy, confident, resilient and safe. In particular students cannot learn effectively if they are being bullied at school—and that is particularly true for LGBTI students. It has to be emphasised that the Safe Schools program is not a compulsory part of the Victorian curriculum and nor is a sex education program. Safe Schools is a program to support teachers so they feel equipped to deal with the diverse needs of our student population. Nothing about the Safe Schools program encourages students to question or change their gender or sexuality. The program does not teach sexual practices or provide or encourage the use of props—whatever they are. It is about providing evidence-based information, age-appropriate resources and professional learning to school staff for schools to use as they see fit.

It is a sad fact that LGBTI young people still experience high rates of bullying, and the vast majority of this abuse occurs at school. Some of the statistics paint a very, very sad picture—for example, for LGBTI students, three in 10 could not concentrate in school because of being bullied and isolated, two in ten missed classes or days in school, and sadly one in 10 did not use the toilets because of their sexuality. So teaching students about bodies, brains, relationships and health with evidence-based programs appropriate for their development and led by a trusted source is important before they discover potential misinformation surrounding these topics online or in the playground.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:22): I thank members who have spoken on this motion today. As I say, I think it is a very important motion. There has been obviously some sort of getting together of the great minds of the Socialist Left in regard to this and an attempt to slander me and my motives. I have been accused today of everything but the Kennedy assassination, and maybe that is coming next if I am lucky enough, but I want to assure the house that what we are talking about here is protecting young children from concepts and ideas that may damage the innocence of their childhood—simple as that. It has got nothing to do with anything else. That is what this motion is about. So it is a very simple proposition. If you want to protect young children, primary school children, from harmful concepts, you vote for this motion. If you do not want to protect them, you will vote against it. So it is a very simple proposition. Even Ms Taylor might be able to understand it, it is so simple. I urge—

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Finn, I think you should withdraw that.

Mr FINN: Well, okay, she will not understand it.

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Deputy President, you have invited the member to withdraw, and I think he should withdraw rather than make another disparaging comment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you could just withdraw.

Mr FINN: Yes, I will withdraw, Deputy President—there is a bit of that going on today. The fact of the matter is that this is a very simple proposition. Anybody who tries to make it more than it is is in fact misleading the house. I urge members to support this motion. I urge members to have another think about it because, as I say, this has got nothing to do with many of the things that members opposite have been raising at all. It is very straightforward. I thank the opposition for its support, and I urge members of the crossbench to support this motion. I hope that we can all, as one, stand up and say that we support the innocence of childhood. I do not see the controversy in that, to tell you the truth. I am hopeful that those who have expressed a view contrary to the view that I have placed will have a rethink of that, because I think that the innocence of childhood and children themselves are worth fighting for. They are worth protecting, and I am hoping that we will do that right now.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.