Safe Schools program funding debated on Q & A

VICTORIAN Premier Daniel Andrews was popular with the Q&A audience. Then a government Minister turned on him.

VICTORIAN Premier Daniel Andrews closed the Q&A discussion on the controversial Safe Schools program with just a few words: “It works”.

Moments earlier Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie had shown her frustration about the issue when she turned angrily to Coalition frontbencher Josh Frydenberg and told him, “that’s the trouble with you Conservatives. It’s happening, mate, it’s happening. Bring it to the surface, let’s discuss it.”

Mr Frydenberg, the Assistant Treasurer, wasn’t happy either, challenging Mr Andrews on his stance on the divisive issue saying it was “completely outrageous” for him to have branded parents and politicians that disagreed with him as “bigots” and “homophobes”.

The exchanges were the result of a question a young gay man, Carter, put to the panel on the ABC program in Melbourne. Carter asked Mr Andrews if he would stay true to his promise of funding Safe Schools if it was cut by the Federal Government.

Safe Schools is a same-sex anti-bullying program that critics have labelled social engineering, but supporters say brings much needed support for young gay and transgender Australians.

Mr Andrews assured the questioner he would. “It’s here to stay, if the Federal Government wants to compromise it, we will fund it fully and properly in every government secondary school across our state.”

It was this aspect Mr Frydenberg had a problem with.

Senator Jacqui Lambie and Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

What should we do to ensure that LGBTI students are kept safe & educated? @DanielAndrewsMP #QandA https://t.co/NvKC1qTenF

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) March 21, 2016

“Can I just confirm, what you are actually saying here because the Federal Education Minister is not saying he will get rid of the program, but simply to change it and make sure it only goes to secondary schools. Are you going to fund it for primary schools?”

And then: “I would ask Daniel Andrews, before he rushes out and goes beyond even what the Safe Schools coalition itself has asked for — because it said this program should be optional — you’re now saying it should be mandatory and you’ve gone much further than they’ve even asked for.”

Mr Andrews told him he was determined the program would be rolled out so schools were a safe place where everyone was treated equally.

“This notion that you can only participate in the program if your parents have said you can... It is very difficult for some young people to talk to their parents about these sorts of issues and...according to the Federal Government, you’ve got to come out to your classmates with no support, you’ve got to come out to Mum and Dad with no backing, no proper support in order to

be part of this program. Why would you tamper with something that actually saving lives?” he asked to applause.

Mr Frydenberg, the sole government representative on Q&A, said he understood the issues and challenges but took issue with subject of the “fluid nature of gender”.

“The materials in the program say we shouldn’t use the terms boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen anymore, we should use gender-neutral terms. Now, [Education Minister] Simon Birmingham had done an extremely good job of reviewing this program and announcing some changes.”

Clementine Ford..”Absolutely nobody” was going to be hurt by teaching kindness.

Those changes were around changing some of the content, getting more parental engagement and ensuring the website links were to organisations that received state or federal funding.

He then put the argument back on Mr Andrews.

“But what problems do you have with getting more parental engagement? I actually think, Daniel, it was completely outrageous of you to go out and criticise parents, politicians who raised questions about this program, you called them bigots, you called them homophobes, that is not pressing the tolerance that this program...”

Mr Andrews interjected several times, at first seemingly bemused that he was the one creating the outrage, and then suggested Mr Frydenberg didn’t really believe what he was saying.

“Come on, Josh, you don’t believe this...You are not in the Cory Bernardi camp, you are just not.”

Jacqui Lambie said the issue needed to be discussed.

#QandA #safeschools "it works" says @DanielAndrewsMP glibly. What is the empirical evidence that supports this. Is there any harm to others?

— Brian (@bri_rel) March 21, 2016

YES YES YES @clementine_ford #safeschools DOES matter, IS important and SHOULD be mandatory! https://t.co/Oq8Vt5nD6M

— Tegan Reilly (@tegan_reilly) March 21, 2016

“I tell you what, mate, it is a reality, it’s happening, let’s talk about it, that’s [what’s] missing.”

The problem with conservatives, she said, was they weren’t willing to discuss the issues.

“Bring it to the surface.”

Feminist writer Clementine Ford said “absolutely nobody” was going to be hurt by teaching kindness.

“By teaching tolerance, tolerance is the wrong word, but by teaching love, by teaching an embrace of diversity and by actually teaching that people come in all sorts of different kinds of packages and that there is nothing wrong with that.”

She said introducing the program at secondary school level could actually be too late for some LGBTI kids. “The very last thing is that reducing it so that it’s only introduced in secondary schools makes the assumption that this awareness only transpires when you enter secondary school and it’s not.”

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said the Safe Schools program worked.

Mr Frydenberg defended the government position by agreeing with the anti-bullying sentiment but insisted the program had gone too far.

“I bet you all those parents that Daniel wants to subject to this program want to have a say as to whether it’s age-appropriate or indeed appropriate at all. That’s a debate we haven’t had, right, and that’s the questions that are being asked, not about an anti-bullying, not about awareness, but about the age-appropriate nature of an agenda that seems to have gone beyond anti-bullying.”

Earlier in the program, Senator Lambie offered a grim outlook for poor Australians if the Coalition gained complete control of Parliament: “You’re finished.”

The straight-talking Senator from Tasmania told the Q &A audience she believed the federal election, whenever it was fought, would be bad news for those less fortunate.

“The Liberal Party can go and do what it wants and if it has the majority in both Houses I tell you what, Australia, you are in real trouble and anybody sitting on or below that poverty line,

you’re finished.”

Ms Lambie said the election, which Prime Minister Turnbull has threatened could be a double dissolution, would be about hiking up the GST, changing Medicare and all the other measures that made the Abbott Government so unpopular.

“The only thing they are taking to this election, and I tell you now is they will increase the GST, okay, they will increase the GST, they are going after our Medicare system and they are going to chip away, like they’ve already tried with the $7 co-payment...”

Host Tony Jones and Mr Frydenberg pointed out that had been ruled out without first going to the public, but Ms Lambie speculated it would be all back on the agenda if the Coalition gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

She was defiant on the subject of the reinstatement Australian Building and Construction Commission [ABCC] the industry watchdog put in place to monitor and promote workplace relations in the building and construction industry.

“I will be voting no to the ABCC, I will be quite honest, I will not be blackmailed, I will not have a gun held to my head. That is not the way to play politics. As for my seat, that is up to the people of Tasmania. If they don’t want me up here keeping the bastards honest, then that’s what they want from me.”

She was unimpressed with the legislation which she said was “full of holes”.

“It has more holes in it than the target at the shooting range. I have a problem that it’s taking away your civil basic rights which is another issue.”

[e-mail]

Originally published as Safe Schools program funding debated on Q & A