A lack of civics diminishes us all

Australia is one of the few countries with compulsory voting, yet it has such a poor system of citizenship education.

As Janet Albrechtsen noted on this page recently, any attempt at civics education in schools cuts out at Year 10, two years short of the age when students must vote. She might have added citizenship education is patchy, inaccurate in parts and does not fully explain the evolution of our Westminster system of government, the concept of our federation nor the principles and values on which our Constitution was so carefully designed.

We also inadequately educate migrants about Australian democracy. Local governments perform impressive citizenship ceremonies but no level of government makes a concerted effort to explain the values, basis and details of our system of government. Since migration is such a large component of our population growth, this is a serious shortcoming. Many migrants come from countries with non-compulsory voting, first-past-the-post counting, republican models, dictatorships and a lack of respect for individual human rights.

There have been attempts to rectify this situation. Perhaps the most herculean effort was by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation in the lead-up to that anniversary in 2001, producing fine materials and convening widespread discussions and debates. But when the crunch came, even the board of that body baulked at making civics education across Australia compulsory to Year 12, largely on the grounds that post-compulsory schooling was a matter for the states and territories. During the recent review of the national curriculum, the idea was floated but received a lukewarm reception because of ideological obsessions about introducing anything that would interfere with schools’ autonomy. Ideology trumped nationhood and community cohesion.

The situation is not helped by the behaviour of our politicians. Teachers report they endeavour to teach active and informed citizenship by day, including values such as tolerance, fair play, and respect, only to find their efforts smashed by television images of the fowl houses that are our parliaments, where members abuse and threaten each other, often with putrid language.

Many campaigned in the early days of television to have parliament televised, hoping to reinforce the notion that parliament was the cornerstone of our democracy; many would now say parliament should have its own channel or should be given an X rating.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence that national, state and local politicians themselves have a very poor understanding of the history and basic principles of our parliamentary and legal systems, especially the doctrines of ministerial responsibility, the separation of powers and the proper powers of each level of government. Most induction programs for politicians are very flimsy on this score.

Some will say our teachers can’t be trusted with this responsibility. While it is true many lack a clear understanding of our history and the foundations of our democratic system, most will admit to this given the poor education they have had themselves at school and university. But they will say “give us the resource materials and we will teach the content”.

Fortunately, there is no shortage in this regard as the Australian parliament, Australian Electoral Commission, National Library of Australia and most state and territory parliaments have generated attractive materials, along with a few of the state curriculum authorities.

There are several present and looming issues in Australia where the sound education of our citizens is going to be extremely important. They include the notion of parliament reflecting the wishes of the whole population, the accountability of government to parliament, the appropriate role of each level of government, the role of referendums, the question of who decides Australia’s relationship with the rest of the world and whether treaties are essential, the importance of individual human rights and the pros and cons of a legally entrenched bill of rights, the difference between a monarchy, a constitutional monarchy and a republic, and the pros and cons of different models of a republic. (As one school student asked recently: “What is the difference between a prime minister and a president?”)

It is also clear that we need to address how best to help citizens decide their vote. As Paul Kelly has observed, there is now a tension between the rational and the emotional elements driving popular opinion as social media whips up short-term emotions on significant issues. There is clearly a need in Australia to re-emphasise the rational appraisal of political parties, leaders, policies and performances. In this regard we could also consider raising the voting age. While young people may well be more physically mature at a younger age, this is not so in terms of mental maturity. In most countries, the legal age of majority is 20 or 21. We lowered ours to 18 only because of the concern that men unable to vote had been old enough to die for our country in the Vietnam war.

Australia has been a world pioneer in so many aspects of citizenship but even we are failing to adapt to changing perceptions and hold dear the traditions we have forged. Citizenship education for all is the best solution, and compulsory citizenship education to Year 12 is essential. Changing Australia Day to January 1 would be a good step as all can share in that celebration, although finding an upright Australian on New Year’s Day may be a challenge.

Emeritus professor Kenneth Wiltshire, of the UQ Business School, was co-chairman of the review of the national curriculum.