AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Australian Journal of Human Rights

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Australian Journal of Human Rights >> 2003 >> [2003] AUJlHRights 10

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Davis, Megan --- "Civics Education and Human Rights" [2003] AUJlHRights 10; (2003) 9(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 235


Civics education and human rights

Megan Davis*

Many commentators have observed that in the field of public law, and in debate over law reform regarding significant national issues such as reconciliation for indigenous peoples, a Bill of Rights and a Republic, the Australian community lacks the requisite civics knowledge (Williams 2000a: 43; Saunders 2001; Zinn 1999; Grossman 1999; Brearley 2000; Haesler quoted in Cook 2002). This ‘civics deficit’ has been confirmed by two federally supported studies (Civics Education Group 1994). The result is that the promotion and generation of interest in major public law reform is hindered. As Greg Barns observed of the recent Republican Referendum outcome:

... when it comes to public education, the reality is that if people do not understand the change they are being asked to sanction, then they won’t do it. The lack of civics education in this country is fertile ground for scare tactics (Barns 2000).

This paper will attempt to address the ‘civics deficit’ in the Australian community. At the outset, it is necessary to provide a working definition of civics education and set out the reasons why it is fundamentally important that human rights form part of the content of such education. The paper will then provide a review of the many and varied civics initiatives introduced and encouraged at the federal level in Australia. This review will involve investigating the nexus between civics education and public debate, and assessing the extent to which human rights issues are incorporated in such initiatives. Once this is complete, the NSW Bill of Rights inquiry will be used as a case study to discuss the role of the media in civics and public debate. It will become apparent that civics education is a necessary corollary to ongoing legal research and debate about the impact a Bill of Rights upon the Australian polity. Recently it has been implied that current advocacy for a Bill of Rights in Australia is academic, esoteric and far removed from political and community realities. Yet as this paper illustrates, political realities are at the forefront of thinking in terms of advocacy for a Bill of Rights in Australia (Chappell 2002).

What is civics education?

Civics education is a complex and contentious subject. Some say it is about informed and effective citizenship, while others say it is about critical analytical skills and basic knowledge. It is said to have ‘the potential to empower citizens of tomorrow but also the potential to constrain them to orthodoxies — radical as well as conservative’ (Ling 2002).

Civics is covered to varying extents in formal primary, high school and tertiary education, incorporating programs such as ‘Discovering Democracy’. Recent research has found that ‘schools who model democratic practice are most effective in promoting civic knowledge and engagement’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001). The research shows schools that encourage debate and participation of students within their school environment demonstrate advanced civic knowledge and are more likely to vote as adults.

Civics is taught in other key educational programs such as the University of the Third Age. Civics education and information can also be sourced from a number of different formal and informal communities, such as through interaction between family and friends, membership in social and cultural organisations and youth organisations and clubs. As the recent Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) study into Australian civics engagement highlighted, participation in extra-curricular activities can be educational: ‘students can learn civics by practising citizenship — decision making, leadership — the notion of society being based on compromise, tolerance and negotiation’ (Mellor 2002).

Media is also an important disseminator of civics information. Civics information can be disseminated through newspapers, opinion pieces and television. The ACER study highlights the influence of media as a civics educator. Eighty per cent of students aged 14 in 1999 derived their civics knowledge through television news and over 62 per cent listened to news on the radio (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4). Indeed the report states that there is a positive correlation between frequency of news watching and higher civic knowledge that had a ‘greater effect than the international average’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4).

Content of civics education: human rights

The content of civics education must go beyond the mere ‘reciting of pre-digested civic material’ (Kennedy 1998). As Justice Michael Kirby argued in a submission to the Civics Expert Group in 1994:

... there is a danger in a too narrow approach to a study of the Australian system of government, the Australian Constitution and Australian citizenship, that the civics course resulting will pander to the barren or dangerous demands of nationalism ... Our polity must be seen (and must see itself) in the context of growing more toward international responses to global problems ... Let Australia be a splendid alternative to the blight of nationalism which has re-emerged as a danger to world peace in recent times (Kirby quoted in Civic Education Group 1994: 51).

Civic content necessarily involves a greater engagement in the major issues that shape the tenor of our society, such as the effects of trade liberalisation agreements and human rights. The ACER civic research identified this in its conclusions on the civic results of Australian students:

... a major task for Australian civic educators is to deepen the understanding Australian students have about theoretical constructs and models of democracy ... way beyond the surface learning of names, dates, places and events. Civic education can no longer be local: young people need to understand democracy not only in Australia but also in our region (Mellor et al 2001: 132–133).

Globalisation has been identified as a key civic mega trend, and will have enormous impact upon the basic rights, social and economic standards, and services of Australia citizens. Kerry Kennedy and Suzanne Mellor describe civic mega trends as:

... complex issues demanding a response that is at once knowledge based and values based. These mega trends have the potential to define who Australians are at the end of the twentieth century and shape whom they shall become in the next millennium (Kennedy and Mellor 2001).

Civic mega trends include the role of the UN and the perennial concern about domestic sovereignty and international law. Similarly, the impact of the International Criminal Court upon Australian sovereignty generated heated debate (Grattan and Banham 2002; Dodson and Gordon 2002). The mechanics of the World Trade Organization is another issue that will shape future Australian society (Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 2001). Its potential impact upon education services, our water services and our working life renders it a key area of investigation for civics education.1 It has a significant impact upon issues of sovereignty, because of the binding nature of WTO juridical determinations.

Participation in Australian democracy is also a key consideration in civic education. This includes the important Australian story of historical exclusion and inclusion (Williams 2000c). Ideally, it must be coupled with an examination of the minimalist nature of an individual’s participation in Australian democracy: the ballot box at periodic elections. The minimalist contribution of citizens toward democratic deliberation and the history of exclusion have resulted in a utilitarian attitude toward Australian society (Charlesworth 2002: 35–40). As Charlesworth observes of Australia’s utilitarian approach, it ‘places the rights of vulnerable minority groups at the mercy of the will of the majority, as well as making particular rights subject to trading-off with others’ (Charlesworth 2002: 39). Furthermore, Charlesworth argues that ‘the claim that Parliament is the proper protector of human rights reflects the power of the ideology of utilitarianism in Australian public life’ (Charlesworth 2002: 38).

This ‘majoritarian’ nature of Australian democracy can be isolating for many groups in Australian society. Examining the strength of this ideology is a key to understanding and respecting the importance of avenues that go beyond mere ‘ballot box accountability’ of periodic elections. This will generate greater community understanding of the work and advocacy of ‘interest groups’ or ‘minority groups’ in contemporary Australian political life. Increased understanding of such interests is significant given the finding in the ACER study that:

Australian students had the most difficulty ... with the forms and purposes of democracy and lacked clarity when it comes to theoretical precepts of democratic models and structures such as the role of criticism in a democracy (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4).

It is an interesting finding that the issue of dissent and the purpose of periodic elections in Australian democracy are not adequately understood. Aside from voting, membership of groups, campaigns, peaceful demonstrations, reading about public issues and writing to newspapers are all integral civic activities. Civics education should highlight that these are all equally important forms of participation and additionally that dissent should be embraced as an essential aspect of democratic governance. Fortunately for Australia, the ACER civics research clearly shows a ‘positive correlation between civic knowledge and participation in democratic life’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 8).

An Australian civics renaissance

While research clearly shows that until the late 1960s some degree of civics education had always been taught (Kennedy 2002) through history, geography or social studies (Chittenden 2002), there has been a renewed interest and considerable investment in civics education over the last two decades. A number of factors have provided the catalyst for this change. Significant national events such as the Republic referendum and the celebration of the Centenary of Federation were very important. However it can be said that the ‘big picture’ agenda of the Keating Government and its vision for Australia’s future was the basis for the renewed emphasis of civics education in Australia today. This involved important ‘questions of Australia’s national identity and the future of the nation in the region and the world’ (Kennedy and Howard 2002). From the Keating agenda interest in civics grew and major national studies were conducted revealing the appaling results in national and international surveys about the shallow degree of civic knowledge among Australians (Torney-Purta et al 2001; Noonan 2002).

While education is primarily a responsibility of state governments, the Federal Government has played and continues to play a key role in the development of civics education (Kennedy and Howard 2002; Forlin and Forlin 2003: 204). This is reflected in the great amount of research and study into civics education in Australia over the last two decades, including government commissioned reports and Senate Committee reports, the Civics Expert Group established by the Keating Government, ‘Discovering Democracy’ established by the Howard Government, and other important educational developments such as the Study of Society and Environment (SOSE) curriculum.

Senate Committee reports into civics education (1989 and 1991)

There have been two reports into Civics conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. The first report in 1989 was ‘Education for Active Citizenship’ (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1989). In this report the Committee alluded to a lack of engagement among young Australians and therefore the Committee perceived a need to address ‘the ignorance, apathy and powerlessness of young people’ (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1989: 15).

In 1991 the Committee released a further report called ‘Active Citizenship Revisited’ (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991). This report attempted to address the recommendations and concerns raised in the first report. ‘Active Citizenship Revisited’ promoted examples of initiatives employed since the first report in terms of civic engagement of youth. The Committee’s concept of citizenship reflects a dominant perception of citizenship in Australia as ‘a lived process of participation, a process in which citizens ... transform themselves through debate and contestation over public issues’ (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991).

It is notable that as recent as 1991 in Australia’s history, a Senate Committee report subscribed to the view that ‘the very concept of citizenship is grounded in the public sphere. To be a citizen is to participate in the public practices which sustain, and to a large extent define, a community’ (Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991: 7).

In analysing the two Committee reports, Kate Krinks has pointed out that ‘the Committee maintained the view that citizenship and democracy are defined in terms of the public sphere, or those activities and interactions which are defined as public or civic’ (Krinks 1998–99). Further submissions criticising the report argued that the scope of citizenship was far too restrictive. For example:

... politics ... is not simply a matter of who occupies the Lodge or what issues are attracting public lobbying activity, but who (for example) decides and who accepts responsibility for the household chores and why one particular type of household ‘agreement’ on these matters is common. Personal life is undoubtedly political and any attempt to deny this must be seen as a political act in itself (Leftwich quoted in Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991: 6).

The Committee comments reflect the pervasiveness of such a limited view and expectation of citizenship in Australia. This limited notion of citizenship is an obstacle in terms of rights reform in Australia. It explains the urgency for renewed emphasis upon human rights content in civics education. Feminist scholars, for example, would argue that this current limited concept ignores and in fact reinforces the power of the public sphere/private sphere dichotomy. This example shows the important role of human rights stories in highlighting the exclusionary history of Australian democracy. Australian democracy is an evolving construct and critique is a central feature of content. It is essential that the experiences of all Australians, including indigenous people and women are canvassed in the classroom.

Civics Expert Group

The most significant development of the past two decades is arguably the Civics Expert Group (Civics Education Group 2002), established by the Keating Government in 1993 to examine civics in Australia and make recommendations for civics education and Australian schools (Civics Education Group 2002; Kennedy and Howard 2002). The aim of the Civics Expert Group was:

... to provide the Government with a strategic plan for a non-partisan program of public education and information on the Australian system of government, the Australia Constitution, Australia citizenship and other civics education’ (Civics Education Group 2002: 5).

When the Civics Expert Group delivered its report in 1994 entitled ‘Whereas the People’ (Civics Education Group 2002) the Keating Government provided a $25 million Commonwealth funded financial package (Kennedy and Howard 2002).

The Civics Expert Group found that Australia has a ‘civic deficit’, as labelled by the Chair of the group, Professor Stuart MacIntyre (Civics Education Group 2002: 13). However, the report also stated that in celebrating the Centenary of Federation, ‘Australians are able to look back on a remarkably successful record of democratic self-government’ and that our ‘public institutions’ had proved themselves to be ‘flexible and resilient’ (Civics Education Group 2002: 13). While accepting that there was a paucity of knowledge about Australian legal and political systems, the report stated that many Australians ‘do observe its procedures and have a working grasp of its principles’ and indeed ‘engage in a rich variety of voluntary activities and social movements that affirm civic values’ (Kennedy 2002: 13). Nevertheless the report warned that:

... our system of government relies for its efficacy and legitimacy on an informed citizenry; without active, knowledgeable citizens the forms of democratic representation remain empty: without vigilant, informed citizens there is no check on potential tyranny (Kennedy 2002: 16).

The research into civics education conducted by the Civics Education Group is the most cited evidence of the civics deficit in Australia. The study revealed a high degree of ignorance in the Australian community about ‘the constitutions of the Commonwealth, States and Territories’, the concept of responsible government, separation of powers and the relationship between the legislature, Executive and the judiciary. Further, the concept of federalism and how it works was ‘poorly understood’ (Civics Education Group 2002: 133–134). The report concluded that the level of ignorance of the age group 15–19 was striking (Civics Education Group 2002: 134). It found that only 18 per cent of Australians surveyed had some knowledge of the Constitution. Remarkably only 41 per cent knew that the Constitution could be altered by a referendum. Fifty per cent understood that the High Court of Australia was the top court in Australia (Civics Education Group 2002: 133). Forty per cent could recall both names of Houses of Parliament and 24 per cent knew the Senate represents the States (Civics Education Group 2002: 133). In terms of citizenship and community expectations perceptions of citizenship were ‘narrow’ with 62 per cent perceiving that the main attribute of a good citizen was not breaking the law (Civics Education Group 2002: 133) and only 33 per cent felt that they were reasonably informed about their rights and responsibilities as Australian citizens (Civics Education Group 2002: 133).

The Civics Expert Report was instrumental in its far-reaching analysis of the depth of civics deficit in Australia. Its findings continue to provide a key foundation and benchmark for future statistical analysis and research. For Bill of Rights advocates it remains a vital tool in terms of understanding and addressing the major obstacles to human rights reform in the Australian legal and political system.

Incidentally the Keating Government also established the Republic Advisory Committee whose report to Prime Minister Keating in October of 1993 found that among the community and its leaders (regardless of particular views held on the republican debate) Australians should have more opportunity to understand the basic principles of Australian government (Republic Advisory Committee 1993: 20). The report found that the limited knowledge of important functions in our democracy such as parliamentary conventions is understandable and inextricably linked to a ‘fundamental problem with our Constitution’ (Turnbull 2001).

Discovering Democracy

The current Federal Government has maintained active support for civics education by the facilitating the development of ‘Discovering Democracy’, a $34 million dollar project (Kemp 1997; Kemp 2000; www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy). The Discovering Democracy Program is a curriculum resource. It is provided free of charge by the Federal Government to Australian schools. There are essentially two stages of the implementation process.

The first stage (1997–2001) was the creation and preparation of the course and its materials (<www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/aboutdd.htm>). It was intended to consolidate the teaching and learning of the Discovering Democracy Program in Australian schools. The second stage (2001–2004) requires further professional development for teachers and further establishment of the program throughout Australian schools (www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/aboutdd.htm). It is designed to establish a foundation of knowledge upon which further ongoing civics and citizenship education can be predicated whether through formal or informal education. The underlying purpose of ‘Discovering Democracy’ is the improvement of basic knowledge and understanding of the practical operation of Australian democracy. The materials have attempted to redress to a degree the paucity of information regarding the exclusionary history of Australia and indeed focus upon indigenous history in the context of that exclusion. For example in the ‘People Power’ section for upper primary taught in the unit theme ‘Citizens and Public Life’ (<www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/ddunits/units/up4power-glance.htm>), there is a focus question for class considers how the Freedom Rides escalated the campaign for justice for Aboriginal people. The underlying message is how ‘people power’ can bring about change in a democracy:

For a long time, the story of Australian democracy was a story which excluded Indigenous Australians. It is important to remember that it was not really until the 1967 referendum, for example, that Indigenous Australians were recognised as full members of the Australian community. Discovering Democracy helps us to understand this history and attempts to change the situation through, for example, the Aboriginal day of mourning on 26 January 1938 and the Freedom Rides in 1965 (Nelson 2002).

Given that civics content is a contentious concept (see Krinks in Kennedy and Howard 2002), ‘Discovering Democracy’ has not been immune. It has attracted some criticism including being questioned as to the lack of actual input by teachers in its commission (Reid 1996; Hogan and Fearnley-Sander 1999; Finch 1999). According to Kate Krinks, it has limitations in terms of content as ‘its primary focus was on institutionalised political processes’ (Krinks in Kennedy and Howard 2002).

The middle secondary school unit on human rights is an interesting program that provides important questions about the content of human rights. This includes the focal question of how indigenous rights are protected in Australia, entitled ‘What is Australia’s record on Indigenous peoples rights?’ which includes a comprehension task on the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (<www.curriculum. edu.au/democracy/ddunits/units/ms2human_glance.htm#Focus%20question%204>). It does seem glib for students to discuss the key focus question of ‘how did the Freedom Riders escalate the campaign for justice for Aboriginal people?’ (<www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/ddunits/units/up4fq1acts.htm>) without being required to discuss where that campaign for justice is today. It would be appropriate for teachers to address the ease with which human rights legislation can be overridden by the Australian Parliament. In the middle secondary school unit, teachers could give examples of how Parliament has used that power in relation to native title, such as when the Racial Discrimination Act was precluded from operation in the Native Title Amendment Act 1998, thus enabling discrimination against indigenous peoples more than thirty years after the Freedom Rides.

Another important aspect of this unit is the question of ‘Where did human rights come from?’, covering history from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (<www.curriculum. edu.au/democracy/ddunits/units/ms2fq2acts.htm>). Judging by the tenor of recent debate in Australia regarding the role of the UN and human rights treaties (Gelber 2001), it is absolutely imperative to inform the Australian community of the legitimacy and importance of Australia’s continued investment in the human rights system. This contrasts with populist notions that human rights limit sovereignty. It is important that students are made aware of the amorphous concept of national sovereignty and consider that:

Instead of thinking of sovereignty as a single concept that can be kept or given away in its entirety, it is best to think of sovereignty as a bundle of sticks, the sovereign is at liberty to give up certain sticks while retaining others (DiMatteo et al 2003).

It is important to develop a community understanding of sovereignty in order to appreciate, for example, that the voluntary ceding of sovereignty to conform to the demands of the World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs is as significant and ‘intrusive’ as the ceding of sovereignty in relation to human rights issues such as conventions and UN human rights treaty bodies.

The middle secondary school unit also contains a discussion on the merits of a Bill of Rights for Australia. It includes a case study examining the rights protected by the Australia Constitution and in legislation (<www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/ ddunits/units/ms2fq3acts.htm#Activity 6>). The teaching materials also include an activity involving ‘a proposed Bill of Rights for the Australian Capital Territory’ (<www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/ddunits/units/ms2fq3acts.htm>), inviting students to comment on the strength and weaknesses of the proposals and to consider whether it would be an appropriate model for Australia. It also outlines the most fundamental arguments for and against a Bill of Rights in Australia.

The main concern with this unit is that human rights appear to be compartmentalised as constituting merely one element of four overriding themes: ‘Who Rules?’, ‘Law and Rights’, ‘The Australian Nation’ and ‘Citizens and Public Life’, rather than forming an overriding theme throughout the entire course (<www.curriculum.edu.au/ democracy/ddunits/units/units.htm>). This may or may not be important given that the course can be tailored according to specific needs. However it does act to limit human rights to being simply another competing principle among many in the general sphere of law and politics in Australia.

Study of Society and Environment curriculum area

The Study of Society and Environment (SOSE) curriculum area was devised throughout the 1980s and 1990s with assistance from the State Ministers for Education, in concert with the Commonwealth and the Australian Education Council. The SOSE curriculum was intended to eliminate differences between the States in the provision of civics education. From this point it was the prerogative of individual States to further develop the approach and devise a framework when implementing the SOSE strategy. The Hobart Declaration on Schooling included an agreement in terms of civics education: ‘to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes and values which will enable students to participate as active and informed citizens in our democratic society within an international context’ (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991).

The national statement for SOSE included the principles: democratic process, social justice and ecological sustainability. For example, Democratic process includes:

... values such as commitment to individual freedom and to the rights and responsibilities of participating in a democracy, respect for the law and for legitimate and just authority, respect for different choices, viewpoints and ways of living and commitment to ethical behaviour and to equitable participation in decision making (Senate Select Committee on Employment, Education and Training 1991: 54).

Many of the courses that have been developed across the country are easily accessible through the use of the internet. Many of these courses are innovative and have a significant emphasis on indigenous history and indigenous rights in contemporary Australia. For example, Kalkadoon State High School developed a Year 8 unit ‘Laws and Rights’ as part of the Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) program that deals with Aboriginal law and draws upon community resources such as local elders.

The content of the SOSE curriculum area has been subject to debate and controversy among educators in various States, in particular Queensland, over varying issues related to critical thinking and analysis skills and whether SOSE was merely a guise for the advocacy of specific social and political agendas. For example, journalist Andrew Bolt argued that the Queensland Education department was indoctrinating school students with left wing bias. In lamenting the lack of emphasis of the syllabus upon the ‘greats’ (Bolt 2000), meaning ‘Captain Cook, Curtin, Menzies and Mining’ (Bolt 2000), he provided the following list as evidence of such left wing bias:

Pat O’Shane, Mandaway Yunupingu, Landcare, Greenpeace, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, trade unions, Caroline Chisholm, Matthew Flinders, Victor Chang, Eddie Mabo, the civil rights movement, Arthur Calwell, Emily Pankhurst, Nelson Mandela, Henry Parkes, Enid Lyons, Philippines people power, rural communities, women in the forces, Aboriginal stockmen and women, Michelangelo, King John, the Snowy scheme, Italian sugar cane farmers, Waterwatch, Tidy Towns, Keep Australia Beautiful, John Flynn and Fred Hollows (Bolt 2000).

Bolt’s commentary in Queensland’s Courier-Mail was accompanied that same day by another article critique on page three titled ‘School syllabus swings to the left’ and an editorial calling for Queensland SOSE to be abandoned (Thomas 2000). The criticism of SOSE was widely rejected and condemned by the Queensland School Curriculum Council (Queensland Schools Curriculum Council 2000; Schultz 2003; Toussaint 2003) and led to an adjudication of a complaint by the Australian Press Council (Australian Press Council 2001).

International Evaluation Association: Civic Education Study

The most recent survey statistics are from the cross-national Civic Education Study, conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. This study analysed education programs in 28 democratic nations and examined the impact on young people (Torney-Purta et al 2001). The report was titled ‘Citizenship and Education in 28 countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen’ (<www.acer.edu.au/research/projects/ ieacivics.html>). The survey was taken in 1999 of 4000 Year 9 students in 150 schools, and Australia came 11th out of 28 countries surveyed. Students were tested under three broad domains: Democracy/Citizenship, National Identity/International Relations and Social Cohesion/Diversity (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 2). Moreover testing then included examination of a ‘variety of cognitive, conceptual and attitudinal strands’ that were conducted under five key areas: Knowledge of Content, Skills in Interpretation, Understanding of Concepts, Attitudes and Expected Actions (Torney-Purta et al 2001).

In terms of the nexus between civics education and continued failed advocacy for public law reform, the results revealed interesting attitudinal data in terms of Australian democracy:

Only half of the Australian students have a grasp of the essential pre-conditions for a properly working democracy. It seems that Australian students are not strong in their understandings of what constitutes their civil rights. The Civics Knowledge items with which Australian students had the most difficulty were those which deal with forms and purposes of Democracy (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4).

The scores of Australian students in relation to ‘Civic Engagement’ were significantly below the international mean (Torney-Purta et al 2001). Australia also ranked poorly when it came to democratic participation beyond voting such as protests, joining political parties or joining in a non-violent protest march. The Australian Executive Summary states that ‘it appears Australian students do not endorse action by citizens’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4). Only four of the 28 countries registered below international means on the Civic Engagement scales. Therefore it is not surprising that the Australian mean in relation to Expected Participation in Political Activities was below the international mean:

Eighty-nine per cent do not expect to join a political party, 76 per cent do not expect to write letters to newspapers about social or political concerns, and 87 per cent do not expect to be a candidate for a local or city office. Only 40 per cent said they would be prepared to join a non-violent protest march (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 5).

The report also revealed insights into perceptions of democracy such as: ‘a good citizen votes and shows respect for government representatives’, yet they felt that ‘knowing the country’s history and following political issues in the press, and, especially, engaging in political discussion as relatively unimportant’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 5). This finding is particularly important for a Bill of Rights campaign given the wealth of attempts since Federation (from Andrew Inglis Clark through failed referendum attempts, lapsed parliamentary Bills and numerous Bill of Rights inquiries) to provide greater protection of human rights in Australia. Students also found it hard to grasp the ‘impact of economic issues in the functioning of a democratic system’, such as the role of trade unions, a market economy and ‘the issues associated with multinationals and globalisation’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4).

It is also interesting to note that in terms of support for women’s political rights, Australian students were among the strongest of all countries regarding equal pay and equal rights with 90 per cent agreeing that this is important (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 6). These statistics are encouraging when considered in the light of the observations made in this paper in relation to the exclusionary nature of Australian democracy, especially as pertaining to the rights of women and the public/private dichotomy. Other interesting results were that Australian students ‘do have a strong sense of natural justice and equity’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 4) and ‘four in five students are very sure they do not want to live anywhere else’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 6). Two-thirds of students support the importance of promoting human rights (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 5). The Education Minister Dr Kemp said that the results revealed:

... the great need for ongoing civics education and that the results showed that there was still a great deal of work to be done so that greater numbers of school students have a sound understanding of civics and issues of citizenship (Kemp 2001).

It is important to note that 98 per cent of teachers felt that teaching civics education makes a difference for students’ political and civic development and it ‘matters a great deal for our country’ (Torney-Purta et al 2001: 7). As Suzanne Mellor, one of the Australian report’s authors, has contended, there is an obvious commitment to Australian democracy by school students and a willingness to take part in the political process. However, ‘the problem was that they did not know how to or were not given the opportunity to do so’ (Mellor 2003).

Does civics education influence important national debate?

The civics deficit in Australia dictates the tenor of political and legal debates that are played out in the media and within the community. The republican debate is a clear and recent example. The slogans of ‘Vote No to Politicians Republic’ and ‘Don’t Know — Vote No’ exploited Australians’ lack of engagement and knowledge of the political process (Williams 2000b). As George Williams observed of the Republican model:

... the high level of disagreement obscured the fact that the proposed model remained impenetrable to many Australians. The central reason for this was that Australians have little understanding of how the current system of government works (Williams 2000b).

The statistics show that Australians have little understanding of how the current system of government works and that debate for law reform is often dominated by political rhetoric. This is consistent with the statistical evidence provided by the Civics Education Group report and ACER that civics deficit has contributed to failed advocacy of many major legal and political reforms in Australia to date.

It also points to the media as an important civics educator. If media debate is distorted, it will have a distorting effect on community opinion. The complexity of the Bill of Rights debate is no exception. The media clearly plays an integral role in how important issues are debated and conveyed to citizens.

The Civics Expert Group research highlighted the complexity of the relationship between civics and the media. It was found that ‘the community relies heavily on the media as its main source if information’ and ‘the extent of knowledge is largely determined by the depth and intensity of media coverage’ (Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training 1991: 134). The research shows that areas in civics are better understood where there is comprehensive coverage of an issue including tangible examples, such as an explanation of the mechanics of voting. Secondly, where the media makes an assumption about public knowledge, the community recognises the concepts put forward (such as ‘Cabinet’) but has little understanding of their actual meaning. Finally, it was found that the historical and theoretical elements of civics are not essentially considered to be newsworthy. They are therefore ignored and remain ‘a mystery’ to the community (Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training 1991: 134). This concern is highlighted in the following case study that examines the influential role of the media as a civic educator.

Case study: NSW Bill of Rights Inquiry 2001

When the NSW Bill of Rights inquiry report was handed down (NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2001) it was interesting to note how many radio and print reports claimed the Committee had rejected a US style Bill of Rights for Australia. Bob Carr was reported as saying ‘a US style Bill of Rights would give judges greater powers at the expense of NSW’s democratically elected government’ (Daily Telegraph Sydney 4 October 2001).

The continual connection of the term ‘Bill of Rights’ with the US Bill of Rights is detrimental. In the case of public liability, the connection with the US immediately gives rise to negative reactions and expectations of increased litigation as the US is popularly perceived as a litigious society. Such continued and unquestioned association with the US encourages dangerous and powerful divisions over content of an Australian Bill of Rights.

In addition to being detrimental to debate, the focus on the US Bill of Rights is also unwarranted. The report clearly shows that the Committee conducted a comparative analysis that included the UK Human Rights Act 1998, The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, South African Bill of Rights 1996, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 and the US Bill of Rights. The very purpose of the comparative analysis was to highlight the variety of mechanisms by which rights can be protected whether through an ordinary act of parliament or through constitutional entrenchment.

Perhaps most telling in terms of the media’s role as civics educator is that the real newsworthy item was ignored. This was contained in the Committee’s findings (Davis 2002). The Committee agreed with those who favoured a statutory Bill of Rights, stating that in NSW the common law does not provide sufficient protection for individual rights in the absence of legislative action (Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training 1991: 110). The Committee also found that there have been failures by NSW governments to address at times systemic problems relating to the human rights of individual or minority groups (Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training 1991: 110). Moreover, it found that NSW legislation is developed within bureaucracies without any measurement against human rights standards and passes without any discussion of such standards (Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training 1991: 115).

Despite these admissions the Committee concluded that the NSW Parliament remains the best protector of human rights and therefore a Bill of Rights was not in the public interest. The Legislative Assembly response to the inquiry was the Legislation Review Amendment Act 2002, which aimed to extend the role of the Regulation Review Committee to the Scrutiny of Bills. Section 8A Functions included considering any Bill introduced into Parliament and reporting to both Houses of Parliament whether any such Bill by express words or otherwise: trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties, or makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers, or makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions or inappropriately delegates legislative powers or insufficiently subjects the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. Yet these are significant admissions in terms of human rights and the protection of those people who fall outside the consideration of the majority or ‘mainstream’ community. It is telling that few of these important points were raised by the print media and radio reports (Age 3 October 2001; Morris 2001; Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1999; ABC Radio National 8 January 2001; Carr 2001).

Conclusion

Successive Federal and State Governments have made some very measured and committed efforts to address the ‘civics deficit’ in Australia. Indeed one should be proud of the innovative and co-operative manner in which State and the Federal Governments since Keating have co-ordinated their approach in dealing with this very real threat to our evolving democracy. This paper has reiterated the importance of teaching human rights as an integral aspect of an Australian civics education. Civics must encompass not only the fundamentals of our legal and political system but also reach beyond to investigate our identity as a community. This is done through examining Australia’s place in the world and our relationship with multilateral institutions and agreements. It is also done through telling Australian stories of inclusion and exclusion. Improving civics knowledge will result in Australians participating in democratic process and debate in a more informed and enlightened way. Further, civics education facilitates community ownership of our political and legal structures. Effective, human rights based civics education is as essential step forward in engaging the community in debate over new ways to re-imagine our democracy, which includes addressing issues such as a Republic, a Bill of Rights and reconciliation.

* Megan Davis BA LLB (Qld) GDLP (ANU) is Director of Bill of Rights Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law UNSW and Principal Researcher, International Trade Law and Indigenous Peoples project, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, UTS. Thank you to Professor George Williams for his excellent feedback, and Tracey Stevens for her helpful editing.

1 For example, the WTO General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) will have far reaching implications for Australian society.

References

The Australian Council for Education Research (2001) Australian Civic Report (in full) [Online] Available: <www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/iea/ AustCivicReport.pdf>

The Australian Council for Educational Research (2001) Australian Executive Summary [Online] Available: <www.acer.edu.au/mediacentre/latest/documents/ExecSum.pdf>

Australian Education Council The Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling AEC, Melbourne 2002

Australian Press Council Adjudication 1115, March 2001

Barns G ‘What comes now for the broken-hearted?’ Australian 6 November 2000 [Online] Available: <www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/spa_ barns2.htm>

Bolt A ‘Class revolution’ Courier-Mail 10 June 2000

Brearley D ‘Perspectives abound amid popular apathy’ Australian 30 December 2000 [Online] Available: <www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page>

‘Calls for Australian Bill of Rights rejected’ ABC Radio National AM program 8 January 2001

Carr B ‘How a Bill of Rights lays a trap’ Canberra Times 20 August 2001 p 9

Chappell L ‘The Australian Bill of Rights debate: putting the cart before the horse?’ The Drawing Board [Online] 2002 Available: <www.econ.usyd.edu.au/ drawingboard/digest/0208/chappell.html>

Charlesworth H Writing in Rights UNSW Press, Sydney 2002

Charlesworth H, Chinkin C and Wright S ‘Feminist approaches to international law’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law at 613

Chittenden A Democratically Driven Global Citizenship Connections University of Sydney Education Faculty [Online] Available: <www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/ projects/conect97/papers.connect/Chitte.A.pdf>

Civics Education Group Whereas the People ... Civics and Citizenship Education — Report of the Civics Expert Group Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra 2002

Cook M ‘Breathing new life into civics’ Age 27 March 2002

Davis M ‘New South Wales Bill of Rights inquiry’ 13 Public Law Review 11

DiMatteo L A, Dosanjh K, Frantz P L, Bowal P and Stoltenberg C ‘The Doha Declaration and beyond: Giving voice to non-trade concerns’ (2003) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 146

Discovering Democracy curriculum website [Online] Available: <www.curriculum. edu.au/democracy>

Dodson L and Gordon M ‘Australia to join controversial criminal court’ Age 20 June 2002

Finch (1999) ‘Discovering democracy: the last Leviathans?’ (1999) 19 Curriculum Perspectives 63

Forlin P and Forlin C ‘Constitutional and legislative framework for inclusive education in Australia’ (1998) 42 Australian Journal of Education August 204

Gelber K ‘Human rights treaties in Australia — empty words?’ (2001) The Drawing Board: an Australian Review of Public Affairs [Online] Available: <www.econ.usyd. edu.au/drawingboard/index.html>

Grattan M and Banham C ‘Coalition puts world criminal court in dock’ Sydney Morning Herald 18 June 2002

Graycar R and Morgan J The Hidden Gender of Law (2nd ed) Federation Press, Annandale 2002

Grossman D ‘And the winner is ... apathy’ BBC News 9 November 1999

Hogan D and Fearnley-Sander M ‘An education for heteronomy: A critique of the Discovering Democracy project’ (1999) 19 Curriculum Perspectives at 57

Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Who’s Afraid of the WTO? Australia and the World Trade Organisation 2001

Kemp D $13.4m Boost to Continue Civics and Citizenship Education in Australian Schools Ministerial Statement 9 May 2000

Kemp D Discovering Democracy Ministerial Statement May 1997

Kemp D Media Report shows Need for more Civics Education for School Students Release K58 20 March 2001

Kennedy K J (2002) Civics Education in Post World War II Australia: The School Curriculum as Conservative Policy Text [Online] Available: <www.canberra.edu.au/ civics/papers/postwar2.html>

Kennedy K J ‘Preparing teachers for the new civics education’ (1998) 1(2) Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development

Kennedy K J and Howard C Civics Education and the Keating Policy Agenda: Is there a Link? 2002 [Online] Available: <www.canberra.edu.au/civics/papers/ keating_policy.html>

Kennedy K J and Mellor S Reviving Civics Education for a New Agenda in Australia: the Contribution of the IEA Study 2001[Online] Available: <www.canberra.edu.au/civics/ papers/reviving_civics.html>

Krinks K Creating the Active Citizen? Recent Developments in Civics Education Research Paper 15, Department of Parliamentary Library [Online] 1998-99 Available: <www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp15.htm>

Ling P Setting the Pace: Government Intervention in Civics Education in Australia The Stockholm Institute of Education [Online] 2002 Available: <www.lhs.se/atee/ papers/RDC_20.doc>

Morris R ‘Two-year inquiry rejects rights bill’ Daily Telegraph 3 October 2001

Noonan G ‘Our youth lead world in apathy’ Sydney Morning Herald 6 March 2002

Nelson B About Discovering Democracy Ministerial Statement2002 [Online] Available: <www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy>

‘NSW decides against Bill of Rights’ Age 3 October 2001

The NSW Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2001) ‘A NSW Bill of Rights’ Report 17

Otto D ‘Challenging the “new world order”: international law, global democracy and the possibilities for women’ (1993) 3 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems

Queensland Schools Curriculum Council (2000) Response to Items previously raised about the Years 1 to 10 Studies of Society and the Environment Syllabus [Online] Available: <www.qsu.asn.au/yrs1_10/kla/sose/faq/verifiable_facts_Jun00.doc>

Reid A ‘Selling civics: the curriculum development process in a national project’ (1996) 14(1) The Social Education

Republic Advisory Committee Report 2003

Saunders C ‘Updating our democracy’ Sydney Morning Herald 19 January 2001

Schultz J Manufacturing an Urban Myth Queensland Teachers Union [Online] 2000 Available: <www.qtu.asn.au/u/web/html/publish/news/journal/sose.htm>

Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Education for Active Citizenship Education in Australian Schools and Youth Organisations AGPS, Canberra 1989

Senate Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training Active Citizenship Revisited AGPS, Canberra 1991

‘Carr kills off any hopes for Bill of Rights’ Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1999

Thomas M ‘School syllabus swings to the left’ Courier-Mail 10 June 2000

Torney-Purta J, Lehmann R, Oswald H and Schulz W ‘The international association for the evaluation of education achievement citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen’ International Executive Summary [Online] 2001 Available: <www.acer.edu.au/mediacentre/ latest/documents/ExecSum.pdf>

Toussaint J (2000) An Attack on Australian Traditions? Queensland Teachers Union [Online] 2000 Available: <www.qtu.asn.au/u/web/html/publish/news/journal/ sose2.htm>

Turnbull M The Republican Advisory Committee Report Review [Online] 2001 Available: <www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/history/history_rac_review.htm>

‘Two year inquiry rejects rights bill’ Daily Telegraph 4 October 2001

Williams G A Bill of Rights for Australia UNSW Press, Sydney 2000

Williams G ‘Why Australia kept the Queen’ (2000) 63 Saskatchewan Law Review

Williams, G (2000c) ‘Race and the Australian Constitution: from Federation to Reconciliation’ 38 Osgood Hall Law Journal at 643–665

Zinn C ‘Confusion rules Australia as monarchy faces destiny’ Guardian 31 October 1999


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/2003/10.html