Transcript - Doorstop - 27 February 2010

SUBJECTS: National Curriculum; Peter Garrett

PYNE: The newspapers today appear to suggest that the National Curriculum of the Government is diluting a traditional teaching method, and also diluting the things that our young Australians would be learning and rushing to a lowest common denominator position. This concerns the Opposition, if what we've read today is to be believed today, the national curriculum in science will be teaching young Australians about Chinese herbal medicines, about natural therapies, about indigenous sciences and cultures, rather than traditional science as we understand it, physics, chemistry and the elements.

Now we don't want young Australians to miss out on understanding about different cultures, but we do need them to understand basic science before they leave school, and depending what they go on and do in later life. In terms of history what we're seeing is the curriculum leaving out vast tracks of what is important to Australia, things like our Judeo-Christian heritage, the importance of our British founding as a British colony, in terms of the Rule of Law and the Westminster Parliamentary Democracy, leaving out our commitment to liberty and freedom, and why we've been involved in so many wars in the last 100 or so years.

The history curriculum also seems to begin in about 1901 as if nothing happened in Australia before 1901 that was specific to our colonial past, now we in the Coalition are prepared to wait and see what the National Curriculum looks like on Monday. If, like the papers have reported today, days like Sorry Day have been raised to the same importance as ANZAC day, then we will have a thorough review of that curriculum when we get into Government, and if it doesn't measure up, we will scrap it and start again. We're not going to inflict on young Australians a black armband history of Australia that will affect our country going forward, we want young Australians to get the basics in english, in literacy and numeracy, in maths, in history, Australia's place in the world, and in science and not be infected with the view of Australian fringe groups have, rather than the mainstream.

JOURNALIST: I didn't get the periodic table until year 10...this is not the entirety that we've had a look at yet is it?

PYNE: As I've said it depends what the actual curriculum looks like in full on Monday. It's been leaked; I assume that the Government has leaked it thinking it will give them a boost, quite the opposite has happened. People have looked at it more carefully and recognised there are elements of it that ring alarm bells. Of course the person who has drafted the history curriculum is Professor Stuart Macintryre who is one of the chief exponents of the black armband view of Australian history, a former member of the Communist Party, and someone, who in many respects believes that Australia's history began in 1901. I'm concerned particularly about what I've read about the science curriculum. If Chinese herbal medicines, natural therapies, and indigenous science and culture are to be elevated to the same basis as physics, chemistry and the elemental tables, I think that is a concern.

JOURNALIST: Does this seem to be political correctness gone mad?

PYNE: Well if it's true that Sorry day is to be elevated to the same level as ANZAC Day then it does indicate that fringe groups have gotten hold of the national curriculum. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a national curriculum, it was a Howard Government proposal in the first place, but if the National Curriculum dumbs down our teaching in Australian schools, if the national curriculum is a race to the bottom rather than a celebration of what's best in Australia then I think that will be a real concern. ANZAC day is a national holiday it commemorates the hundreds of thousands Australians who have served, suffered and sacrificed in wars, and to say that it is the same as Sorry Day, indicates I think a gross misunderstanding of Australian history.

JOURNALIST: Just on Peter Garret... are you satisfied with the outcome for him personally? Could he have suffered more I guess?

PYNE: Well I don't think anyone would want Peter Garrett to suffer. I know Peter Garrett, I like Peter Garrett and I think most Australians do. I think the failure of Peter Garrett as a Minister doesn't reflect on the fact that we like Peter Garrett as an Australian. If he's not good enough to fix the problems that he has created in his portfolio, it is surprising that he has been left in the Cabinet with what seems to be a shell of a portfolio, which seems to have much less importance than many portfolios in the outer Ministry. He is pulling the same salary, he has the same 'say' as every other Cabinet Minister, and surely, what would be the correct thing to do with thousands of Australians losing their jobs across Australia would be for Peter Garrett to lose his job.

JOURNALIST: (Is his Ministry a half Ministry, or half department now?)

PYNE: Well unfortunately Peter Garrett is now presiding over a shell of a Ministry. The decent thing for him to do would be to resign and to recognise that he has lost his credibility. He has been discredited because of this home insulation scandal. Kevin Rudd is responsible as the Prime Minister for who serves in his Government. He has decided to continue to reward Peter Garrett with a position in the Cabinet, therefore Kevin Rudd bears the responsibility for that decision.

(ends)