Last night’s episode of Q&A might have been perfectly (and accidentally) timed with Malcolm Turnbull’s threat of a double dissolution, but that doesn’t mean important topics like the much-maligned Safe Schools program wouldn’t be discussed.
After all, Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews – one of Safe Schools’ most staunch defendants – was on the panel, as was feminist Clementine Ford, another strong and vocal supporter.
It was VIC student Carter Smith who brought the subject to the forefront:
SAFE SCHOOLSAs a Queer student with many gender and sexually diverse friends, I can say that despite what people are saying, nothing in the safe schools program is “radical theory.” Kids and students need to be taught that it is okay not to fit into the accepted norm early, yet these changes and attacks on the Safe schools program are trying to take that away. I’ve always been proud to see Mr Andrews standing up for the LGBTI community and I would like to know; will he continue this fight, even in the face of backlash and what will he do to ensure that students are kept safe and educated?What do you think?
Posted by Q&A on Monday, 21 March 2016
“I’m a queer student, and as thus have many queer friends, sexually and gender,” he said. “The notion that the Safe Schools program is ‘radical gender theory’ is absolutely ridiculous. And what Clementine said earlier about young queer people having a higher rate of suicide and mental health is absolutely true, trust me. I see it.“I’m very proud to see my premier standing up for the rights of LGBT people and standing up for the Safe Schools program, and I just want to know that he will continue to fight for that in the face of adversity and what he will do to ensure that people are educated on these issues and also the kids are kept safe.”
Andrews reaffirmed his vow to protect the Safe Schools program, which was to be expected. That’s not to lessen his response – it was a damn good one, and geez it would be nice if other premiers took point from him – but it’s Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg we want to get to, as it’s his government that’s messing around with this very vital program, anti-bullying program.
“I think the problem is politicians are using young, innocent, in-pain children as political bullets,” he said. “That is unacceptable. Kids are being hurt when they hear this entire debate about, ‘Oh, well, no we can’t really talk about that, it’s not really safe.
“It is still creating this idea that they are different, they are wrong, that they are not accepted. That is driving kids to hurt themselves, that is driving kids to kill themselves. I know no one wants that, so it’s ridiculous that this debate has to keep going on. I actually do believe that it should be mandatory in schools because most kids aren’t bigoted, no-one is born bigoted, they learn bigotry… it is detrimental to kids’ health, so why does this have to continue? Why does the government have to push back?”
This ignited a head-to-head between Andrews and Frydenberg, with the latter definitely coming off worse.
“Why would you tamper with something that is actually saving lives,” asked Andrews.
“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,” said Frydenberg.
“Having introduced it back in 2010, we are not rushing mate,” countered Andrews. “We have been on this for a long time because it works.”
“But what problems do you have with getting more parental engagement?” he said. “I actually think, Daniel, it was completely outrageous of you to go out and criticise…”
To which Andrew cut in with: “I created the outrage here?”
NO YOU BLOODY WELL DID NOT. The eye-rolling / applause was 100% justified. Booyah.
