Perth Today 🇦🇺 ™

Our Children Are Not the State’s Property. And Neither the United Nations nor Davos Has a Parental Mandate. ianbrighthope.substack.com/p… Our Children Are Not the State’s Property Parents deserve transparency, children deserve protection, and education departments must answer for their decisions Australian parents should never have to fight an education bureaucracy to discover what their children are being taught about sex. They should never be patronised for asking to see a lesson, dismissed for questioning its suitability, or treated as an inconvenience in decisions affecting their child’s emotional development. Sending a child to school is an act of trust. It is not the surrender of parental responsibility. My position is straightforward: children deserve accurate, developmentally appropriate education, and parents deserve meaningful involvement in how that education is delivered. Neither principle excuses secrecy, institutional arrogance or unsuitable material. Consider Victoria’s published policy. Schools do not have to obtain parental permission to include sexuality or consent education. Parents may nevertheless withdraw their child from the sexual health component. The same policy promotes parental engagement but says consultation with the school council about the sexuality education curriculum is not required. These are Victorian provisions. That combination deserves serious scrutiny. How meaningful is a withdrawal option if a parent has not been clearly informed about the material, the timing or the process? How meaningful is consultation if families encounter a finished programme and are expected merely to accept it? An education department cannot manufacture trust by announcing that its decisions are trustworthy. It must earn trust through openness. I want parents to be able to inspect the actual teaching resources: the slides, worksheets, videos, recommended websites and materials supplied by outside presenters. A reassuring programme title is insufficient. A broad promise of appropriateness cannot substitute for showing families what those words mean in practice. Parents should not need a confrontation with a principal to obtain this information. The Australian Curriculum itself says schools should work with parents, carers and their communities when implementing respectful relationships education. It also calls for evidence-informed, age-appropriate teaching. Those commitments should be visible in ordinary school practice. There is a legitimate place for teaching children about bodily privacy, personal boundaries, puberty, respectful relationships and recognising abuse. Children need language that allows them to report something frightening or wrong. Older students need accurate information appropriate to their development. But the educational purpose of a lesson must be clear. Invoking “safety” does not automatically justify every resource, every classroom exercise or every degree of sexual detail. Where material is unnecessarily explicit, developmentally unsuitable or disconnected from a defensible learning purpose, parents are entitled to challenge it. Where an outside provider introduces such material, the school remains accountable for what it has authorised. “An expert approved it” is the beginning of an explanation. It is not the end. I would expect a school to explain why a resource is suitable for that age group, how teachers will manage distress, and how children can raise concerns privately. No child should be pressured into revealing intimate experiences in front of classmates. No student should be humiliated for declining to discuss personal matters publicly. And no family should be presumed ignorant or prejudiced merely because it asks difficult questions. The recent controversy concerning Stop It Now! Australia raises a separate, serious question about the scrutiny of publicly supported safeguarding material. According to reporting in The Australian, the service links to British self-help resources whose treatment of sexual fantasies involving children has attracted criticism, including concern about language of self-acceptance and a comparison with historical attempts to change homosexual attraction. The department has defended the service as part of abuse prevention. Precision matters here. Stop It Now! is an abuse-prevention service for adults concerned about their own or another person’s thoughts or behaviour. Its existence is not evidence that the disputed resources form part of school lessons. It would be wrong to accuse teachers of presenting those modules to children without evidence. Nevertheless, the public is entitled to examine the language and safeguards of a publicly supported service. Its Australian material explicitly challenges excuses that minimise abuse and promotes accountability and prevention. That context must be acknowledged. Any review should examine the full resources and their likely effects, rather than judge an entire intervention from an isolated phrase. My standard is uncompromising: intervention must protect children. Helping someone seek professional assistance before they offend can serve that purpose. Reducing the shame that prevents help-seeking is not inherently permission to abuse. But prevention language must never become so ambiguous that it appears to excuse the deliberate cultivation of harmful fantasies or minimise responsibility for behaviour. The distinction must be unmistakable. Any comparison involving homosexuality must also preserve the fundamental difference between consensual adult relationships and the sexual abuse of children. Gay people must not be smeared by association, and the vulnerability of children must not be obscured by a discussion about attraction. An independent safeguarding review should examine the disputed material, the evidence supporting its approach, the risks of misunderstanding and the standards governing referrals to external websites. Its findings should be public. Government endorsement is no exemption from scrutiny. That principle applies equally to education departments, school leaders and contractors delivering classroom programmes. Their intentions may be good. Their materials must still withstand examination. I reject the suggestion that respect for teachers requires unquestioning acceptance of every departmental decision. Many teachers exercise considerable care in difficult circumstances. They also deserve clear boundaries, suitable resources and proper support. Responsibility must reach those who design, approve and commission programmes, rather than fall automatically on the classroom teacher. But professional status carries obligations. Where a teacher or presenter crosses an established boundary, a complaint deserves a fair investigation. Where a resource is unsuitable, it should be corrected or removed. Where a department has failed to inform parents properly, it should acknowledge that failure. Defensiveness protects reputations. Accountability protects children. I want advance notice of sensitive teaching, straightforward access to resources, clear explanations of applicable withdrawal arrangements and a complaints process that does not disappear into the institution being challenged. External providers should face the same scrutiny as school staff. These are proposals for accountable education. They should not be controversial. Parental involvement must also coexist with independent protection for children who are unsafe at home. A child must be able to disclose abuse and obtain help. No adult’s authority- parental, professional or governmental - should shield abuse from investigation. The governing principle is the child’s welfare. That principle demands more than slogans about inclusion, wellbeing or partnership. It demands that authorities listen when families raise specific concerns, explain their decisions and correct mistakes. Children are people with dignity, privacy and developing understanding. They are not an audience upon whom adults may impose whatever material they consider fashionable or necessary without a rigorous account of its purpose. Parents are partners with enduring responsibilities. They are not administrative obstacles. Education departments exercise public power. They are not entitled to public deference. Show families what is being taught. Explain why it belongs at that developmental stage. Publish the safeguards. Investigate credible complaints. Accept correction when the evidence requires it. Australian parents should not have to beg for that standard. And Australian children deserve nothing less. Neither the United Nations nor Davos Has a Parental Mandate My concerns extend beyond Australian education departments. I strongly oppose the United Nations and the World Economic Forum acquiring an authoritative role in determining what Australian children should believe, value or become. Neither an international declaration nor a corporate forum provides a parental mandate. Australian authorities must remain answerable to Australian communities for the educational policies they adopt. They cannot evade that responsibility by pointing to an international framework and presenting its implementation as inevitable. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 4 includes worthwhile ambitions for access to education. But target 4.7 extends into education for sustainable lifestyles, global citizenship, human rights and gender equality. Its associated indicator measures how global citizenship and sustainability education are incorporated into national policies, curricula, teacher education and student assessment. This is an explicit ambition to influence educational systems and their content. That ambition deserves scrutiny, however attractive its language. Who determines the interpretation of these concepts? Who chooses the teaching materials? How are competing perspectives represented? Can a student challenge the assumptions behind a programme without being treated as morally deficient? Can parents object without being dismissed as obstacles to progress? A worthy objective does not give its promoters unlimited authority over the means used to pursue it. I have spent decades advocating healthier people, healthier soils and a healthier environment. I do not need an international bureaucracy to explain that clean water, sound nutrition, ecological responsibility and access to education matter. These commitments can be pursued through scientific inquiry, practical action and democratic accountability. My objection concerns the authority claimed for international agendas and the deference they can receive from domestic institutions. I oppose treating alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as sufficient proof that a school programme is appropriate. Every proposal must justify its content, developmental suitability and educational value. An international endorsement cannot perform that work on its behalf. The World Economic Forum’s educational ambitions deserve equally rigorous examination. Its Education 4.0 initiative has promoted changes to schooling associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including collaboration between public and private actors. In its 2020 announcement, the Forum described ambitions to reach 100 million children and teachers and scale educational practices through policy. I find the prospect of corporate priorities gaining greater influence over childhood education deeply troubling. Businesses can contribute expertise. That does not entitle them to define the purposes of education. Their commercial interests must remain open to scrutiny, particularly where proposed partnerships involve technology, procurement, student information or dependence on proprietary systems. Children deserve an education that develops judgement, knowledge, imagination and independence. Preparing them for employment is one responsibility among many. Their intellectual development must never be subordinated to the workforce expectations of influential industries. The language of “transformation” should make us ask more questions, not fewer. What is being transformed? Who benefits? Who pays? Who can refuse? Who answers when the promised benefits fail to materialise? Let me also be precise: these frameworks do not, by themselves, establish that the UN or WEF directs Australian teachers to expose children to inappropriate sexual material. That allegation would require specific evidence. My opposition does not depend on making it. It rests on a clear democratic principle: international influence must never become a substitute for domestic accountability or meaningful parental participation. Where Australian authorities adopt internationally promoted approaches to sexuality, relationships, values or citizenship, they must identify the source, disclose the material and defend each decision publicly. Sensitive content requires particular care. No global objective overrides a child’s developmental needs, privacy or protection. I want Australian education authorities to reject any presumption that UN or WEF proposals deserve privileged status. Publish the partnerships, funding arrangements and potential conflicts of interest. Explain which recommendations have been adopted and why. Allow genuine challenge before decisions become entrenched. Our children should be equipped to question powerful institutions—including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and their own government. If an education programme celebrates critical thinking but discourages criticism of the institutions behind it, it has failed its own test. Neither the UN’s standing nor the WEF’s wealth confers authority over Australian childhood. I oppose their involvement in setting our educational direction, and I expect our governments to defend independent, publicly accountable decision-making with the seriousness our children deserve. My goal is for Australia to leave the UN, the WEF and theWHO. Ian Brighthope