Mr Gerard Hanlon:

I will answer the first few questions, if I may. In a sense, we have gone ahead of ourselves with some of the questions. By that, I mean that the substantive issue is that history may not even be taught at all. Students may not actually have the opportunity to experience history. I will read statement No. 8 again because it is the one that most obviously dovetails into history. It says the student: "values local, national and international heritage, understands the importance of the relationship between past and current events and the forces that drive change". Anyone who has studied history would presume that history will be used to fulfil or meet that statement of learning. However, the Department's own document says students may achieve this by looking at Chinese, classics, CSPE, geography, Jewish studies, religious education or science. I quote those subjects without prejudice. There is nothing wrong with those subjects but a school principal, who has 24 statements of learning that must be fulfilled in his or her school, might decide that Chinese will meet statement No. 8 and schedule a short course in Chinese. History may never be offered as a subject. In the context of Senator Healy Eames's remarks about the history teacher who enthused her, future students may never actually have such a teacher. That, for us, is the substantive issue.

On the Department's document, we are probably 98% in agreement with everything that the Department has included in its executive summary. A lot of it is aspirational, however, as some of the questioners have pointed out. I do not know how it will be fulfilled but we must go back to basics. History may not be offered to students. It does not have to be offered under these statements of learning because the Department, in its own document, has given other options to schools to fulfil these statements of learning.