Additional comments by Kate Chaney MP

1.1I thank the Committee for its work on this report.In my view, there are two central themes that could be better addressed in the majority report.These are addressed below.

Theme 1: Emphasizing evidence-based approaches

1.2While it is an excellent first step for the report to acknowledge the significance of applied programs and the problems with the relatively passive status quo approach, it is also important to acknowledge the gaps in our current knowledge.

1.3These gaps exist not only because we don’t have a great picture of how civics education is currently being delivered, as the report acknowledges, but also because there is much still to research and learn about what works.

1.4The report helpfully notes the focus of many submissions on ‘access to practical experience, and more practical learning in the classroom, so that students can better understand why they’re learning particular topics’.[1] This recognises the problems with the passive nature of the status quo, which is ‘presented in a way that does not engage students, nor sufficiently prepare them to cast an informed and formal vote;’[2] and ultimately recommends ‘more applied programs that integrate knowledge, student voice and motivation to create a more engaging and impactful learning experience’.

1.5Systematic literature reviews of the impact of civics education interventions emphasize two kinds of intervention with high potential:

1An ‘open classroom climate, which is defined as a classroom in which students are exposed to the enlivening discussion of political and social issues, are encouraged to share their own opinions and have their opinions respected by their teacher’[3] and

2Active, participatory approaches, which are learner-centred (e.g., which involve research topics selected by students themselves) (vs ‘acquisition-based approaches’).[4]

1.6However, the literature ultimately notes that ‘the renaissance of research into civic education is only just beginning…the existing data are too limited, and randomized studies are rare. Truly advancing our understanding of civic education will require a large-scale, multi-method, interdisciplinary effort.’[5]

1.7The recommendations in the majority report focus on increasing curriculum time, consistency and accountability and teacher training, and note that pilot programs to prepare Year 11 and 12 students to participate in electoral processes should be informed by ‘debate-based’ training for teachers to cover ‘contemporary issues.’[6] However, they fall short of sufficiently emphasizing that truly creating an impactful curriculum requires much further research and testing of what actually works and a continued commitment to adapting based on the best available research.

1.8The Committee should recommend the establishment of a university-based centre of civics and citizenship education scholarship at a leading Australian university,[7] which would support ACARA and relevant state authorities to develop recommendations based on the latest research and evidence.

1.9This evidence should be generated using robust research methods, including pilots of a range of techniques and models (ideally including randomized controlled trials).

Theme 2: Increased opportunities to participate in democracy

1.10There is a need for accompanying ‘supply-side interventions’ i.e., opportunities for citizens (especially young people) to participate and have a say in our democracy.

1.11At the highest level, options for addressing political disengagement can be classified into two buckets:

1‘Demand side’ responses, pointing to ‘changing deficiencies within the citizenry’;[8] (i.e., including formal civics education) and

2‘Supply side’ responses, pointing to ‘rectifying problems in the political goods on offer and the way they are marketed.’[9]

1.12Academic literature emphasizes that where voters feel their vote won’t have a significant impact, they have limited incentive to invest in informing themselves. While civics education can help build a vital foundation of interest, that interest has to be matched by opportunities to feel heard.

1.13Where voters feel their votes will not have a significant impact, they have limited incentive to invest in informing themselves.[10] For example, once citizens learn that their seat is safe and that therefore their lower house vote will not be decisive, there is little incentive for them to increase their knowledge of candidates or party platforms.[11]

1.14While these approaches per se were not explicitly invited by the terms of reference, they are arguably critical accompaniments to formal civics education; without these ‘supply side’ incentives, the value of civics education is significantly decreased.

1.15The Committee should recommend a ‘democratic action fund’ to fund local efforts to ‘provide opportunities for people to experience public and community decision-making in environments that explore and experiment with new democratic methods.’[12]

1.16Participatory initiatives that other submissions highlighted (e.g., the ‘Young Mayors Program’, noted by the Foundation for Young Australians, as well as well-recognised participatory innovations that are being explored around the globe (e.g., participatory budgeting and citizens’ juries) could fall within the scope of this fund.

1.17The Committee should recommend collaboration between researchers, local members and candidates of all political persuasions to pilot opportunities for young people to have a say on issues in their local electorate

Ms Kate Chaney MP

Independent Member for Curtin

Footnotes

[1]Majority report, p. 29.

[2]Majority report, p. 29.

[3]Campbell (2019), p. 6.

[4]Donbavand and Hoskins (2021), p. 7.

[5]Campbell (2019).

[6]Majority report, p. 42.

[7]See submission of Mr Keith Heggart, p. 2.

[8]Smith, R. et al (2015), p. 14.

[9]Ibid, p. 14.

[10]Ibid, p. 16.

[11]Ibid, p. 51.

[12]newDemocracy submission, p. 1.