Won’t somebody think of the children? Qld LNP votes no to consent education

Members of Queensland’s Liberal National Party have voted to put kids at risk.

Last week, at its annual state conference, a motion calling for the next LNP state government “to deliver holistic sexual consent education in schools” was unsuccessful.

“Why are we so determined to teach our kids about sex through schools?” one of the motion’s opponents reportedly asked. “No means no. A parent can have that conversation in 30 seconds.”

The answer to that question is easy: child safety and well-being. That’s the reason for teaching young people about respectful relationships, sex and consent. Comprehensive relationships and sexuality education (RSE) has been shown to delay first sexual experiences, reduce the likelihood of negative sexual experiences, help protect against child sexual abuse, and even improve academic performance. 

Put another way, a sex-silent education means earlier sexual experiences, increased likelihood of sexual harm and poorer academic results. A vote against comprehensive RSE is a vote to put kids at risk.

One would think that child safety and well-being, as well as sexual violence prevention, are no-brainers, a cause we can all get behind. Yet one of the most important tools in that toolbox is consistently cast as the villain, with comprehensive RSE treated as the very thing that will corrupt innocence, even though it has the opposite effect. 

The lie that such education encourages earlier sexual activity is popular, and it means RSE advocates are routinely required to defend a position that is based on evidence against a myth that is based on fearmongering. There is an epidemic of child sexual abuse and adult sexual violence in this country. It is a particularly wicked malfeasance to put young people at risk in the name of keeping them safe. 

Perhaps this LNP member’s complaint was more about the setting: in schools, rather than in the home. But the pitting of home v school is an unnecessary contest. Those who advocate for quality RSE are the first to promote the role of parents and caregivers in this education, the first to encourage a partnership between school and home. RSE in schools is simply how you reach most kids, including those whose families may be ill-equipped or less inclined or unable to discuss the stuff of sex-ed. 

And there are many families that recognise this — so many, in fact, that the political wisdom of this LNP policy position is questionable.

Recent research out of Curtin University shows a significant majority of Australian parents support RSE in schools, and want it to be improved. This support holds across political and religious lines: “The vast majority of parents who [identified as] supporters of the Australian Liberal/National Coalition (i.e. a political party that generally advocates for conservative policies) were also highly supportive of schools to deliver RSE.” 

RSE in schools also allows young people to learn alongside their peers, and to learn from subject-matter experts. On that point, apparently the opposing member was applauded when he pondered whether “holistic” sex education would mean showing diagrams to Year 2 students. One wonders what diagrams he was imagining — images depicting anatomy that we all have, and which we have no need to be ashamed of?

Nonetheless, this is straight out of the anti-RSE playbook: to make some vague and ill-founded generalisations about what content kids will be taught as part of comprehensive RSE to stoke anxiety. It’s a play you see the world over, and it often involves more lies; for example, that kids will be taught how to have anal sex and masturbate, when that’s not what comprehensive RSE does. Experts who design and deliver comprehensive RSE ensure it is age- and stage-appropriate, evidence-based, relevant and safe. 

Evidence-based RSE is more than a 30-second conversation though, and it is certainly more than “no means no” — the sex-ed equivalent of putting your kid behind the wheel of a car and only pointing out where the handbrake is.

“No means no” does not realistically reflect the way sexual encounters take place, nor how sexual violence occurs. It is a drop in the ocean of conventional, widely held expectations and attitudes about sex that make it difficult for many people to say no, and permit others to skirt around no, or even the possibility of it. 

Comprehensive RSE is effective because it goes beyond knowledge of, and compliance with, the laws of consent — which was apparently the aim of this motion’s architect. How troubling that even a modest goal such as this was thwarted in favour of a 30-second “conversation” and a three-word slogan. 

Here’s another: won’t somebody think of the children?

Is the LNP’s decision a throwback to the bad old days? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.