The short answer

Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020: Hanson's Curriculum Bill Through Three Parliaments

The Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020, introduced by One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson on 10 February 2020, is a private senator's bill with one of the longest legislative histories of any currently active bill before the Parliament. It has now been before the Senate across three consecutive parliaments — the 46th (2020-2022), 47th (2022-2025), and 48th (2025-present) — having lapsed twice at the dissolution of Parliament and been restored twice to the Senate Notice Paper. The bill would amend two key pieces of Commonwealth education legislation. First, it would amend the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 to require the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to ensure that school education provides 'a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues'. Second, it would amend the Australian Education Act 2013 to make Commonwealth financial assistance to a state or territory conditional on that state or territory having laws in force that, in the bill's framing, prevent the indoctrination of children in schools. The bill has had two second reading debates — on 31 August 2020 and on 23 November 2022 — but has never been put to a vote. At the time of writing in July 2026, it sits once again on the Senate Notice Paper, restored on 23 July 2025 after the 2025 federal election.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the Bill Proposes — Two Amendment Streams

The Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children Bill proposes amendments to two separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation, operating through distinct mechanisms to influence curriculum content and state education laws.

The first amendment stream targets the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008, which established ACARA — the independent statutory authority responsible for developing the Australian Curriculum, administering the National Assessment Program (including NAPLAN), and reporting on school performance. The bill would add a new requirement to ACARA's functions, mandating that the Authority ensure that 'school education provides a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues'. This provision does not specify which issues require 'balanced' treatment, who determines what constitutes 'opposing views', or how compliance is to be assessed. These definitional questions are central to the bill's operation and have been the subject of debate during second reading speeches.

The second amendment stream amends the Australian Education Act 2013, the primary Commonwealth legislation governing school funding. The Act provides approximately $30 billion per year in Commonwealth funding to government and non-government schools through agreements with the states and territories. The bill would make this financial assistance conditional on a state or territory having 'certain laws in force' — laws that, in the bill's terms, prevent the indoctrination of children in schools. The bill does not, in its public summary, specify precisely what those laws must contain, leaving significant discretion to the states and territories or, alternatively, creating uncertainty about the Commonwealth's expectations. If a state or territory did not have such laws, the Commonwealth Minister could withhold or reduce funding — a powerful lever, given the dependence of state school systems on Commonwealth contributions.

Evidence review

Legislative History — Six Years Across Three Parliaments

Few private senators' bills have travelled as far through the parliamentary process without resolution. The bill's six-year journey across three parliaments illustrates both the persistence of its sponsor and the difficulty of securing parliamentary support for contentious curriculum legislation.

The bill was first introduced on 10 February 2020 in the 46th Parliament. The second reading was moved the same day. A second reading debate was held on 31 August 2020 — a significant milestone, as the vast majority of private senators' bills never reach the debate stage. However, the debate did not conclude, and the bill lapsed when the 46th Parliament was dissolved on 25 July 2022 for the 2022 federal election.

The bill was restored to the Senate Notice Paper on 3 August 2022, shortly after the 47th Parliament commenced. A second reading was moved again on 23 November 2022, and a further second reading debate was held the same day. Once again, the debate was not concluded and no vote was taken. The bill then lapsed a second time when the 47th Parliament was dissolved on 21 July 2025 for the 2025 federal election. It was restored again to the Notice Paper on 23 July 2025 in the 48th Parliament — its third parliamentary incarnation.

As of July 2026, the bill has been restored to the Notice Paper but no further second reading debate has occurred in the 48th Parliament. It can be called on for debate at any time by a senator, but there is no fixed timetable. The bill is unusual in having survived two parliamentary dissolutions while retaining a place on the Notice Paper — a reflection of Senate procedures that allow restoration of private senators' bills across parliaments.

Evidence review

The Constitutional and Federal Context — Commonwealth Power Over Curriculum

The bill engages complex questions of federalism and constitutional power. Education in Australia is constitutionally a residual power of the states — the Commonwealth has no specific head of power over school education. The Commonwealth's role in school funding and curriculum developed through the use of the section 96 grants power, under which the Commonwealth can make grants to the states 'on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit'.

The bill's use of the grants power — making school funding conditional on states having certain laws — is constitutionally permissible in principle. The High Court has upheld conditions attached to section 96 grants in a wide range of circumstances, including in education. However, the conditions must be within the Commonwealth's legislative competence and must not amount to 'coercion' of the states in a way that undermines their constitutional functions — a principle the High Court has articulated in cases such as Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) and (No 2).

The bill's curriculum provisions — directing ACARA to ensure 'balanced presentation of opposing views' — raise more complex constitutional questions. ACARA was established by Commonwealth legislation with the agreement of the states through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Australian Curriculum is developed collaboratively between the Commonwealth and the states, and the states retain authority over curriculum implementation in their schools. A Commonwealth direction to ACARA to deliver a particular kind of curriculum content could create tensions with state curriculum authorities and with the cooperative federalism model under which ACARA operates. However, as the bill merely imposes a general requirement rather than prescribing specific content, the federalism tension may be manageable in practice.

Evidence review

What Does 'Balanced Presentation of Opposing Views' Mean?

The phrase 'balanced presentation of opposing views' is at the conceptual heart of the bill, but it is not defined in the official summary or, based on available public materials, with precision in the bill itself. This lack of definition is significant because it determines how the requirement would be interpreted by ACARA, state curriculum authorities, teachers, and potentially the courts.

The concept of 'balance' in education is contested. In the context of political issues, 'balanced presentation' could mean presenting the platforms of different political parties, or the arguments for and against specific policies, or including perspectives from across the ideological spectrum. In historical education, 'balance' could mean presenting multiple interpretations of contested events — for example, differing historical perspectives on colonisation, frontier conflict, or Australia's involvement in wars. In science education, 'opposing views' could mean presenting climate change denial alongside climate science, or creationism alongside evolution — controversies that have arisen in comparable legislative debates in the United States.

The bill's second reading debates in 2020 and 2022 are the best source of Senator Hanson's intentions. Based on One Nation's public policy platform, the bill is understood to be directed at concerns about 'political correctness' in schools, the teaching of Australian history (particularly regarding colonisation and Indigenous-settler relations), and what the sponsor characterises as 'left-wing bias' in educational materials. Opponents of the bill have argued that mandating 'balance' could undermine expert-led curriculum development, force teachers to present discredited or fringe views, and create confusion about the distinction between evidence-based knowledge and opinion.

Evidence review

Implications for Schools, Teachers and Students

If enacted, the bill would affect multiple layers of the Australian school system. At the national level, ACARA would need to review the Australian Curriculum against the 'balanced presentation' requirement and potentially revise curriculum content, achievement standards, and accompanying resources. This would be a substantial undertaking — the Australian Curriculum covers eight learning areas from Foundation to Year 10 and senior secondary subjects across multiple disciplines.

At the state and territory level, governments would need to enact laws that meet the Commonwealth's condition for continued funding. The nature of these laws is not specified in the bill's summary, but they would presumably need to address the 'indoctrination' concern — potentially through provisions about curriculum balance, teacher conduct, parental rights, or complaint mechanisms. States that did not pass compliant laws would risk losing Commonwealth school funding, creating significant political and financial pressure to comply.

For teachers, the bill could create professional and ethical dilemmas. Teachers are already required to present balanced and accurate information under professional standards and state education policies. A legislative requirement to present 'opposing views' could be interpreted as requiring teachers to give equal classroom time to perspectives that lack academic credibility or that contradict established knowledge. This could affect teaching in areas where scientific consensus is strong (climate science, evolution, vaccination) and where historical scholarship involves nuanced interpretation rather than simple 'opposing views' (Australian frontier history, the Stolen Generations, the causes of world wars).

For students, the impact would depend on how the requirement is implemented. Proponents argue that exposure to diverse perspectives enhances critical thinking. Opponents argue that mandated 'balance' could confuse students about the nature of evidence and expertise, particularly younger students who may not have the analytical skills to evaluate competing claims.

Evidence review

Evidence Gaps and Unanswered Questions

The bill's public summary leaves many key questions unanswered. The specific content of the 'balanced presentation' requirement — what issues it covers, how opposing views are identified, who resolves disputes — is not specified in available public materials. The full text of the bill (available on ParlInfo) would provide more detail, but based on the official summary, significant discretion appears to be left to ACARA, state governments, and ultimately the courts.

The bill's funding condition mechanism raises questions about constitutional validity and practical implementation. Would the Commonwealth Minister have discretion to determine whether a state law is adequate, or would the legislation set out objective criteria? Could a state challenge a funding decision in the High Court? What transitional arrangements would apply if a state's laws were found to be non-compliant? These questions would need to be addressed if the bill were to proceed to committee scrutiny and potential passage.

There are also important questions about the bill's intersection with other Commonwealth education policies and with the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (and its successor declarations), which provide the policy framework for Australian schooling. The existing framework emphasises equity, excellence, and the development of 'successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens' — goals that may sit uneasily with a legislatively mandated approach to curriculum balance.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer

What does the bill mean by 'indoctrination of children'?

The bill's title and summary use the term 'indoctrination' but do not define it in the publicly available materials. Based on One Nation's public statements and the second reading speeches, the term appears to refer to the teaching of what the sponsor considers to be one-sided political, ideological, or social perspectives, particularly regarding Australian history, gender and sexuality, and climate change. The bill proposes to address this perceived problem through curriculum balance requirements and funding conditions, rather than by defining and prohibiting specific teaching practices. The lack of a clear statutory definition is one of the significant challenges the bill would face in implementation if enacted.

How many times has this bill been debated?

The bill has been debated at second reading twice: first on 31 August 2020 during the 46th Parliament, and again on 23 November 2022 during the 47th Parliament. Both debates were in the Senate. Neither debate was concluded, and no vote has ever been taken on the bill. It has lapsed twice (at the 2022 and 2025 federal elections) and been restored to the Senate Notice Paper twice, most recently on 23 July 2025. As of July 2026, it is on the Notice Paper in the 48th Parliament awaiting further debate.

Can the Commonwealth tell states what to teach in schools?

The Commonwealth does not have direct constitutional power over school education — education is a state responsibility. However, the Commonwealth has significant indirect influence through its school funding power under section 96 of the Constitution, which allows it to attach conditions to grants to the states. The Australian Education Act 2013 already imposes various conditions on state funding, including requirements relating to the Australian Curriculum, NAPLAN testing, school reporting, and teacher standards. Hanson's bill would extend this model by making funding conditional on states having laws to prevent 'indoctrination'. Whether a specific condition is constitutionally valid depends on its terms, its connection to the grant, and whether it coerces the states — but the use of funding conditions to influence education policy is a well-established Commonwealth practice.

Does the Australian Curriculum already require balanced teaching?

The Australian Curriculum does not use the specific language of 'balanced presentation of opposing views', but its general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities include critical and creative thinking, ethical understanding, and intercultural understanding — all of which involve considering multiple perspectives. Individual learning areas, particularly history and civics and citizenship, explicitly require students to examine different interpretations and perspectives. However, the curriculum also reflects expert consensus on matters of established knowledge — it does not, for example, require that creationism be presented alongside evolution in science classes or that climate change denial be presented alongside climate science. Hanson's bill would go further than the current curriculum framework in mandating 'balanced presentation' across political, historical and scientific issues — a requirement that could change the character of curriculum content in contested areas.

Source spine

Primary material used for this guide

Review trigger: Further second reading debate in the 48th Parliament, committee referral, vote on second reading, amendments, or introduction of related government legislation on curriculum or school funding.

Archive note: Article reflects the bill's status as of 17 July 2026. This bill was introduced in February 2020 and has been restored twice after lapsing at the end of the 46th and 47th Parliaments. It now sits on the Senate Notice Paper in the 48th Parliament. Its long history makes it one of the most durable private senators' bills currently before the Parliament.

Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.