ACT Education Minister Simon Corbell’s foray into the question of religion in schools displayed remarkable political and social naivety. Mr Corbell issued a draft Bill for discussion which would have prohibited religious instruction in school hours, though permitting it on school premises out of school hours. He may well be right in principle, but in bringing the question into the open he was bound to stir up so much passion and emotion that his aims would inevitably be defeated. At least he had the good sense to withdraw before he damaged himself, the Government and education in the ACT any further. But the alacrity with which he withdrew was proportional to the folly of the foray in the first place.
The principle that Mr Corbell was espousing had some merit. A distinction must be made between religious instruction and religious education. Religious instruction is where a minister of religion or other person with the mantle of a religious organisation instructs students in the dogma of that religion. Religious education, on the other hand, is teaching by members or of the ordinary teaching staff about the various religions and their role in society. The distinction is a fair one. Some parents might well take exception to their children being instructed in the dogma of any religion at all or being instructed in the dogma of a religion they did not agree with. They might quite reasonably think that it is difficult enough to keep up with the three Rs in the limited school hours without some of that precious teacher-student time being taken by religious instruction. Mr Corbell has a point when he says that public education should be secular.
However, one must question the judgment of Mr Corbell to make an issue of it. It appears that few parents or the churches mind one way or the other. There is no great enthusiasm for religious instruction, nor is there any great insistence that it be discontinued on the grounds that the time should be spent on other things. Only 28 of 69 primary schools offer religious instruction and those individual students whose parents do not want them to have it are excused from classes.
Once an issue was made of it, however, problems were created where there were none before. Bishop Pat Power argued that is it important to value and recognise Australia’s Christian heritage. That elicited a response from non-Christian religions seeking equal recognition. The upshot might have been exactly the opposite of Mr Corbell’s response — more, not less religious instruction in schools.
The other hornet’s nest unnecessarily stirred was the question of the authority and power of school boards. Mr Corbell would have imposed the ban from the centre, rather than let the question be decided school by school and individual by individual. He would have found that the boards — whatever their view about religion in schools – would have resisted his change in order to claim their suzerainty. And even with the reversal he has alerted them to the possibility of further centrist tendencies. Also, like the Roman Emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century, Mr Corbell found that from persecution weakening the Christians, it strengthened them through martyrdom. In the case of the ACT, many came forward to defend their position. Whereas if Mr Corbell had left well alone there would have been a gradual transition from religious instruction to religious and philosophical education.
As it is, those opposed to the replacement of instruction with education will now continue to press the issue. The place for religious instruction is the church. The place for religious and philosophical education is the school. But Mr Corbell went about it the wrong way.