John Howard is seeking to re-write history – and not just by defying predictions at the polling booth. He’s trying to re-write our children’s history books.

I wrote in an academic journal last year that it was my high school history teachers who politicised me. They taught me to think independently and interrogate the themes of history - to analyse the causes and consequences of events, not just reiterate dates. These are the skills that form my journalistic scaffolding and the lessons that inform my moral compass, socially activating me.

I suspect the transformation my history teachers effected within me is precisely the sort of outcome the Howard government is seeking to prevent through its new national, compulsory history curriculum.

The controversial plan takes a good idea – increasing high school students’ exposure to Australian history – and prostitutes it for political purposes. The Howard agenda is about white-washing Australian history. This shouldn’t come as a shock to long term observers of his ‘cultural revolution’. In the late 90’s he railed against what he described as the ‘black-armband’ view of Australian history – this was a deliberately offensive way of critiquing contemporary perspectives on the history of Aboriginal Australia since European invasion (a term he detests…it was settlement or colonisation in his view despite the bloody battles, massacres and genocide).

He’s also criticised what he perceives as Leftist interpretations of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war in some history curricula along with representations of the dismissal of the Whitlam government – Australia’s most significant political crisis and one in which he played a part. Howard’s focus is on celebrating Australian achievements…particularly on the cricket pitch.

Monash University's National Centre for History Education was originally commissioned by the Federal Government to produce the curriculum and its output was approved by the Federal Education Minister but Howard was unhappy with its direction and instead, referred it to a panel of experts. Read for: hand-picked, right leaning experts like the conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey and former Howard staffer and columnist, Gerard Henderson.

Howard released the end result last week on Federal election eve, in a carefully managed publicity stunt which involved the student captains and principal of a western Sydney school being brought back early from school holidays to accommodate the PM’s need for a classroom photo opportunity. But the curriculum, the implementation of which will be tied to federal education funding, has been criticised by the academics responsible for the first draft, the state education ministers, and history teachers themselves.

The concern of the Monash academics is that the curriculum is now too cumbersome and will be difficult to implement. The state’s say it represents inappropriate federal intervention in school curricula – and NSW points out that it already has a compulsory history course for years 9 and 10 and doesn’t need another layer of lesson plans. The history teachers themselves say it’s a politicised curriculum, a point reiterated by ACT Education Minister, Andew Barr who told the ABC "What we are effectively being asked to adopt here is ... John Howard's version of Australian history.”

There’s certainly evidence of Howard’s hand on the curriculum – date driven, rather than theme-informed, it is overcrowded with so called milestones and characters but key events and people seem to be missing. Why, for example, is the rural entrepreneur RM Williams featured, but the living political legend, Gough Whitlam ignored? And, what do we make of this: according to the ‘Howard-ised’ curriculum Aboriginal history is taught from 60,000 years BC to 15,000 years BC; the ‘Early Encounters’ end with Captain Cook scouring the Australian coast in 1770 and the period from 1788 to 1840 is titled ‘British Settlement’. As a student of history, my analysis is this: Howard is whiting out the most tumultuous period in modern Australian history – the wars, massacres and genocide that characterised white-black relations from 1788.

This is a dangerous and dastardly act. I support the compulsory study of history in secondary school and I wish more journalism students would study it at university. As long as the content is engaging and well taught, history studies can produce well-informed citizens and journalists who can understand the present and potentially predict the future in the context of the past.

It is history which teaches us to avoid repeating the mistakes of our forbears. But jingoistic history has no place in our schools and a nation which is so far from repairing the damage inflicted on Aboriginal Australia has no business erasing the harrowing history the Indigenous people of this country have endured since white invasion.

How can we even hope to reach a state of true reconciliation without confronting our black history?    [read more]

Sick of the election already? OK, here’s some light relief from my subconscious to entertain you.

About a week ago I had a very weird dream.

There I was – resplendently dressed, of course – in a medieval crypt beneath the Danish Royal Palace preparing for some sort of royal soiree. Who knows what a staunch republican was even doing inside the Danish palace in an ‘official’ capacity but there you go…

Anyway, cut to the next scene and Princess Mary (of Fred and Mary fame) wanders into the opulently decorated crypt (music, laughter & the clinking of glasses stop suddenly) with the royal entourage and breaks free of the line to hug moi! Nope, don’t know her from a bar of soap (have you ever wondered what the derivation of that saying is?) but apparently, in my dreams, we’re very close.

So, we sit down at a table for two and then a friend of mine appears with a silver platter to wait at our table. Mary and I launch immediately into deep conversation and my friend, who’s recently been at the other end of my own emotional outpourings, smiles knowingly. It turns out that Mary is deeply unhappy in her marriage…she’s feeling trapped and stifled and doesn’t know what to do. Being the helpful, empathetic gal pal I am, I offered this advice: “Mary, you can’t start a blog to express your feelings because that would be way too public and risky. But why don’t you start a diary? You really need to download all this and give yourself a chance to escape – at least in your mind - while you work out what to do”.

Weird, huh? Weirder still is the fact that I read in this weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald (read more) that Mary is reportedly – wait for it – unhappy in her marriage which has come under strain as a result of pressures of Royal life and dealing with Fred’s dysfunctional family!! Apparently royal watchers fear she’s locked herself inside the palace and thrown away the key – literally and metaphorically.

I have the most curious, vivid dreams sometimes…if only I knew what they meant! And, apparently my subconscious now also has a direct line to the Danish palace… Hey, is that the phone? Maybe it’s one of those tabloid women’s mags looking for an anonymous quote from a ‘palace insider’.

Mary, if you’re reading this: you know what to do.    [read more]

It’s one to nil to Kevin Rudd in the opening hours of the Australian Federal election campaign.

Flanked by a banner plastered with the campaign phrase ‘New Leadership’, the Labor Opposition leader certainly looked like the fresh alternative to John Howard, presenting big picture ideas and forcefully attempting to outline the differences between himself and the Prime Minister.

His address to the Brisbane media this afternoon was composed and confident, appearing scripted in parts, but suited to the needs of campaign reporters…brevity, clarity, thumping key messages. He appeared to lose confidence – adjusting glasses, licking lips momentarily and shrinking slightly at the podium – when the journos began firing questions. But his composure grew as the press conference continued and the end result was impressive. He certainly looks like the young, inspired but safe alternative voters say they’re looking for. Particularly in contrast to Howard’s ‘yesterday’s man’ performance earlier today.

But was there real substance? In my assessment, yes. While there was scant specific detail – as expected given the nature of political campaign management – the themes were rich and clearly discernable. The old promise of an ‘Education Revolution’ was joined by commitments to withdraw Australia’s combat troops from Iraq, sign the (now outdated) Kyoto Agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, deliver high speed broadband to regional and remote Australia as well as the big cities (long overdue), prohibit nuclear reactors, repeal ‘Workchoices’, end the blame game between the states and the Commonwealth on hospital funding (easier said than done). That’s the stuff of potential campaign meat.

But it’s a long road ahead and, as Rudd acknowledged, Labor is going to have to make history to win this election – the party has only crossed the line twice from Opposition since World War 2. “This is going to be the fight of our lives…we have 16 seats to win and we’re up against a really clever politician…I believe this will go down to the wire,” he told reporters. He’s right - despite being consistently ahead in the polls, it’s going to take more than fresh ideas and ‘youthful’ appeal to pull off the win on polling day. History is likely to judge John Howard as the most cunning politician ever to live in the Lodge and he will be a tough act to beat, especially from the back-foot – he is the dogged “Lazarus with a triple by-pass” after all.

That’s why Rudd will need to engage with the negative campaign launched by Howard today. And, he’s off to a good start on that front, saying he’s prepared for the "mother of all fear campaigns" and putting defensive tactics in play. He’s hit back over the false claim that the Coalition Government is the one to trust on interest rates, pointing to the five interest-rate rises on Howard’s watch since the last election. And he’s answered Howard’s criticism of him as inexperienced, highlighting his career achievements in the public service, the diplomatic corps and his decade of service as a Labor MP. He's also re-iterated his claim to be economically conservative and fiscally responsible. But he'll have to point to his achievements in the shadow Foreign Affairs portfolio and his fluency in Mandarin, among other strengths, if he’s going to convince those prone to hesitating in the voting booths, that he can be trusted for the top job. But he’s off to a good start with this strategy: pre-empt the attacks, confront them head-on and return fire. That’s the only way to win the battle.

Meantime, this is the anti-Howard message you can expect Kevin Rudd to ram home “…he (Howard) has no plan for our future. Australia can’t afford another three years of a government gone stale without fresh ideas…I refuse to stand idly by and watch this happen” That and "Who's afraid of Peter Costello?"    [read more]

It’s on! Australians will go to the polls on November 24th. At stake – John Howard’s legacy; voters’ integrity and the country’s future.

As Howard fronted the Press Gallery in Canberra this morning – my old journalistic stomping ground – I watched his performance with interest on my screen. The rhetoric was more negative than expected…clearly he’s planning a campaign of opposition against Labor's Kevin Rudd – a dangerous and curious strategy for an incumbent.

Predictably, Australia's most conservative Prime Minister in a century, hammered the fact that 70% of Labor’s candidates are trade union affiliates – that’s supposed to scare us. But here’s a scarier statistic for him – the latest newspaper poll published in today’s Sun Herald show’s more than 70% of voters aged 18-25 intend to vote for Labor at the next election. They represent those who’ve paid the highest price in terms of loss of pay and conditions under Howard’s ‘Workchoices’ industrial revolution.

But more interesting than what he said, was his body language and general demeanour. From my notes as I watched: “eyes shifting in sockets from side to side” (a classic Howard indicator for unease and dishonesty); “licking lips” (nerves, indecision); “sounds bored…tired…flat”; “clears throat nervously”; “unenthusiastic…hesitant”. This was a man who looked and sounded old and out of ideas…lacking verve and inspiration…backed into a corner.

So, what did he actually say? Not a lot really – predictably. That said, you don’t expect candidates to outline their policies in any detail on day one…that’s the stuff of careful media management…slow-drip release of ideas.

But the main theme was “love me or loathe me”, I’m you’re man. He’s clearly rattled by the latest opinion polls which show his government is still trailing Labor by 18% on day one of the campaign, but he’s banking on his experience in the job and the longevity of key cabinet ministers, to win over the electorate for the fifth time. Spruiking on behalf of his Liberal-National ministers is key because he’s announced he’ll be leaving office before the next election if he gets over the line again, handing the reigns to the unpopular Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello.

Other themes included the infuriatingly misleading old message “you can trust us to keep interest rates lower”. What he fails to tell us of course is that when he was Treasurer in the early 80's, interest rates reached a whopping 21% - far higher than they’ve ever gone under Labor. Who can you trust? Other highlights (or lowlights?)from his address this morning included the goals of full employment (pipedream!), increasing national prosperity, good old fashioned family values. Same old same old.

There were the subtle dog-whistle messages too – “We’ll govern for all Australians, not narrow sections of the community” (i.e. on behalf of the masses, not the marginalised, down-trodden, poor, the social activists, the fair-minded). He also said: “I’m a believer in one Australia..we share a common loyalty and common citizenship”. Hmmm…I can see the campaign ads now: “Howard for One Australia”. Interesting…the doyen of Australian racist politics, Pauline Hanson (again running for the Senate this election) was of course the founder of the “One Nation” Party. Same-same?

Rudd’s about to front the podium – stay tuned for my assessment of his performance. Meantime, strap in for the long ride to polling day. I’ll try to help you pass the time.    [read more]