School sex education has the potential to evoke a range of personal and political reactions. While it is usually agreed that sexuality should be ‘done’ in school, few…
School sex education has the potential to evoke a range of personal and political reactions. While it is usually agreed that sexuality should be ‘done’ in school, few agree on the best way of ‘doing’ it. This article provides a personal account of the development of sex education at Shepparton South Technical School, Victoria, Australia from 1973‐1985. It is supported by interviews with the people involved in those events and archival materials, including media reports. It also documents the efforts of extreme right activists to discredit and stop programmes, and the State Liberal government’s attempt to formulate a policy on sex education. First I provide a general background to technical schools in Victoria in the 1970s followed by a discussion of Shepparton South Technical School specifically. I then discuss the development of the sex education (social biology) programme, the pivotal role of the Social Biology resource Centre, and the networks involved. I also describe the attacks on the programme in the late 1970s, and their origins and impact. I conclude with a discussion of the outcomes of this intense public scrutiny, and the demise of social biology and the secondary technical schools, the ‘techs’ in the 1980s.
The growing range of EEC Directives and Regulations for food products, some of which have never been subject to statutory control in this country, with compositional standards, and in particular, prescribed methods of analysis — something which has not featured in the food legislative policies here — must be causing enforcement authorities and food processors to think seriously, if as yet not furiously. Some of the prescribed methods of analysis are likely to be less adaptable to modern processing methods of foods and as Directives seem to be requiring more routine testing, there is the matter of cost. Directive requirements are to some extent negotiable — the EEC Commission allow for regional differences, e.g., in milk and bread — but it has to be remembered that EEC Regulations bind Member‐states from the date of notification by the Commission, over‐riding the national law. Although not so frequently used for food legislation, they constitute one of the losses of sovereign power, paraded by the anti‐market lobby. Regulations contain usual clauses that they “shall enter into force on the day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities” and that they “shall be binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States”.