Here's a statement from the @IEUNSWACT about the two pieces of legislation that have been proposed by One Nation’s Mark Latham: https://www.ieu.asn.au/news-publications/news/2020/01/parental-rights-bill-unworkable-and-unsafe

If passed, the Parental Rights Bill in particular will have a big impact on teaching and the work of schools. Here's why:

1. The concept of parental primacy is so broad that it could impact on almost every curriculum area. Parents could object to the teaching of curricula approved by NESA for example in the area of science (evolution and geology)...

... Shakespeare (cross-dressing, suicide and pre-marital sex), geography (climate change and the environment), modern and ancient history (religion, social movements, role of women, political beliefs) PDHPE (personal well-being and identity, sex, consent), to name just a few e.g.

2. Whilst the Bill refers to the rights of parents, there is no consideration of the rights of the child, a concept enshrined in child protection legislation in NSW and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by Australia.

3. Schools do not teach gender fluidity to their students but they have a duty of care to all their students, including those who may be uncertain as to their gender or who have a diverse gender identity...

... To seek to govern the interactions between counsellors and teachers and their students in such a heavy-handed way is to breach this duty of care (potentially exposing the school to legal liability through civil action)...

... and put at risk the psychological health of students, potentially leading to child protection allegations.

4. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse in its Final Report proposed mandatory national Child Safe Standards including Standard 4: Equity is upheld and diverse needs are taken into account...

... The Standard commits teachers to equity and inclusive practice towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex children and young people. The Bill as proposed would make it difficult, if not impossible, for school communities to comply with this Standard.

5. The requirement that government schools must provide to parents at the start of each year a summary of any courses that have content relating to parental primacy is extremely onerous, given the broad definition of parental primacy...

... Of course, teachers continually evaluate and adapt their teaching program and on a day-to-day basis answer any questions that students might put in the course of a lesson. It would be impossible to avoid straying from a course outline provided months earlier...

... In addition, the right of parents to withdraw students if such material is to be taught could be chaotic.

6. Many non-government schools have a religious foundation or other well-publicised ethos...

... However, such schools, along with all other schools, would be required to respect the views of all parents on parental primacy issues, even if those views conflict with the views of the school...

... There would be uncertainty in all schools about how to meet the requirement to ensure the education provided was in conformity with views of parents.

7. The red tape for schools and teachers in demonstrating compliance with the Bill would add just another complexity at a time when all parties have expressed a commitment to decluttering the curriculum and removing unnecessary compliance burdens.

8. The Bill is a distraction from the key work of teaching and learning undertaken in NSW schools and endangers the welfare of vulnerable children.

Note, these 8 points come from the article linked above.