The Abbott government’s overhaul of the national curriculum appears to be a “brainwashing and propaganda mission”, the Tasmanian education minister, Nick McKim, has argued in one of the most strongly worded attacks on the review.

The federal education minister Christopher Pyne announced on Friday that conservative education advocates Kevin Donnelly and Ken Wiltshire would complete their review by mid-year with a view to implementing changes in 2015. Pyne, who will require the support of states and territories to implement changes, said he was confident the review would a “very objective process” that led to fair and balanced outcomes.

Pyne said he wanted the curriculum to be a “robust and worthwhile document” that celebrated Australia and did not downplay the role of western civilisation or the Anzac story. Donnelly, a former chief of staff to the Liberal minister Kevin Andrews, recently attacked the curriculum for “uncritically promoting diversity” and undervaluing western civilisation and “the significance of Judeo-Christian values to our institutions and way of life”.

McKim, the Tasmanian Greens leader who serves as education minister in the minority Labor government, said Pyne had “ominously made his intentions very clear by appointing several fiercely conservative critics of the current curriculum to conduct the review”.

He branded Pyne’s review as “a thinly-veiled attempt to turn educational content into political propaganda” and argued that curriculum development should be left to teachers and educational experts.

“This has all the hallmarks of a brainwashing and propaganda mission to let Mr Pyne impose his extreme right-wing views on Australian students,” McKim said in a statement.

Pyne’s announcement also met with a strong response from Tom Alegounarias, president of the Board of Studies New South Wales. He said the existing national curriculum-based English and maths syllabuses this year were being implemented this year, while history would be introduced next year.

It had been drawn up following “an extensive consultation process” and schools were “reasonably not expecting any changes in the foreseeable future”.

“The curriculum has to go through the Board of Studies. We’ve just gone through an extensive consultation process; it included community input. The curriculum is supported by the community through the consultation, including parent representatives, and it’s about to begin implementation,” he told Guardian Australia.

“Schools are about to begin that process. They’re reasonably not expecting any changes in the foreseeable future to the curriculum they’re about to implement.”

Alegounarias said the NSW syllabuses placed a “lower order status” on the national curriculum’s general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures; Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia; and sustainability.

NSW replicated the subjects in the national curriculum but outlined a more comprehensive list of issues and people to be studied. The national curriculum’s examples were “illustrative”.

“Our curriculum mentions three conservative leaders and I think there are two mentions of unions,” Alegounarias said, in response to Pyne’s claims non-Labor prime ministers were not mentioned in the national curriculum.

The Victorian Liberal education minister, Martin Dixon, said the state was currently reviewing which elements of the Australian curriculum it could adopt, and would “continue to adapt the Australian curriculum to the needs of Victorian students”.

"While we may use the Australian curriculum as a reference we are not restricted to it and we also undertake international bench-marking to ensure our curriculum is world class,” Dixon said in a statement.

The conservative Newman government in Queensland welcomed the national review. The state’s acting education minister, John McVeigh, said the government supported “any moves by the federal government to strengthen the credibility of the national curriculum and help restore faith in the system” and looked forward to contributing.

“But people also need to remember that the curriculum is just one factor in student results,” McVeigh said in a statement.

“The quality of the teacher in the classroom and the ability of the school to adapt the curriculum to their specific needs are also vital elements in order to see a real improvement in student outcomes.”

Pyne acknowledged the need to seek support from the states and territories, which owned and operated public schools, to implement “the best curriculum possible”.

“So we’ll be working very closely with our state and territory ministerial counterparts to ensure that, whatever the national review comes up with, the recommendations of that review are implemented by the states and territories in concert with the Commonwealth,” Pyne said.

“I’ll be very surprised if state and territory ministers didn’t want to work to have the best curriculum possible and I’m very willing to work with them and I’m sure they’ll be willing to work with me.”

Pyne said the 2015 target for implementing the changes was “ambitious” but the aim of putting students first was too important to delay. “We don’t want any political bickering over this issue because that will slow down the process of getting the best curriculum possible for our students.”

The Australian Education Union, Labor and the Greens have condemned the curriculum review as being about ideology and politics rather than education.

The opposition education spokeswoman, Kate Ellis, said states and territories would have to decide whether they wanted to implement the changes. She said it was important to constantly review the curriculum, but an independent body – the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority – was in place to do that.

“What we do know is that we have a body that has been set up and has worked with every state and territory government of every different political persuasion,” Ellis said.