Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 and, in particular, the fact that an additional $43.6 million over 2006 to 2008 has been appropriated by this bill for Indigenous education and training. I want to say—and I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr—that, in trying to reach out to our Indigenous community and ensure that they are guaranteed the same opportunities that we pride ourselves that each and every Australian has, you cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. I would never dispute the honourable member for Lingiari, in his contribution to the House, talking about the Indigenous population of the Northern Territory. But I have to say that in my own electorate of Chifley, which outside the Northern Territory has the largest number of Indigenous people, we too have special problems, and I am not sure that they are being addressed. I say to the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who was so recently in my electorate at the opening of Richard Johnson Anglican School—and I sincerely thank him for that—that we have special problems.

Firstly, let me say that, notwithstanding the very large Indigenous population that I have, with schools in my electorate being required to assess how many Indigenous students they have for this funding, it is often counterproductive to the very aims and ambitions that we hope to achieve. What do I mean by this? I have a very large Islander population in my electorate as well, so I have many Aboriginal students and Islander students—and, I might say, some white students—who present with the same problems, the same educational disadvantage. What we are not doing in electorates like Chifley is saying: ‘Whatever the disadvantage, whatever the colour of the disadvantage, we’re going to offer a solution. We’re going to offer a helping hand.’ The fact that Aboriginal students are in receipt of some assistance, rather than encouraging or setting out to assist them, in fact becomes an issue of division within my community.

I fundamentally believe a few things. One is that, no matter what the colour of a student who presents at a school, whether it is in private or, mostly, in public education, and whatever the family circumstances of the student, those students deserve to have their educational potential developed by the school and realised. I say to the parliamentary secretary that, notwithstanding good intentions, I am far from happy that students in my electorate are not having their potential realised. This particularly applies to Aboriginal students.

The general unemployment rate in Chifley is unacceptable, but the rate of unemployment for the Indigenous community is absolutely beyond the pale. The best way of tackling unemployment is by ensuring that, at schools, students get a solid foundation and have their talents realised and that they are able to enter the world of work. All too often, we set benchmarks for retention in years 11 and 12, but often they are little more than warehousing students. It cannot be said that their educational potential is being realised. This is totally unsatisfactory. We can get reasonable results, if not good results, in primary school, but they fade away at high school and are particularly disastrous in years 11 and 12.

I value measures like targeted assistance, notwithstanding their shortfalls, but I say to the parliamentary secretary: given that my electorate has the highest number of urban Aboriginals outside the Northern Territory, how many students are benefiting from this program? Are you satisfied that the program is really meeting the needs of urban Aboriginals?

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that, when the Labor government were in power, we set an ambitious target—that is, we wanted 1,000 Aboriginal students to enter the teaching profession. It gave a huge fillip to our Aboriginal community, but those brave targets and ambitions seem to have fallen away. Really, in a way, we need to have the courage to start setting those very same targets. Yes, why can’t we say that, in 2006, we would like to see 1,000 Aboriginal students enter the teaching profession?

But I would say to the parliamentary secretary that I am equally concerned to ensure that Indigenous students are able to enter the world of work and, in particular, to enter trades. Why shouldn’t we set some benchmarks for our Indigenous students of being able to enter apprenticeships? If the parliamentary secretary feels that I am talking about what we used to call traineeships, I am not opposed to that. Certainly we ought to set some targets there. But why can’t we also set some targets in relation to traditional apprenticeships? Why can’t we set a figure for how many apprenticeships we would like Indigenous students in the year 2006 to aspire to enter in 2007? If it was good enough under a Labor government to have 1,000 Aboriginal teachers, are 1,000 bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and hairdressers beyond our wit? Can we not set such a target? No such targets are being set now, and the reality is that Indigenous students are in no way getting their fair share of apprenticeships—their fair share of becoming bricklayers, their fair share of becoming carpenters or their fair share of becoming hairdressers or any of the other trades that I have mentioned.

Again, I have always respected the honourable member for Lingiari and his absolute commitment to the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory. But we tend to overlook those members of our Indigenous community who happen to live in the cities. We do not seem to be tracking their success with the same degree of diligence. I think we should. I ask the parliamentary secretary and, indeed, the minister: what are you doing about it? What do you think is a reasonable target to aim for? To what extent will this $43.6 million over 2006-08 contribute to students in my electorate being able to not only do years 11 and 12—and precious few of them do—but also then go on either to a university education, and I mentioned the teaching profession, or to a traditional apprenticeship and become bricklayers, carpenters and what have you and have the same rights of aspiration that every other person in Australia enjoys? It is not being delivered.

I say to the minister and the parliamentary secretary: the status quo is totally unacceptable. Yes, I am supportive of targeted assistance, but it does create problems in an electorate like mine, where you have increasing numbers of Islanders who very often are presenting with the same problems. One Aboriginal elder said to me: ‘You know, in Mount Druitt, disadvantage does not wear a colour. It is not black; it is not yellow; it is not white.’ In fact, it covers all of them—that is what he was trying to say. That was very perceptive.

If this targeted assistance is picked up in the high schools in the electorate of Chifley, what about the Islander kids who are not eligible for it? What are they supposed to do? What are they supposed to feel? For that matter, this measure is not meeting the needs of those white kids who suffer the same disadvantage—and there are some. There is a gap there. I am quite happy to set some targets for the Indigenous community. Do not get me wrong. I have mentioned teaching and the vocational area of apprenticeships. I have no problem with that. But at school, where people suffer a disadvantage and need assistance, there should be no colour bars. The Commonwealth should be prepared to fund the disadvantaged wherever they are found. Worthwhile measures like this that may work very well in the Northern Territory—and I accwept, notwithstanding some criticisms in the second reading amendment, that they do—in an urban community actually add to racial tension. That is something that I want to speak out about.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training, seated at the table, has a lot to say. I say that, in terms of reducing the unemployment rate in Chifley, one of the keys to success is providing greater assistance and a helping hand to students in my electorate so that they can reach their educational potential. In public schools, that is not happening at the moment. I certainly agree with the proposition in the second reading amendment—that is, the more money that we invest in early literacy and numeracy intervention, the better off we will be. The more we can involve parents and schools in a partnership to tackle those issues, the better off we will be. But we should not be prepared to reinforce the proposition that, just because people may live in a relatively disadvantaged urban environment, they should somehow expect second-rate outcomes from the education system, and the public education system in particular.

I would like to pay tribute to a district superintendent that we had in Mount Druitt, Lindsay Wasson, because, when he became the district superintendent, he said to the primary schools and to the high schools: ‘In your first year I want you to halve the difference between your results and the state average. In the second year I want you to meet it and in the third year I want you to exceed it.’ Regrettably, he has been promoted out of the job, but he was achieving fine results at some of those schools with that mission. We could achieve a lot more with additional commitment by the federal government to ensuring the quality of educational opportunities.

I want to sum up in this way: there is a second reading amendment, which I fully support; but, by and large, I support the idea of seeing better educational outcomes for our Indigenous community. No matter where you travel in Australia, in seeking to ensure equality of educational opportunity for our Indigenous community, different solutions are needed for different communities. You cannot use a ruler and apply a one-size-fits-all solution to them all. In my electorate—which, other than the Northern Territory, has the largest urban Aboriginal community—we are failing. We are not delivering what I believe is the birthright of these Indigenous students. They have every right to expect equality of educational outcome and it is not being delivered, notwithstanding what I believe to be an overwhelming Commonwealth responsibility to see to its delivery.

Last but not least, setting targets is ho-hum in relation to management theory but very rare in terms of government. The previous Labor government was prepared to set some targets for Indigenous students entering the teaching profession, which worked well. Why can’t we repeat that? Why do we have to abandon it? In particular, why can’t we set some targets for Indigenous students entering the world of work and, in particular, traditional apprenticeships? I would very much like to see that done.

See this speech in context