Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me start off by, firstly, congratulating the Prime Minister on his remarks yesterday in his Closing the Gap statement. Secondly, I thank opposition leader, Bill Shorten, for his words as well. At this time it is also important to recognise the previous Prime Minister's contribution. Tony Abbott has had a long commitment to advancing the causes of Indigenous Australia.

The Grey electorate covers all the remote Indigenous populations in South Australia, places like the APY Lands, the Ceduna and Flinders communities. There are high populations of Aboriginals in places like Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Ceduna and even near Maitland on Yorke Peninsula. We have, in total, an Indigenous population of about eight per cent. No doubt, while there are great success stories we celebrate very loudly, on average Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffer an inherent disadvantage. Since the sixties, governments—of all political persuasions, it must be said—have tried but failed pretty dismally in most cases. But they have tried to make a difference.

Sometimes I get complaints from various constituents about the assistance given to Indigenous peoples. It might be complaints about the better consideration they get around schooling or around health access or transport—all kinds of issues. Some are completely untrue, it must be said, and some are based on fact. I say to these people, 'For all these advantages that you see Aboriginal people getting, for all these advantages you say they have over the wider population, would you like your children to be black just so they could access those advantages?' I have never had one respond in the positive. The point I am trying to make here is that, until we get to that point, there remains a disadvantage in Australia. It is an underlying fact that unless you would choose to be Aboriginal for the opportunities it would give your family then there is no advantage at all, despite what Commonwealth governments and other governments might be doing to assist Indigenous peoples.

There is no doubt there is a huge amount of money spent on Indigenous Australia. I do not begrudge a cent of it, but I do say I am quite despondent about the results we get in many cases and what I see as wastage of money. Perhaps they are bad programs. It just seems that they are not giving us the result we need, but we need to continue to make the effort.

Take the case of the APY Lands, for instance. There are more than 100 organisations up there at any given time—some from not-for-profit enterprises; some from governments at two levels, state and federal—most not knowing what the others are doing. Many compete for customers but are convinced of their program's worth. When I get around this country and speak to the people who are working on the programs, most are convinced of the real difference they are making. If I sit in a reasonable conversation with them, I too am convinced. I think: 'That's a good idea. That really seems to be working. That seems to be making a great difference.' But I challenge them. I say: 'You tell me you're making a great difference. The people I met with half an hour ago tell me they're making a great difference. The people I'm going to meet with tomorrow are making a great difference. How come there is not a great difference? How come we are not making advancement? How come things are not so much better than they are?' Most of them have no answers, and perhaps that is how challenging it has been for all of us and for governments.

It is clear from reading the Closing the Gap statement that we are not getting enough children enrolled in preschool activities, and that failure is actually worse in our bigger urban centres. At 67 per cent, this is far short of the desired target of 95 per cent, even though the report does not actually specify what the Australian average is for all populations. But enrolment is one thing; attendance is another, particularly when we get to the school-age years. It is of particular concern to me that this is despite considerable effort, particularly by this government, with the school attendance program.

I have seen it in action, and it can work very, very well. I have seen it in communities at Mimili and Indulkana, where the school attendance program seems to be hitting all the right buttons, but I have also seen places where it is not making a difference at all. We really need to identify why that is, because the program can work, but in some places it is not working. I know that in some cases the school community, led always by the principal, is much more welcoming and much more engaged in working with the school attendance program than others I have seen. And you can be sure that, if there is a divide between the school leadership and the school attendance program, it is not going to work.

That is something that we need to have out with the state governments and their state departments of education. There just cannot be that kind of resistance to what is essentially a good program, because we have seen it work so well where we get that cooperation. We can see from the figures that while urban areas have a way to go, with about a 10-point deficit on school attendance against the non-Indigenous population, it is the remote and very remote regions where the results not only drag down the nationwide average but also present human tragedy for the individuals. A 67 per cent school attendance rate is just nowhere near good enough. In fact, in very remote Australia only 20 per cent of students attend 90 per cent of the time. Despite all this, there is progress in the area of literacy and numeracy skills, and that is encouraging. But, once again, the results away from urban centres are appalling.

Interesting to me is the impact that direct instruction methods are having on Cape York communities. I had the privilege to visit Aurukun and Hopevale in 2012. Coming face-to-face with direct instruction is a bit of a challenge, I must say. It feels like you have wound the clock back 80 years. But I could see the difference, not only in the demand the teachers made of the students for full attention but in the restoration of the type of competition in the classroom where promotion is based on achievement and not on age.

I was given to reflect on this to my wife after my last visit to the APY Lands a few months ago, as we were travelling south and decoding or deciphering what it was we had learnt on that particular trip. When I was a student, we referred to year 5 as grade 5. Somewhere through that period—whether it was the 1970s or 1980s, I do not know—it became year 5. I said to my wife, 'There is an absolute difference in the two descriptors.' One says the student has achieved a level of education; the other one says they have been at school for five years. They are not the same.

Unfortunately, that has gone right through our education system. Now, in broader education platforms, students are promoted based on age. 'You can't deny the fact I've been at school for four years, so I'm in year 4,' and then, 'I've been at school for five years—I'm in year 5.' So they travel with their peer group, if you like. In the direct instruction schools, that is not happening anymore. They must achieve the level.

The feedback we had from the teachers at the time was that when the students identified the fact that they were the biggest kid in the classroom, and their ability to learn was higher than those of the younger students, then they kicked into gear because they wanted to catch up with their peer group. I can reflect on my youth and think of those really big kids who were in our classroom and it was not perfect. But, on the other hand, we see the net results of what we have done since and I think perhaps it is more imperfect. So that was one of the things that really impressed me about direct instruction.

I have a number of other issues I would love to talk about, but I realise we are coming very close to the end of my time. The employment figures are very disappointing but explicitly demonstrate the value of education. It is reported that employment outcomes for highly educated individuals are virtually equal to the national average. If a student reaches the age of 15 and their education level is at the national average, they will have the same kinds of educational outcomes as the broader community. We need to keep concentrating on these factors.

See this speech in context