Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Firstly, let me acknowledge the work of Dr Stone as Chair. I say to her that she will go from this place knowing that she has done a great deal of good work, particularly on this committee but more generally—and I know she has had a career that has been very wide ranging. I have been off and on this committee since I first came to this place in the late 1980s. One of the features of it is that it brings together people—as committee members—from diverse backgrounds. I can only think of one occasion when there was a minor difference of opinion over a report. Always we are able to get a consensus position. That, I think, speaks volumes for the motivation of those who are participating on the committee, but also the impact of the evidence that we are seeing before us. It takes a good guiding hand to make sure that we do not slip into poor behaviour, if I might say, in terms of the politics of where we are. I want to thank you most sincerely for your leadership of the committee. Also, I want to thank all those other members of the committee, over the period that you have been involved, for their contributions, as well.

You made an observation then, Dr Stone, about being on this committee. It is worthwhile noting that in this committee at the moment, part way through this report, we have had 15 public hearings in Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Canberra, and we have spoken to over 200 witnesses. They came from very diverse backgrounds and advocated very different things.

This committee has over the years has put itself in a position where it must travel and go to places which are quite remote. Going to visit Cape York and Thursday Island, as we have done on this inquiry, allows members to put themselves in a position where they are exposed to the realities of the life of many people, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, living in remote communities to get a better and deeper understanding of the concerns which they have and the needs which demand attention. I think that is evidenced by this committee's recent trips to the cape. We have come back, as you have just mentioned, Dr Stone, with an impression about direct instruction and the need for us to validate what it is actually doing. That is quite important, because it is very contentious. I know there are those who are very strong advocates for direct instruction, but we also know of refugees from direct instruction—they have self-described themselves as 'educators'. I have spoken to educators who are using part of direct instruction in the Northern Territory who are most concerned about it. I know of one community I visited recently where the parents have expressed grave concern. I think these are issues that we need to confront. I do not believe necessarily that importing a model of education like this from the United States and having schools in Australia report to people in the United States is necessarily the best thing. Nevertheless, I think the most appropriate and impartial way to deal with this is to do as we have recommended and have an impartial review. I strongly support the recommendations in that regard.

You also made observations about Abstudy, and I can only endorse them. This has been an issue for many, many years. I know that people who live in remote communities, many of whom will not have English as a first language and who may not have any literacy, are being confronted with the prospect of trying to fill in a very, very lengthy and complicated form—at least it is for them, and I know for others. It means that these kids will not get access to the educational opportunity that we would like to give them, so it is important that we have the review which is recommended in this report.

One of the things which attracted my attention during the course of this inquiry is that we have had evidence about boarding schools but we have not as yet had a lot of evidence about early childhood education. There is a lot of money being invested in taking kids away to go to school. That has merit for some. I think it is an open question as to whether that is the best investment of resources and whether we should be front-loading the investment into early childhood education or not. Instead of putting resources in there we are putting them in post-primary school, into high school, into boarding facilities, but if we have to prioritise our investment we would probably get the best educational outcome over the longer term by putting that money into early childhood education. I believe very strongly that we need to think strategically about where the best fit for the investment is. That is not to denigrate the intention or the motivation of those people who are investing their own time, money and resources into getting kids away to boarding schools or the efforts of some of these boarding schools, but if we have a small number of people going to very prestigious and very costly boarding facilities whilst the remainder of their community are in schools that are substandard is that the best outcome? Without wanting to talk in detail about the budget, it does raise serious questions about how we provide needs based funding to remote schools, how we resource teachers properly and how we hold state and territory governments to account for their investment in public education.

Finally, I want to talk about the issue of equity. As you know Madam Chair, as you still are, currently sitting in the position as the member for Murray, although you are leaving us—I might leave too; it might be a decision which is made for me—the issue of equity is vitally important. I have been an observer of Clontarf since it first came into the Northern Territory. I am a great supporter of the program. I have seen the quality of the mentoring staff in these schools make a real difference to the education experience and opportunity for young boys becoming young men and then transitioning into work and training opportunities. Sadly, until very recently, as you pointed out, we have not had an equivalent program for young women. There is now an equivalent program as you rightly pointed out—the Stars program, which I am a strong advocate for—but oddly it does not get the same attention or funding from the Commonwealth. The model which is used by Clontarf and other similar programs for funding is effectively one-third from the state or territory jurisdiction, one-third from the Commonwealth and one-third from philanthropic corporate or private donors. In the case of Stars the Northern Territory government did what I think was a very intelligent thing. It tendered out a program for girls which allowed people with other organisations to have an opportunity to compete to try to get this work. The Stars Foundation was the successful tenderer. The Northern Territory government to its great credit—I am normally a critic of the Northern Territory government— has funded Stars to operate in seven, soon to be eight, schools looking after 450 young women. The Commonwealth has steadfastly resisted funding the program while at the same time funding boys programs in the same schools. What is happening is that the Stars Foundation is operating programs in schools where Clontarf already exists. The boys programs are being funded by the Commonwealth; the girls programs are not. That is a grave inequity that really undermines the potential sustainability of programs like Stars—there are other girls programs, as well. We know that unless we invest properly in the education of young women we are penalising the next generation.

As a male, I observe my own education, but I do know, and women most particularly know, of course, that as the mothers of the next generation women's education is vital. What we know is that, sadly, many young Aboriginal women have children at a young age and many do not feel that they have strong choices in their lives. If we can open opportunities for young women by giving them the opportunity to make choices, real choices, about their lives and educate them about their roles as women and potentially as mothers, that could have a grave public health outcome into the future and impact upon the next generation of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whether they are male or female. If we want to guarantee a strong, long life for the next generation of Aboriginal children, we have to make sure that young Aboriginal women, who will be the mothers of those children, have the opportunities they properly deserve. To do that, we have to provide equity in the way in which we fund these programs to ensure that we are not discriminating against women, as we appear to be at the moment, through the way in which funding is allocated.

I endorse your remarks, Member for Murray, and say to the government that this is an opportunity to say very clearly that you will accept the recommendations of this committee—the two recommendations regarding equity, the recommendation regarding Abstudy and the one regarding direct instruction. I am particularly concerned about the equity issue. If we do not address it, we are condemning future generations of young women to disadvantage, and we should not be doing that. We have it within us to change the way we operate and I strongly implore the minister who is responsible, in this case Senator Scullion, to do the right thing—and he will get our support and wide acclamation if he does.

Finally, let me conclude by again thanking you, Dr Stone, and wishing you well in whatever direction your life takes you in the future. I know you will always be an advocate for these issues and always a friend to us in this place. Thank you very much. I endorse the recommendations of the report and I hope that the next government, whoever it may be, follows up on the final recommendation of this report and continues this inquiry.

See this speech in context