Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the second reading debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 was adjourned on 16 August I was speaking about the school based sporting academies. The projects will run in partnership with sporting bodies to give children the chance to learn a new skill, be part of a team and boost their self-esteem. This funding may give children a reason to engage with or remain at school as well as improve their health.

A perfect example of this is the Clontarf Football Academy in Western Australia which is run by Gerard Neesham. That project has now been taken to many schools across Western Australia to engage predominantly Indigenous youth in the finer arts of playing football—something that they are incredibly naturally skilled in already. There is ample evidence at the very highest level of Aussie Rules football as to how good those Indigenous players are. I commend Gerard Neesham for taking up the opportunity to use some of this federally allocated funding to encourage children through sporting engagement to participate in schools and therefore participate more in a real education.

I say again and again that, without continuous attendance at school and full participation in the whole school curriculum, Indigenous youth do not have a fighting chance of engaging fully in society and enjoying all that the independence of employment has to offer. How can children who are brought up in an environment of malnourishment, violence, sexual abuse shorter life expectancy, unacceptably high levels of illiteracy, higher levels of diabetes, infant mortality, alcoholism, drug abuse and imprisonment, and the highest levels of unemployment, aspire to make a contribution to the tax-paying society of today?

There is provision in this amendment of $7.3 million for Indigenous youth festivals as part of the Community Festivals for Health Promotion campaign. These festivals combine music, dance and art to engage youth and promote healthy and positive lifestyles. You cannot simply sit a child down and tell them not to eat junk food, watch television all day or sniff petrol if that is the only example they know. We hope that the children will participate in these festivals and it will give them some sense of pride through participation as well as an education.

A classic example of this was to be found most recently with the Croc Festival in Meekatharra in Western Australia, where we had some 600 predominantly Indigenous children from, I believe, 15 schools in the area participate in a three-day event which culminated in a concert that those children contributed to. I had the pleasure and the good fortune of attending that Croc Festival with Minister Joe Hockey. He got a finer appreciation of the good works that these festivals do in promoting lifestyles that are healthy and beneficial. This will greatly contribute to the outward nature of these children.

The opportunity for them to engage in and experience some education in lifestyle and careers by participating in things like the Croc Festival is something that many of us that sit in this place take for granted but in reality is an absolutely rarity. It is a look into the future, almost a rose garden, for many Indigenous students that come from remote communities. It is sometimes the only opportunity that they will have to engage with a range of other people and to witness firsthand the diversity that is the reality of life in employment today.

The Australian government is also providing money for Indigenous youth—in this case, an additional $43.6 million—through the projects that I have outlined under this bill. However, too often the expenditure of those Indigenous communities becomes a great source of frustration, because the resources are too often eaten up by what they call the seat-warming bureaucrats rather than used by more practically minded people on location who might actually make a difference. It is the real problem. In many cases we do not need to reinvent the wheel. What is required is an honest delivery of services that so many departments, both state and federal, theorise about and gain great publicity for but, in reality, often fail at the point of delivery.

We have classic, topical examples today in child welfare delivery and police delivery. Too many of the remote communities in my electorate of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, which is 91 per cent of the Western Australian land mass, do not see a police presence. There is no sense of real community in families. Women and children are fearful for their personal security and, when you consider that we take these state delivered services of child welfare and police absolutely for granted, we would be horrified if in any of our Perth suburbs we had to wait a couple of days for a police presence. We would find that totally unacceptable, and yet it is the absolute norm in my remote communities.

States should be ashamed of the fact that they do not deliver secure communities for the people of those communities. Until such time as they do, women and children will continue to be fearful for their safety, and with that base premise you cannot expect mothers to be fundamentally involved in and concerned with sending their small children out of the home, where the children afford some degree of company and there is some sort of natural security, to a classroom where they will no longer be able to come to their aid in the case of domestic abuse. Too many people sleep well in their leafy suburban environments, convinced that Indigenous youth can move through life as their children do—educated, eventually employed, useful and equipped with the skills needed and having the opportunity to gain self-esteem through finding their place in society and gaining from all that is modern Australia.

The aspirations of Ministers Bishop and Brough and of this government are high and well intended but, until such time as state governments take responsibility to cooperate for the improved future of Indigenous people and until such time as appropriate, grassroots programs are resourced in a meaningful way, we cannot expect the situation of Indigenous communities to change. We must move away from well-intentioned and politically correct projects which often do not address the grim reality of community life. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we simply need to make the appropriate investment in people resources that will assist in the provision of the basic tenures of civilised life. The alternative is to endure as a reality the continuation of the past, which those persons well informed know is unacceptable. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate our current ministers, who are working with the full cooperation of the coalition backbenchers, for their efforts to effectively create a groundswell of change.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity this evening to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill provides some welcome additional support for Indigenous students by providing an additional $43.6 million over 2006 to 2008. The concern is that it has still left some major gaps in relation to early literacy intervention and for parent-school partnerships. I will now discuss these particular issues in more detail.

Of course, Labor welcomes the provision of $14.5 million for extended tutorial assistance to year 9 Indigenous students and of $11.2 million for extended tutorial assistance to TAFE and vocational training and education students. Unfortunately, this additional funding will be offset by a tightening of eligibility requirements for Abstudy allowances for Indigenous students under 16 years of age. A further issue that the government fails to mention in relation to this funding is that it is restoring the support that was previously available under the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme, which is not available under current guidelines. There are major concerns with the current guidelines for the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme, ITAS. Funding is not available for students in metropolitan areas that enrol fewer than 20 Indigenous students, for example. Of course, the result is that many students miss out on the assistance that they desperately need.

The funding guidelines also state that funding for students in remote locations will be given priority. Obviously, we agree that students in remote areas require that additional support, but that should not ignore the needs of students in metropolitan and other areas who also need assistance with their reading, writing and numeracy. I believe the government should not be deciding which group of disadvantaged Indigenous students will be missing out. It should, in fact, be helping students, wherever they are, based on their educational needs. This funding system is very different to the open-ended funding available under the Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants program, which provides automatic funding to all students. Shouldn’t we provide this type of funding system to disadvantaged Indigenous students?

I am also concerned that the bill is lacking in assistance for early primary students. I understand that students will have to wait until year 4 before they can receive tutorial assistance. This flies completely in the face of research showing that early intervention is essential in improving educational performance anywhere. Surely we should not wait until students have difficulty after their year 3 test before they get that additional support. Indigenous children need urgent support. On my travels around some of the remote communities in this country, that point is always made. It is made in places like this and whenever you have a discussion with people on these particular issues.

Part of the difficulty in some of these communities that we are talking about specifically here is how you engage and keep those students early on in their education before they have a chance to start missing out on the advantages that education can give them. I do not understand why these steps are taken only for year 4 and onwards. Why do they not come in as early as is required—I would suggest from the beginning of their education—to ensure that that connection will occur for the life education of these particular students?

This bill does not address concerns about the way in which the parent-school partnerships program operates. Many parents and community members are now excluded because of the bureaucracy in these programs. Parents do not understand the new processes, and this prevents them from being involved. Schools still have to undertake considerable work to access very modest funding and they complain that they spend more time in writing submissions for funding than in designing the best educational programs for their students. What really saddens me is the context of this bill. There is a chronic underspending of Commonwealth funding for Indigenous education. The department admitted in Senate estimates that there was an underspend of $126 million in 2004-05. This is just not acceptable. What a sorry state of affairs when you consider how great the need is to provide this assistance—good basic educational opportunity—to these Indigenous children. These concerns are the reason that I support my colleague the member for Jagajaga in moving a second reading amendment—and I want to repeat that amendment here:

... the House:

(1)

condemns the Government for:

(a)

failing to deliver urgently needed funding for Indigenous students by insisting on complex and bureaucratic administrative arrangements that prevent many schools and communities from benefiting from education programs;

(b)

causing a $126 million underspend in Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives expenditure in 2004-05 through bureaucratic bungling;

(c)

imposing impenetrable red tape that has led to a decline in the involvement of Indigenous communities in the parent-school partnership initiative;

(d)

failing to provide sufficient resources for early intervention programs in schools to raise Indigenous children’s literacy standards;

(e)

reducing the number of Indigenous school children who access tutorial assistance by making eligibility requirements more restrictive and short-term; and

(f)

presiding over ten long years over continuing gaps in educational and training participation and performance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students; and

(2)

calls on the Government to reform its funding criteria and guidelines so as to the address the above concerns and provide all Indigenous students with the opportunity to achieve quality schooling results”

What we are seeing these days, in current times here in this parliament, is the enormous temptation which the government has fallen to of finding someone else to blame for anything that it believes it needs to be addressing. We are hearing it again and again: ‘It’s the states’ problem, it’s the territories’ problem. It’s everybody’s problem but ours.’ I think that after 10½ years of being in government there is no right available to the government to fall on that excuse any longer. It is now becoming a little bit of a joke.

I happen to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. For some months now we have been engaged in an inquiry looking at employment outcomes for Indigenous people in this country. It is as obvious as the nose on your face: everybody we speak to, everywhere we go, what is it they tell us? It is education, education and education. With regard to assistance being targeted through to Indigenous children, as I said a moment ago, why bring assistance in at year 4? Why do that? Why only allow it for remote communities? Why do that? Where we are looking into employment opportunities for our Indigenous people, it does not matter where we go on that committee, whether we are in Sydney, Melbourne or out the back of nowhere, the point is that the same issues arise in terms of connection, encouragement, support and belief—all bound up in education.

While I am pleased to see the expenditure of this money—as I said at the outset, of course I am pleased to see it—and pleased to see something being done, there are deficiencies in what is being done, and that has to be commented upon. I think back only two or three hours to question time today when I looked up from my seat here in the House to the public gallery opposite and saw two completely full rows of quite young, primary school aged children with very dark faces from a remote community in Central Australia. They were visiting here in the national capital on what I believe would be a wonderful, marvellous opportunity for them. I looked at them today and I thought about this bill. I thought about them and their colleagues, their peers, their friends all over the rest of the country, and I thought: what wonderful opportunities are we able to present to these youngsters in true, honest fashion? What is it we are really hoping to offer them for their future? How can we work constructively with them for their future? Nothing would make me happier than to believe that their future entails a full, supportive, engaging education, at the end of which they have opportunities that at the moment most of them sadly only dream of.

When I looked at those little black faces today, I really thought about this funding and I thought about this government. I thought about how easy it is for some politicians to just stand up and say: ‘The blame lies everywhere else—with the people themselves and with every other government but ours.’ Thank you to the government for putting this money in but, please, have a full, honest approach to this. Look carefully at what you are doing and do not draw restrictions around it. Make sure that initiatives like this are available to as many people as is needed. The word is ‘need’. Where there is a need, the money should be spent. Do not hold back $126 million next time. Make sure you are actually spending it properly, constructively and with all the right motives in mind so that all of those children in the future will have something that we know they would like to have: full participation in our community to the best of their advantage.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the honourable member for Canberra, I am also a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. While I have also been participating in the discussions—that inquiry that she referred to concerning Indigenous employment outcomes—I must say that I have not drawn the same conclusion from all of the evidence that the member for Canberra has in her contribution.

Having said that, I respect the fact that the member for Canberra is relaying to the House what is her recollection. However, what I think is very reassuring for the country at large, and for our Indigenous communities in particular, is the fact that both sides of politics are now taking a very keen interest in improving Indigenous disadvantage. Historically in Australia, governments have sought to solve the problem of Indigenous disadvantage by throwing money at it. What we need to do, as this government is doing, is to look at outcomes and to look at what we are able to achieve, and to look at practical reconciliation to make sure that ultimately Indigenous communities do attain the same opportunities and the same standard of living as the general Australian community at large.

This government and the current Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs have focused on what have been some of the endemic problems in Indigenous communities. So often governments in the past have tended to throw these problems in the too-hard basket. They find that it might be politically incorrect to talk about violence in Indigenous communities and that it might be politically incorrect to state some of the home truths that this government has stated. It really is important that we spend money as required to redress Indigenous disadvantage. But what is important is not the process; what is important is the outcome. This is what this government has sought to achieve.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton for his supportive interjection. We are not going to apologise for the fact that we do demand the same level of accountability for Indigenous organisations as for non-Indigenous organisations. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, I do know that you yourself have a keen interest in Indigenous affairs and have had for a very long time. I think that it is going to be so much easier for the government of the day to obtain the political support from the Australian community to spend what needs to be spent if we can guarantee to the Australian community that there are appropriate levels of accountability, achievement and successful outcomes.

This government’s approach has been spot on, and I am heartened by the fact that so many Indigenous leaders have supported the position taken by this government. What we need to do is get away from the sit-down mentality, the concept where Indigenous people are paid substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money to basically live a cycle of welfare despair. I am not saying that money should not be made available to those who need it as a helping hand and as a safety net, but ultimately our aim as a community ought to be to redress Indigenous disadvantage so that ultimately Indigenous people are like the Australian community at large. That is what this government is seeking to do. I hope that is what some members from the other side are seeking to achieve.

Ultimately, of course, no-one has ownership of this particular issue. Both sides of politics are endeavouring to redress what everyone accepts is an unacceptable situation. Where the opposition is not supporting everything that this government is doing I think it is, to an extent, playing politics. That is unfortunate and it is regrettable because this government, through the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006, is endeavouring to assist Indigenous people.

We are endeavouring to bring forward the right policy parameters to ensure a successful outcome. Ultimately in any piece of legislation you can always say that, while what is being spent is great, more ought to be spent. What a responsible government needs to do, while looking at the resources available to it, is to spend taxpayers’ money in accordance with community priorities. What we have sought to do in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill is to have a balanced situation. We have sought to achieve what we can achieve. I know that, for instance, one of the reasons that year 9 students are being looked at is that there are very strong levels of evidence that year 9 is the time when many Indigenous children actually drop out of the system.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kids go off the rails in year 9.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kids go off the rails, not only Indigenous kids in year 9 but kids more generally, but Indigenous children have been identified as needing specific assistance at this time. That is one of the reasons why year 9 has been selected as one of those periods when Indigenous children need particular assistance. A statement on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website notes that education is one of the key factors in ensuring that the lives of young Indigenous Australians are improved. It notes that many studies have:

... shown that improved health and socioeconomic status are directly linked to educational participation and achievement.

The comments go on to say, however, that a number of factors affect the rates of involvement of Aboriginals in education. These include difficulties in accessing educational facilities, financial hardships and community and cultural pressures. The website also says:

While targeted programs aim to improve outcomes in some educational areas, Indigenous students continue to engage in education and training at lower rates of participation and achieve lower levels of educational attainment than for all Australian students.

The initiatives we are debating in the bill before the House today aim to have a positive impact in changing what I think all of us would accept is an unacceptable situation. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 does provide for significant funds to be directed towards education and training programs that assist Indigenous students to achieve their full potential. It is worthy to note that while the Indigenous community makes up something like 1.9 per cent of Australia’s population, Indigenous students—regrettably—only make up 1.2 per cent of our university population.

The Australian government already has several programs in place to address this underrepresentation in higher learning environments. These programs include the Indigenous Support Program, which arranges for grants to go to higher education institutions to help them meet the specific needs of Indigenous students; the Indigenous Staff Scholarship Program, which has the aim of supporting and encouraging Indigenous staff at our higher education facilities who assist Indigenous students to ensure that they complete their courses; and the establishment of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council which, among other things, aims to develop strategies to help increase the proportion of Indigenous Australians on staff at higher education facilities and also to enhance their career paths. These are just three general examples of higher education initiatives for Indigenous Australians through the Department of Education, Science and Training.

The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 will add to those initiatives by targeting school students and those in training during the 2006 to 2008 calendar years. The initiatives include $14.5 million in additional funds to provide tutorial support services to Indigenous students in year 9. It is interesting to note that the proportion of non-Indigenous students who progress from year 9 to year 10 is around the 98 to 99 per cent, which is pretty high—close to 100 per cent. It is almost unthinkable that a student would drop out at that stage but, sadly, the proportion of Indigenous students who make that same transition is around 89 per cent. With these figures in mind, the year 9 students are regarded as a key group that may benefit from additional support services that will help them make the transition to year 10 education.

In addition, $11.2 million is being provided toward expanding the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme to include those students enrolled in vocational and technical education programs. By widening the net that this tutorial program covers, it is believed that Indigenous students enrolled in vocational education will be encouraged to continue with their training. The upshot of this initiative is that it is hoped that it will help encourage young Indigenous Australians who are neither employed nor involved in work related training to enrol and remain in vocational educational programs.

Eighteen school based sporting academies will be funded for Indigenous Australians at a cost of $9.1 million. This is designed to help male and female Indigenous students become more involved in academic pursuits through sporting programs. Many people in our community may not be aware that sporting programs can also have a positive effect on the health and fitness of young people, their self-confidence and their general social and leadership skills. The bill will also provide $7.3 million for Indigenous youth festivals, and this will promote healthy, active and positive lifestyles among Indigenous Australians.

Finally, this bill will assist up to 1,000 young Indigenous Australians in remote and desert regions who are involved with unproductive and damaging petrol sniffing and other substance abuses with a $1.5 million funding allocation. These initiatives amount to some $43.6 million dedicated to improving the resolve of Indigenous students and their parents and giving them additional support to remain enrolled in schooling and vocational training programs until completion. If we are able to achieve that outcome it will assist Indigenous students to be prepared for the workforce and give them greater opportunities in the general community.

So while it might be okay for the Labor Party to come in here and play politics, to criticise the government and damn us with faint praise and to say that it is great that we are giving this money but that there ought to be more, the Australian community does require all us to be positive and to give credit where credit is due.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moreton! He’s one of yours.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it was Mr Martin Ferguson, the member from Victoria, the shadow minister at the table, who was supporting me in this and I thank him for that. I commend the bill to the House. It is a very positive initiative. The government is deserving of praise and support for this initiative. It is not a panacea to solve all the problems but it is another important step forward and I am very pleased to add my voice to the voices of those honourable members supporting the bill. I ask the member for Canberra to be a little less condemnatory when she does address these particular matters. She ought not to play politics and she ought to support this initiative, which is very positive.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006. I listened with interest to the contribution from the member for Fisher but I simply remind the House that, as the member for Canberra implied, it is good to see that he could at least get to this debate. There is an important committee reference of the House underway at the moment and he finds it difficult to get to committee hearings. In dealing with what I think is a fairly important issue, it is not only about coming in here from time to time and making a speech; it is also about a whole-of-government commitment to doing something serious about a major social and employment problem confronting Australia. That is why this debate is very important, and I am pretty disappointed with the lack of speakers in this debate in the House on what is a key issue. It is one of the key social problems confronting Australia at the moment, across a range of social indicators. It is about how we as a community, using a whole-of-government approach and working in partnership with the private sector, do something about making a serious improvement in the ability of our Indigenous community to make progress on issues such as health, education and training.

The opposition is pleased that an additional $43.6 million proposed over the period from 2006 to 2008 is on the table. But I think we should also be clear—and I note that the member for Fisher has now decided to stay in the House and listen to this important debate—that that contribution will only benefit Indigenous kids if the government can expend the money and implement the proposed programs competently and on time. The facts show that that has been one of the weaknesses of the Howard government, so fully supported by the member for Fisher, with respect to Indigenous education in recent times. If we are to make progress on this front, it requires the absolute cooperation of the Australian government with state and territory governments. I also believe that if we are to make progress at a community level we have to look to support from the private sector. I have the shadow responsibilities for this on behalf of the Labor Party. Think about the importance, for example, of the resources sector, the energy sector, forestry and tourism in regional Australia for Indigenous communities and think about trying to bring in these private sectors to assist in the provision of education and support for local educational opportunities.

It is with those comments in mind that I say: there is a bit of extra money on the table, but more has to be done. I say that because we are now talking about the same government that the member for Fisher is so proud of—and I must say, I am waiting to see whether he supports John Bjelke-Petersen in the election next Saturday, having knocked him off previously with respect to parliamentary representation!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Slipper interjecting

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are cruel and unfair, Member for Batman!

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least I have got his attention!

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are also not in your seat, Member for Fisher.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More seriously, I want to remind the member for Fisher that this is the same government that managed to underspend—he talks about criticism; it is appropriate criticism by the member for Canberra—the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program in 2004-05. This underspend was the massive amount of $126 million through bureaucratic bungling. That raises issues in the minds of the opposition about confidence in the Howard government to actually get things right, but we are prepared to give the government a go because things are so bad with respect to educational opportunity in our Indigenous communities.

In any case, the bill also fails to provide sufficient resources to address the huge gap between the participation and achievement rates of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in secondary education. So it is not only about primary education; it is also about how we make further progress with one of the real areas of weakness—that is, at the secondary education level. In that context, I believe that we also have to work out how we more closely marry VET in Schools at a secondary level with the Indigenous communities. I think about the industries I have raised today, such as resources, forestry, energy and tourism, and the shortage of skills that exists in isolated areas of Australia. Just think about the skills opportunities in the training and education of the Indigenous community that exist in those sectors.

I therefore remind the House of the comments by the member for Jagajaga and shadow minister for education and training by which she has previously informed the House on numerous occasions that the retention rate for Indigenous people when it comes to completing year 12 was just 39.5 per cent in 2005, compared—and this is an amazing difference—with 76.6 per cent of non-Indigenous students. Clearly there is room for a lot of improvement. It requires assistance by all political parties and all tiers of government.

I now go to the issue of achievement. Unfortunately, just 50 per cent of Indigenous year 7 students achieve national benchmarks for numeracy, compared with 80 per cent of all Australian year 7 students. When the shadow minister for education and training spoke on this bill, she said:

... I do not think anybody in this chamber would say that this massive difference is acceptable.

I merely want to echo those comments, and I think—to be fair to both sides of the House—that would be the view of all members of this House, irrespective of their political allegiances. We have a lot of work to do. I also draw attention to the comments by the member for Capricornia when debating the same subject almost two years ago. She has a long-term commitment—and she represents a huge regional seat in Queensland that includes not only the beef industry but also, importantly, the coal industry—to trying to do something about the needs and aspirations of Indigenous people. She said in this debate almost two years ago: ‘It can well be said that we do not spend enough time in this parliament discussing and debating the level of disadvantage that exists for Indigenous Australians in this country.’ Let us hope that, as suggested by the member for Capricornia, debates such as this actually start drawing sharper attention by the Australian community to our need to do a better job. For that reason, I can only agree with my colleagues the members for Jagajaga and Capricornia, who have correctly and wholeheartedly raised some of these problems.

But, in doing so, I also further lament that, whilst we have seen more debate in recent months, its genesis took the sensationalisation of events in the Northern Territory communities, and its content still lacks a focus on economic empowerment. I think that is fundamental to building healthy, sustainable communities for the long term. Obviously, from time to time, the media will want to sensationalise some of these stories because it is easy reporting. That does not solve the problems on the ground. That actually requires assistance from government but also, importantly, a willingness by the local leadership of these communities to get serious about a partnership with government and the private sector to try and make a concerted contribution to overcoming these problems. I think all of us know that it is not going to be easy. It is fair to say that in many instances we have almost lost a whole generation of our Indigenous community. In all the problems of a lack of education and the social dislocation issues of drugs and alcohol, we have all failed in our efforts to try and work out how we are supposed to make a fresh start.

We cannot make the same mistakes. It requires all of us, in some ways, to assess some of our past views on these issues. I say that because I think it is imperative for us to better understand the scale of the problem that confronts us at the moment. We also have to understand the reasons for our underachievement. We have underachieved in Indigenous Australia in education, health and employment. That creates an imperative for us to address the low employment participation rate for Indigenous Australians, because we are not going to resolve these problems in the Indigenous communities until we accept that, for them, just like for Australians generally, you define yourself by your capacity to work. If you have not achieved educationally then you cannot get an employment opportunity. If you do not have competence in your ability to work and deliver for your family then that creates major problems in local communities. So, in a lot of ways, education is the foundation that creates the opportunities to overcome some of the other problems in Indigenous communities.

We have never had a better time to do something about this, provided that there is empowerment at a local level, a willingness by the leadership of these communities to get serious about their problems with support from government, and a willingness also by the private sector—as they have suddenly realised—to actually give local support, not just as they have in the past, surfacing some football oval or creating some lights around the basketball or netball court. They thought that was about doing something for local communities. I have come to the conclusion that local communities are no longer interested in those little social programs; they want the fundamentals fixed. They also understand that a private employer such as a Rio Tinto, an Accor in the hospitality sector or a Southern Plantations in the forestry sector giving a commitment that, if kids are prepared to apply themselves at school, they are prepared to give an employment opportunity will over time have a major impact on changing the level of achievement in these communities.

That raises where we are as a nation at the moment. Australia faces a severe skills shortage and desperately needs more people participating in the workforce. It is an indictment of this government that Indigenous employment lags so far behind mainstream levels of participation. I think it is little known that by 2020 every second Australian living north of the Tropic of Capricorn or above Port Augusta in South Australia will be of Aboriginal descent. This is a staggering statistic. By 2020, one in two Australians living in Northern Australia will be of Aboriginal descent. This has important implications for a lot of resource development in Australia and also in terms of trying to confront some of the difficulties—for example, in the tourism sector.

These Indigenous people are the future workforce of Northern Australia. They are important in industries such as the pastoral, agriculture, forestry, horticulture, tourism and resources industries. In particular, as I have said this evening, Indigenous Australians are a logical source of labour and skills for Australian mining. They often live in remote areas and they are also there at the centre of industry. I therefore refer to a recent comment by the Rio Tinto Chief Adviser on Aboriginal and Community Relations, Bruce Harvey, in a very important article in the Australian Financial Review of last Friday. I urge all members to read this detailed article. In that article, Mr Harvey is reported as saying:

... recruiting from local communities is a matter of survival. The business case for us is pretty simple ... Most of our long-life mines are in northern Australia ... Well, who do we think is going to be running the mines?

…     …         …

With burgeoning Aboriginal population growth rates at 4 per cent, by 2016 we will have 10,000 additional Aboriginal people in the valleys of our operations.

If they are all ungainfully employed, they will be doing ungainful things. That represents a threat to our operations.

If we help build a sustainable regional economy, you’ve got a source of skilled, mobile employees who can come and go as they want, you have local service and supply that gives you a normal market economy, you’ve got stable civic governance, environmental ecological management, and good lifestyle. The whole thing becomes attractive for people to stay there and support the mine.

I support those comments of Bruce Harvey, the representative of Rio Tinto. This company, like a number of other major resource companies in Australia, is now a corporate leader in Indigenous employment, employing about 700 Aborigines and a further 300 Aboriginal contractors. According to the Australian Financial Review, while Aboriginal representation in mining workforces in northern Australia averages about nine per cent, Rio Tinto is doing much better, with roughly 25 per cent at Argyle Diamonds in Western Australia and 18 per cent at Comalco at Weipa in Queensland.

Importantly, the company has also said that, if a young person finishes year 10, they are guaranteed a job with Comalco at Weipa. It is those commitments by the private sector that can make this education initiative by the Howard government a bigger success. I urge corporate Australia to get behind initiatives by state and territory governments and the Australian government to do something about Indigenous education by creating that extra carrot: a commitment to actually employ these people if they improve their education. Then there will be a greater willingness of people to put their heads down and do the hard work at school.

I know that many other mining companies have a similar view and are also adopting new good practices to assist the advancement of Indigenous Australians. That is important because Indigenous employment, education and training, and business and community development opportunities must be a key consideration in all mining approvals and management plans. This has got to become part of government consideration at a state and federal level in thinking about how we develop the mining sector in the future.

This is also a responsibility of the industry itself, and it is now spoken about by the Minerals Council of Australia. That raises why we have to do this more successfully. I say that that is also economically smart because some estimates put the cost of Indigenous unemployment to government at $1 billion per annum. The cost to the Australian economy in lost productive output associated with Indigenous unemployment is estimated at $3 billion, and related social welfare expenditure and foregone tax revenue is a further $3 billion.

As I have said before in this House, not only is it shameful in the 21st century that a modern, developed and wealthy society tolerates the level of Indigenous unemployment and social disadvantage that this country does, but it is also costing us roughly $7 billion a year. Notwithstanding the unforgivable human cost, imagine the financial cost to Australia of Indigenous unemployment by 2020 if we fail to properly address the incredible social disadvantage faced by Indigenous communities today. This is an issue of social and economic importance that we cannot ignore.

The education of young Indigenous Australians is an absolute priority. It is about improving their future employment opportunities and the future productive opportunities of the Australian nation as a whole. That is why I support wholeheartedly the second reading amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga which is about putting in place a more comprehensive and inclusive set of policies and programs for Indigenous students, parents and communities.

Governments, the private sector and Indigenous communities must now act in partnership. We have to create educational opportunities that mean that Indigenous communities can actually grasp those employment opportunities that are emerging in remote regional and rural Australia. I have talked about the mining companies. Another example, in the tourism sector, is Accor Asia Pacific, which manages the Sofitel, Novotel and Mercure hotels and, according to the Australian Financial Review article last Friday, now employs about 150 Indigenous Australians, compared to just 10 five years ago. Similarly, at Port Keats, a Wadeye community, there has now been talk of investment in forestry, which can aid the building of skills based on the education in those local schools.

The Tiwi islands project is also widely reported in the Australian Financial Review of August of this year. It talks about achievements in the Tiwi Land Council area with respect to investment in the forestry industry, historically for research opportunities but now for sustainable forestry opportunities. Obviously it involves plantations, and I must say that the issue of plantation investment is a matter that has to be resolved by the government sooner rather than later because it is creating uncertainty in industry at the moment as to whether the plantation industry will be able to survive if the government withdraws some of the tax benefits or incentives that have existed over recent years.

With a focus on Indigenous forestry, again I simply urge that the government be required to make this final decision on the investment scheme that has been available to the plantation industry in recent years. This is the type of investment, side by side with education, that will do something about overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. It is about productive investment in education and working with the private sector to create productive employment opportunities and to enlarge Australia’s economic cake.

I therefore refer to the Weekend Australian, where it talks about Great Southern Plantations doing something about the Tiwi workforce. Out of a full-time workforce on site of 58, 29 Tiwis work for Great Southern Plantations already—which is a great achievement—in real jobs, for competitive wages and not CDEP or dole pittances. These people are now emerging as the leadership of these communities because of their employment status.

In conclusion, I simply say that this bill does provide additional welcome funding for Indigenous education—it is a start—but I also say that we have to do better. With the implementation of this additional funding, there is an absolute requirement for cooperation between state and territory governments and the Australian government. I also emphasise, as I have said throughout this speech, that Indigenous Australians expect better and we as a decent community expect to do better—and also that we must do it in partnership with the private sector. We can create a multiplier effect by linking up education and employment as a result of these initiatives. I commend the bill with the additional funding to the House, but I also support the second reading amendment, which is about improving the administration and delivery of Indigenous education. I thank the House for the opportunity to address what I regard as a very serious issue.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would associate myself with the very positive comments that have been made by the member for Batman in relation to Tiwi islanders and the associated programs that are taking place, such as employment programs that mining companies have introduced, particularly in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, and in relation to companies involved in the tourist industry that are also embracing Indigenous Australians and offering them employment opportunities. I believe that education—and I think most Australians would agree with this belief—is a key factor in addressing social disadvantage. Education provides knowledge and opportunity, and an overwhelming majority of Indigenous Australians need and often have difficulty accessing it.

All key social indicators demonstrate that a much greater level of disadvantage exists for our Indigenous Australians than our non-Indigenous Australians, and I believe that as a nation we should hang our head in shame about that. Looking at health, you can see that morbidity and mortality rates are much worse for Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are sicker and they die younger. I think we have been very slow in addressing that issue. When it comes to unemployment, domestic violence and the number of Indigenous people that are languishing in our jails, the figures are all deplorable.

Moving to education and looking at any of the benchmarks, you will see that Indigenous Australians are performing at a much lower level than other students in our nation. Their access to education is much more limited. If you make a comparison between indigenous people overseas—I think Canada and New Zealand are two prime examples—and Indigenous Australians, you find that other countries have recognised the need for education and creating opportunities while we in Australia have languished far behind them.

The government has recently focused on problems with Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and I feel that quite often it has come back to blaming those Indigenous Australians. I would like to emphasise very strongly tonight before the House the fact that the best results can be achieved with partnerships—partnerships between the Commonwealth, the state and the private sector. The key to success is always education, education, education.

I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation that we have before us tonight, the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006, and I also support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga. The legislation will provide an additional $43.6 million over the years 2006-2008 for Indigenous education and training. It will extend tutorial assistance to students in year 9 of school and in vocational education in TAFE. It will also support community festivals to promote health and anti substance abuse—which, given the comments I have already made, I feel is essential—as well as school based sporting academies and related activities for Indigenous Australians.

The amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga really highlights some of the concerns I have about this legislation. The fact is that it has not really honed in on the issue of addressing problems relating to literacy and early intervention in literacy as well as problems with parent-school partnerships, which I do not think have been adequately addressed in this legislation.

The funding will be based on assessments of students’ needs and the availability of funding. I think that the assessment of needs is a very good principle. As a nation, we really need to make sure that those funds are available to address those needs so we can eliminate the disadvantages that exist for our Indigenous Australians. Funding should be available to all students who need help; it should not be based on competition for those dollars.

Commonwealth general recurrent grants are open ended. The government provides money to some of the richest schools in Australia. They are not restricted because they have a special formula applied or based on whether or not the money is available. Surely the same criteria should apply to the most disadvantaged students in our nation, but that is not the case. The bill does nothing for primary school students. The ITAS continues to be linked to year 3 literacy and numeracy results, which means that a student has to wait until year 4 before they can receive tutorial assistance. This is inconsistent with the overwhelming message that has come out in relation to educational research. Early intervention is paramount if you are going to improve educational performance. Indigenous children need urgent support: only 20 per cent in remote areas are achieving the national reading benchmarks in year 3. That really necessitates the need for assistance in year 1 and 2, before they fail in year 3.

It is not only Indigenous students in remote areas who are failing these benchmarks; it is not only Indigenous students in rural areas who are having difficulties; it is Indigenous students in all areas. I would like to share with the House tonight a story about one of the schools within the Shortland electorate. A constituent recently approached me about this particular situation. Gorokan Public School runs a homework scheme for Indigenous students, which is funded by the Department of Education, Science and Training. The facility was made available to all of the school’s Indigenous community. That was done through parent meetings and newsletters, and it was embraced by Indigenous families within the electorate.

There were 24 students who were accessing the centre—it is an after school hours centre and homework centre—and these students were receiving intensive tutorial assistance from trained tutors, which is just what they need to be able to address their educational disadvantage. The students who were involved in the centre showed improvement in their normal classrooms, and their parents and classroom teachers were commenting on the changes that had occurred. It was not only the changes that were occurring educationally; there were also social changes occurring. These students felt a lot better about themselves. That is one of the things that achieving does: when people achieve, when students find they are reading with the best of them in their class, they feel good about themselves and they are prepared to take risks; they are prepared to push themselves just a little harder. This was happening at Gorokan Public School. The Indigenous children who were attending this homework centre were performing at a level that surpassed anything that they had performed at previously.

But a problem arose in the school. It was discovered that 12 of those 24 students were under the age of eight—the age when children are best able to learn—and they were told they had to take those children out of that homework program. It is true that the guidelines for the program say that the children must be eight years of age or older, and those guidelines were put in place by the Howard government in 2005. It said homework centres would:

• focus on improving outcomes in literacy, numeracy and other curriculum subjects;
• encourage partnerships involving schools and local business and community groups—

which this homework centre at Gorokan does, and—

• involve suitably skilled personnel in the supervision of homework where possible …

Of course those people who were involved in the supervision and providing the extra assistance to the students at Gorokan primary school are more than suitably qualified and committed to the students of the school. The final point is:

• target students aged more than eight.

So the students have to fail: they have to get to the age of eight, be unable to read and be unable to get the assistance they need before they can access the service of a homework centre like the one at Gorokan Public School that has achieved such outstanding results.

The constituents who have approached me about this were very disappointed that these young people had to be removed from the classroom. The school was told that unless other students could be included in the homework centre then it would close. That is despite the fact that students had made such a dramatic improvement and despite the fact that every study supports early intervention as a key approach to addressing educational disadvantage and any problems that are surfacing in the area of education.

I have been reliably informed that the school has now approached local schools, and students from both Toukley and Kanwal are attending the homework centre. There are still fewer than 30 students, but what really worries me is that there were students who under the age of eight years. It was a prime time to address the problems that they had with education, and now they have been removed from the homework centre and they will only be allowed back when they are eight years of age. When that happens, their problems will be a lot greater than they are now.

I look at the amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga, and the example that I have given fits right into the guidelines of what she refers to in it. The amendment looks at the imposition of red tape by the government. I do not think that you could have a better example of where red tape and bureaucracy are affecting the outcome that each and every member of this House would like to see. That outcome is addressing educational disadvantage of Indigenous Australians. I implore the government to rethink, to revisit, that particular issue and to consider what restricting access to homework centres for children under the age of eight can mean long term.

In addition to the issue that I have highlighted—an issue that is so important to my electorate—I point out that there has been chronic underspending of Commonwealth funding for Indigenous Australia in the context of this bill. Department officials have admitted to an underspend of $126 million. So we have $126 million underspent and students being denied access to a homework centre. That does not gel with me. The underspending was accompanied by changes to program administration which were very similar to the type of thing that I have mentioned.

As a nation we owe it to Indigenous Australians to ensure that they have the greatest opportunity to access education. We owe it to Indigenous Australians to address those key factors of disadvantage that I mentioned earlier in my contribution. We owe it to Indigenous Australians to work together in partnerships of the Commonwealth, the states and the private sector. And we owe it to Indigenous Australians not just to provide an extra $43.6 million over the period of 2006 to 2008, but to see that that money will provide them with the opportunities that they need to succeed in the future.

Whilst supporting the legislation, I strongly urge the government to look at the issues raised by the member for Jagajaga and I ask them to revisit issues like the homework centre and many others. I know that the member for Lingiari will be able to draw the attention of the House to issues that are of great concern in remote areas of Australia and he will be able to demonstrate most definitely how Indigenous students in the Northern Territory are being disadvantaged by changes that this government have made to Indigenous education.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006. Of course, this is not the first time I have spoken on this type of legislation in this place since I first came here in 1987. I have to say that the theme is not going to change much in this contribution because my observations about the state of Indigenous education tell me that it is as powerless today as it was then.

It is for different reasons, but what we do know is that we have to do a great deal more to address the needs of Indigenous Australians generally, to understand the chronic poverty that many Indigenous people and those who live in remote communities in particular experience and to appreciate that, if you want to get out of poverty, you have to address the fundamentals such as education, health and housing. That is something which this government, unfortunately, has failed to recognise and has certainly failed to do.

Nevertheless, I do support the appropriation of $43.6 million from 2006 to 2008 in this legislation, which will be going towards the extension of tutorial assistance for year 9 school students; the extension of tutorial assistance for TAFE, vocational training and education students; school based sporting academies and related activities; supporting Indigenous youth festivals; and programs to discourage substance abuse.

To my way of thinking, a fundamental aspect of this bill is the proposal to extend the ITAS, the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme, to year 9 Indigenous students and to extend tutorial assistance to Indigenous vocational education and training. Unfortunately, the government took a range of decisions over the last 18 months which have militated against getting better achievement and higher success rates from Indigenous communities for Indigenous kids. It is certainly true that tutorial assistance is a key contributor to better school retention.

I have been a schoolteacher and—for the benefit of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, though she is not presently in the chamber—a history teacher. I am now a parent of four, and my kids are at various stages of making the transition from primary school to high school to higher education. So I value all of the incentives that encourage young people to stay at school to learn and succeed. However, it is a great shame—and, indeed, I think it is an indictment of the government—that they changed the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program in 2004 in ways that limited parents’ participation in their children’s education and subsequently limited access to ITAS. At the time these changes were made, I made speeches in this chamber, put out press releases and questioned the minister, and got very unsatisfactory responses. In fact, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating: we already know that the government have underspent on ITAS by $124 million-odd over 2004-05. This has all meant limiting the access of Indigenous students and their families to support which they require and should have fundamental access to.

As I said, I spoke last year of how the changes to ASSPA would continue to have a negative impact on schools and communities. Since the changes were made, I have travelled extensively through my electorate of Lingiari, visiting many schools. You would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, it is a significantly large electorate, covering 1.3 million square kilometres, and around 40 per cent of my constituents are Indigenous. Most of those 40 per cent live in small, remote communities. There are 125 schools in my electorate. I must say that, although I have not visited all of them, I have visited a significant number of schools and communities since last year. The clear message that I gave this chamber last year remains the same today: the changes to the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program have led directly to less Indigenous participation in schools, less interaction and less involvement in decision making by Indigenous parents.

This is a view shared by the Australian Education Union, who last year undertook a survey on the impact of changes on schools. Their conclusion was very significant and is worth quoting:

With less opportunity to participate, Indigenous parents are voting with their feet and staying away from schools. Parents have little understanding of the changes, or the reasons for them. Formal avenues for Indigenous participation in mainstream school structures, such as school councils, have been diminished by these changes.

There is a simple point to be made—it should be understandable for the government; it certainly is understood by educationalists: unless parents are engaged in school activities and the education of their children and work with the professional educators in a school environment, Indigenous students will continue to disengage and not attend.

The changes to the funding of the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme have meant that not all students are now eligible for tutorial support—prior to the changes being introduced last year, tutorial assistance was available to all Indigenous students—and I can remember railing against that in this chamber. The changes mean that ITAS funding is now based on the number of Indigenous students who fail year 3, 5 or 7 numeracy and literacy tests in the previous year’s multiple assessment project benchmark testing. I am not sure what idiot thought this process up. I know the idiot who was the minister at the time and who advocated it in this chamber. He did not have an answer when I asked him then and I know there is not an answer now. If educationalists identify that young people need tutorial type assistance when they first enter the school environment, why would you limit it to those years after they have failed a test?

Others have spoken in this place about the failure rates, lack of achievement and lack of attainment of Indigenous kids in these benchmark tests across Australia. I can tell you that the experience of educators in the Northern Territory is that not only are we having less engagement with Indigenous parents but people who would otherwise have been employed as tutors are no longer in the field because they have not been able to rely on those resources for a job. Now I am getting representations from Indigenous communities who say that those people who had otherwise made themselves available for tutorial assistance are no longer making themselves available because they can now get a job with Centrelink or the local council and get reliable work. So now, even if tutorial assistance programs are available, many communities, because of the changing way in which the program is being administered, are unable to find tutors. It seems to me that this short-sighted, stupid approach needs to be reviewed. I said it at the time and I say it again. In the case of Indigenous students in the Northern Territory, I know it very, very well.

We know that funding is based on year 1 to year 9 Indigenous school students who are at risk of not achieving the relevant Northern Territory Curriculum Framework learning outcomes for their year level. What this means is that funding available for tutorial assistance, 2.5 hours tuition per student per week for 32 weeks of the year, will be based on the number of students who are not achieving. There is no funding for those who are achieving and want to get better. This government talks about rewarding and encouraging success. This program militates against that encouragement. It takes away the support and the incentive to get greater improvement. What we now know is that the allocation of resources is based on the number of kids in the class who fail. Even if we could get better results for those kids who are passing and who want to achieve higher results—perhaps they are gifted—we cannot provide it because the resources are no longer being made available.

What this has meant is that schools in the Territory have had to consider new ways to deliver tutorial assistance to ensure that all students who want assistance can get some tutorial support. Teachers and parents have had to do more with less financial assistance. As I pointed out, because there is less money, there are now fewer Indigenous tutors, with flow-on effects to family stability, attachment to their community and indeed community life. The combination of making it harder for parents to be involved, to make their decisions about their children, and less ITAS funding means that there is real danger that much of the good work done in the development of the curriculum programs to encourage and support attendance and literacy and numeracy development may well wither. In the long run, what we are doing is turning back the clock.

I mentioned earlier that I am a proud parent of four. My children are very fortunate. They live in a community that is supportive and encouraging in the development of their positive self-identity. They participate in a range of activities, social, cultural, academic and sporting. They feel safe and comfortable in the education system and have a sense of achievement in any number of ways. They are also from a wealthy middle-class family. They have got everything going for them. My kids, like many others in their circumstances, see attendance at school and learning as a natural activity. Although occasionally they moan and groan about getting up and attending, particularly at the start of each semester, they know the routine and have a sense of purpose as they go about it each day. They understand the purpose of it and they are prepared to dedicate themselves to it. If we want Indigenous kids to have the same sense of purpose and to be comfortable with their identity and environment, we need to provide the scaffolding and networks to support social, cultural, academic and sporting activities in Indigenous communities.

The previous structures in place for ASSPA committees and for access to ITAS funding for all students provided key ingredients for students to have a supportive and encouraging environment attune to their needs so that they too could develop positive self-identities. I welcome the extension of ITAS to VET students; however, as parents and teachers will tell you, by the time a student reaches 13 or 14 it could well be too late. In fact in many of these communities unless you get the kids in year 1 or year 2 you may well have missed the boat. This is particularly the case if they have not learnt to read and write by the time they get to that year 9 stage.

If they have not had encouragement and reinforcement for what we might think are minor achievements, if they do not feel comfortable, if they are embarrassed, if a learning environment is foreign, then it is too late. If they suffer from otitis media, which is a chronic ear disease for many kids in the Northern Territory who cannot hear properly, if they do not have a proper diet, if they do not go to school with full bellies, if they do not get lunch, if they live in a house where there are 20 or 30 other people, how do we expect these people to achieve? Yet what we see in this program, as a result of this legislation, are some of the supports which were helping these people being withdrawn.

I am getting a bit sick and tired—in fact, very sick and tired—of seeing respective ministers in this government swanning around the bush as if they know every bloody thing when on most occasions they know next to nought, pontificating on how to get better results, telling people to take rocks off roofs and not addressing the underlying issues. It is about time they did.

I have to say that I am encouraged by some aspects of this legislation. I was at a community in June of this year—I cannot remember exactly which one it was; during that month I had been to quite a number. It could have been Elliott, Yuendumu, Borroloola, Harts Range, Utopia or Ntaria—it could have been any number of places. I came across an old Furphy water tank embossed with its famous motto: ‘Good, better, best—never let it rest—till your good is better—and your better best’. I think this is as good as any motto for Indigenous Education Direct Assistance. We can never let it rest. While I support this legislation, I think we really need to do a great deal more. I believe the government needs to go back to the drawing board and work out how it can provide more effective assistance to Indigenous kids. I have to say that I am encouraged by the support for the sporting programs that are in this legislation.

Today during question time in this chamber you may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a number of Indigenous kids were sitting up in the gallery. They were from Ntaria and Areyonga in Central Australia and Sanderson High School in Darwin. I wish they were here tonight because they would appreciate what we are talking about, they would understand the issues which I have spoken about and they would know the concerns that their parents have about their ability to access regional education outcomes.

I also want to commend the support for the Indigenous festivals and, whilst the amount is minuscule, the money to discourage students from substance abuse—but it is minuscule. I first started working on substance abuse programs in 1979. I can tell you that from 1979 until now, no reasonable, real effort has been made by any government of any political persuasion anywhere in Australia to provide the resources that are absolutely necessary if we are to hit this problem on the head, and it is still the case.

The member for Batman referred to a very proper observation made by Bruce Harvey from Rio Tinto. We have had a lot of debate in this place about skills shortages recently. He made this observation in the Financial Review last Friday:

Most of our long-life mines are in northern Australia—

and this is significant—

and, by 2020, every second Australian living above the Tropic of Capricorn or above Port Augusta in South Australia, will be of Aboriginal descent.

I know that Rio Tinto has done an enormous amount to ensure that Aboriginal people around the mines in which Rio Tinto work are being fostered and encouraged through the school system by this company. Other companies are making similar efforts, but many in other industries are not. This government needs to encourage those companies who are working in or near these communities to understand their obligation—an obligation which will affect their bottom line in a positive way by providing them access to skilled workers in due course. We need to say to these people: you too need to make a contribution to assist Aboriginal people in regional and remote Australia to get decent educational outcomes which will hopefully lead them to meaningful jobs. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is supporting the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 because it provides for additional funding for Indigenous education. In total there will be an extra $43.6 million over the 2006 to 2008 quadrennium. Specifically, that funding will be broken up in the following way. There will be an amount to extend tutorial assistance to students in year 9. Similarly, there will be tutorial assistance available for students in vocational education and TAFE. There is money for community festivals, money for activities that promote health and anti substance abuse and funding for school based sporting academies and related activities for Indigenous students. From that list it is obvious that Labor has no problem with what is in this bill. Rather, our problem is with what is not in the bill. There is nothing in it to indicate that the government has learned anything from the mess it has made of funding for Indigenous education over the past couple of years.

For those who take an interest in the state of Indigenous education, there is a much more accurate reflection of what is going on to be found in the second reading amendment moved by Labor’s shadow minister. Labor’s amendment reflects the urgency of the task facing governments around the country when it comes to addressing the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

It is all there in the second reading amendment. It condemns the government for failing to deliver urgently needed funding for Indigenous students by insisting on complex and bureaucratic administrative arrangements that prevent many schools and communities from benefiting from educational programs. We have heard from other speakers already about the $126 million underspend in the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. We have heard criticism already, and it is in the second reading amendment, of the impenetrable red tape that has been introduced to many of the programs now making up the Indigenous education funding from the Commonwealth government. This red tape has led to a decline in the involvement of Indigenous communities in the Parent School Partnership Initiative.

The government has failed to provide sufficient resources for early intervention programs in schools to raise Indigenous children’s literacy standards. It has reduced the number of Indigenous schoolchildren who access tutorial assistance by making eligibility requirements more restrictive and short term. Finally, the amendment condemns the government for presiding for 10 long years over continuing gaps in educational and training participation and performance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. It is without doubt a comprehensive second reading amendment and it is also a comprehensive indictment of the government’s failure on Indigenous students in this country. You do not have to look very far for statistics to back up that failure. The most recent statistics benchmarking Indigenous students’ performance in writing, reading and numeracy against that of non-Indigenous students show a very significant gap of up to 20 or more percentage points between the average performance of Indigenous students and that of their non-Indigenous counterparts.

As we have heard from other speakers already in this debate, the government’s policy for improving the outcomes for Indigenous education is in absolute disarray. In the past couple of years radical changes have been made to longstanding programs and practices in this area. You might say there is nothing wrong with radical change, especially when faced with the shocking statistics on Indigenous education that I have just referred to. The problem is that there does not seem to have been any clear rationale for the changes and there has been almost no effective consultation with educators and members of the Indigenous community in arriving at these changes.

I will go through the changes one at a time, and first are the changes to the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme. Previously, schools received funding to provide tutorial assistance to Indigenous students based on the school’s assessment of who needed the extra help. Students who had been identified by their teachers as needing extra assistance were eligible for up to five hours of tuition per week, either as individuals or as part of small groups. For the most part, the tuition was provided outside the classroom. One of the changes to the tuition program is the shift to using in-class tutors to provide supplementary assistance to students for up to 2½ hours per week, but what has really changed the nature of the tuition program is the way in which eligibility for assistance is determined. Funding is now provided to schools based on the numbers of Indigenous students who fail the years 3, 5 and 7 benchmark tests for literacy and numeracy.

You have to ask where on earth DEST came up with that idea. It was certainly not from anyone with educational experience. The evidence at the recent Senate committee inquiry into these changes was overwhelming in its criticism of DEST’s failure based approach to funding for tuition. The report referred to the submissions on ITAS as highlighting ‘the disjuncture of funding policy and educational practice’. Reading through the evidence, I really felt for the principals and teachers. They are desperately trying to make sense of a program that is contrary to everything they know from educational theory and their own experience to be effective in assisting Indigenous kids with literacy and numeracy.

Thankfully, the government has made one small concession that will give schools some chance to use the tuition money according to their own assessment of what works for their students. Following the debate on the original Indigenous education bill back in 2004, when Labor vehemently opposed the proposed changes to ITAS, the minister did allow some flexibility in the way the money can be used. Schools can now determine for themselves which students will receive the tutorial assistance and when it is provided to those students, but the amount is still based on the number of students who fail the tests. As I said, though, there is flexibility in how it is utilised across the school to best meet the needs of the students. But that is a minor improvement to a system which still completely flies in the face of the early intervention approach that educators will tell you is the key to building strong foundations and achieving good educational outcomes.

In contrast to the weight of evidence in favour of early intervention strategies, the recent Senate report states that DEST was ‘unable to cite any assessment of the educational validity of the failure based approach to funding’. Common sense tells you that that is because there is not any. Submission after submission to the Senate inquiry made that point. For example, the Catholic Education Office in Darwin described the funding model as ‘pedagogically unsound’. The Association of Independent Schools of South Australia questioned the design of ITAS that focuses support for students on post-benchmark failure. Intervention at that point is inappropriate, as early intervention is the key to educational success for students at risk of failure. Why should Indigenous kids have to struggle and fail in year 3 and be even more alienated from the education system before they are eligible for help from the federal government?

The surprising thing is that the minister for education obviously knows the importance of early intervention strategies and their success in improving the educational outcomes of students experiencing difficulties with literacy and numeracy. I say that because we have just celebrated National Literacy and Numeracy Week. Schools around Australia were recognised by the minister for their achievements in improving literacy and numeracy for their students. I cannot imagine that any of the recipients won for offering programs that do not address students’ problems until after they have failed in year 3. I know one school that certainly would not advocate that approach. I am talking about Blackwater North State School, in my electorate, which was awarded a highly commended award for their program Leap into Learning, which has achieved outstanding results for students in the early primary school years. The program was initially aimed at year 2 students, but elements of the program are now incorporated in preschool and year 1 lessons as well as year 2.

I raise the example of Blackwater North for two reasons. One, of course, is to congratulate the school and its staff on their commitment to providing quality education, which has been recognised with this national award. I also raise it to underline the point that I have made about early intervention. Here was a school that identified problems at the year 2 level, but what was their response? Their response was not to wait until the students failed a year 3 test and then give them assistance in year 4, but quite the opposite. The school’s application for the literacy week award said:

Leap into Learning outlines a commitment to the early years as they are critical to children’s ongoing learning and development because they set firm foundations for learning and progression through school which is reflected in this project.

The example of Blackwater North State School is just one example of what we saw time and again before the Senate inquiry. Teachers know their students and are in the best position to assess how best to meet their needs and improve their learning outcomes. They want to give students that help as and when they need it, not according to the convenience and the dictates of the department of education.

I will now talk about the other major change, which was to the ASSPA program. It was not a change but a complete abolition of the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness program. This has been replaced by the new Parent School Partnership Initiative program, but the transition between the two programs has been a disaster. It is not even a question of the merits of the PSPI program; it is just that the transition has meant that nothing can truly succeed with what has been left behind. The sad thing is that it was a disaster that was entirely foreseen. Labor did not support the abolition of ASSPA but, once it was clear that the government would persist with that policy, we wanted to make sure that the transition to the PSPI program was done properly, without completely destroying the relationships that had been established between schools and Indigenous parents under the ASSPA program.

At the time we were debating the amendment bill at the end of 2004, Labor members were begging the government to use 2005 as a transition year to allow for time for the changes to be properly implemented. That included time for DEST to figure out what it was doing and to disseminate information to its staff in regional offices around Australia and time to explain the changes to school communities so that they were not completely ambushed by the loss of their ASSPA funding. Of course, none of that happened, and the reaction from schools and Indigenous parents that Labor members predicted and warned the government about has occurred, with the end result being a huge loss of faith in the process and many Indigenous parents just walking away from involvement in their kids’ schools.

Again, just like the changes to ITAS, there is no real policy rationale underlying the change to ASSPA. The government points to a review of the program conducted by DEST in 2002 and 2003 but the report from that review is quite inconclusive, and even reasonably supportive of ASSPA. No-one reading that report would say that it advocates or provides the basis for the wholesale scrapping of the ASSPA program but, nonetheless, that debate took place and the bill was passed at the end of 2004. For most schools it was only when the school year started in 2005 that they realised that they would no longer receive the ASSPA money that had supported many activities for their Indigenous students. Instead of receiving the automatic funding based on the number of Indigenous students enrolled, schools were to learn that they now had to go through a two-step application process to compete for funding which they may or may not receive.

The whole idea of ASSPA to start with was to have reliable and predictable funding to support Indigenous students to take up opportunities that they might otherwise miss out on. It was also there for the school to run activities like nutrition programs and events such as NAIDOC Week—the kinds of activities that would make Indigenous students and their parents feel that they are a valued part of the school community. ASSPA committees had proved to be an effective way of encouraging Indigenous parents to become involved in schools and in school decision making. It was the parent committee’s job to work with the principal and other school staff to come up with the plan for using ASSPA funds.

For good reason, the story of what happened in 2005 was the subject of the Senate committee’s inquiry. The committee heard from schools in Indigenous communities around Australia, and the experiences related to the committee matched the warnings given by Labor in 2004. Important school activities that for years had been funded by ASSPA were not possible in 2005 for most of the schools that appeared before the committee. These activities were mainly extracurricular but they had significant linkages to educational outcomes that were recognised by the people who should know—the principals and teachers who had worked with ASSPA committees to incorporate the activities into the schools’ programs.

There is a recognition by teachers that the issues relating to Indigenous education are broad and often go beyond what happens inside the classroom, so there has to be a lateral approach taken to solving problems like behaviour management and academic progress. ASSPA funding was often the answer to some of those creative solutions. I note that, ironically, the kinds of programs that this bill is now funding follow the same rationale as that for the ASSPA funding—the recognition that the issues affecting Indigenous students go far beyond what happens when they walk into the classroom.

Some other examples that were funded out of ASSPA funding were things like nutrition programs, which came up frequently before the Senate inquiry. Teachers fronting classrooms know that you cannot teach kids who are hungry, so running a breakfast club or similar activity is part of achieving educational outcomes at schools where they know kids are attending classes without receiving adequate nutrition at home. It was a similar story with sporting activities. At many schools ASSPA money paid for Indigenous kids to take part in sport, whether it was money for travel or for equipment. Again, this was recognised by teachers and the community as giving the students a positive experience of school and helped back in the classroom when it came to their academic results.

With the demise of ASSPA, the money that funded those types of activities is gone. But, worse than that, the way that ASSPA was abolished and replaced by the PSPI program has been a big setback in trying to get Indigenous parents involved in schools. Where once parents were invited to work with the school to plan for the use of ASSPA money, now there is no money until someone at the school goes through a two-step application process to access Parent School Partnership Initiative funds. Not surprisingly, there has been a big backlash by schools against the process. DEST have finally, it appears, started listening to those directly involved in helping and educating Indigenous kids and I believe that they have folded the two steps into a single application.

But it is very hard not to think that the damage has already been done. The message has been sent, by the way DEST handled the whole process, that Indigenous parents are not important and that they cannot really be trusted to make decisions for their kids. The government did not consult with the Indigenous community about abolishing ASSPA and did not explain how they could be part of the new scheme. The PSPI program is overly bureaucratic and so badly designed that you could not come up with something more alienating and off-putting for Indigenous parents if you tried.

That was certainly echoed by one of the schools that I spoke to in my electorate. I tried to get a bit of feedback from around the place. One large primary school in Rockhampton related their experience. They put in two applications under PSPI—one last year and one again in 2006. Both have been rejected. The application both times was to employ a teacher aide to support learning amongst Indigenous students. The deputy principal, whom I spoke to, told me that the process for applying is quite onerous, with excessive paperwork, lots of supportive documentation and many hours of work. Of course, it was very frustrating for the school staff and the Indigenous parents whose kids were relying on that assistance when those applications that have been worked on over many hours were rejected.

The deputy principal said that she is quite hesitant to apply for PSPI again after the fruitless effort they went to with the previous two applications. The deputy principal said that they used the ASSPA funding, which now of course is not available to the school, for Indigenous kids to go on excursions and to take part in sporting activities and that she knows for a fact that the kids are worse off for the loss of that money. This school also had an experience of losing funding under the ITAS program. They said that they employed a full-time staff member to assist Indigenous kids previously but the changes to ITAS have forced that staff member to be made part time, and there is subsequently less time to give to those kids to improve their educational outcomes.

Another school I want to mention is Crescent Lagoon State School. This school has quite a large proportion of Indigenous kids and they recently held a very successful set of NAIDOC Week activities. They lost their ASSPA funding, of course—they no longer have their ASSPA committee—but the Indigenous parents and a teacher, Amanda Power, got together to make sure that their kids would not miss out. They were not going to let the lack of federal government funding get in the way of them having a fantastic NAIDOC Week. They wrote to businesses around Rockhampton to get together money so that they could set up the activities. They got an awful lot of support from throughout the community.

One of the highlights of the NAIDOC Week activities was a special assembly I attended where an ‘adopt an elder’ program was put in place. They have adopted Mrs Nyoka Hatfield. Her name is Gami, which is Aboriginal for grandmother. Mrs Hatfield has had a long involvement with the school and this formalised what she has contributed over the years in teaching these kids at Crescent Lagoon about the Indigenous history of our local area and Indigenous culture.

In conclusion, I support the second reading amendment which condemns the government and calls on it to reform its funding criteria and guidelines so as to address the problems and provide all Indigenous students with the opportunity to achieve quality schooling results.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The disadvantages that continue to plague Australia’s Indigenous communities in the areas of health, education and employment opportunities speak of past injustices suffered by Indigenous communities as much as they highlight the work that still has to be done today in order to redress these ongoing disadvantages. At a time when a debate about public education and the dwindling resources allocated to it under this government continues to rage both in this place and elsewhere, and when improving educational opportunities as well as numeracy and literacy skills standards remains of critical importance in ensuring Australia’s future prosperity, it is especially important that we pay particular attention to Indigenous education and continue to look for new ways to lift the school retention and success rates as well as the literacy and numeracy skills of Indigenous school children.

Among Australia’s Indigenous communities there is a proportionally higher number of school-age children aged under 15 years in comparison with the rest of Australia. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 sets aside an additional $43.6 million to be spent from 2006 to 2008 on Indigenous education and training. The extra funding listed under this bill will target several key initiatives currently maintained by the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. They include tutorial assistance programs aimed at year 9 school students as well as at students undertaking TAFE and vocational training and education courses; school based sporting academies and related activities, as well as Indigenous youth festivals; and programs designed to discourage substance abuse among Indigenous youth.

The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill serves as a conduit for funds to be channelled into such programs—programs that were originally designed to improve Indigenous student learning outcomes and further close the gap that still exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in their respective school retention and success rates. To take one example, the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme for year 9 Indigenous students currently provides them with up to four hours of tutorial assistance per week for up to 32 weeks in a year. In doing so it aims to increase the chances of these students making it to year 10, and then hopefully going on to successfully complete year 12. As it stands, this bill promises a further $14.5 million on top of the $15.6 million already allocated to this program over the next two years. Of course, this can only be a good thing.

In truth, however, the extension of year 9 tutorial assistance and vocational education and training programs made possible by this additional funding only restores support that was previously available to Indigenous students under the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme. At the same time its benefits are offset by this government’s continued tightening of eligibility requirements for Abstudy allowances for students under the age of 16, including the introduction of means testing and the requirement that students be enrolled in full-time studies in order to receive maximum Abstudy assistance. In addition, for Indigenous students living in urban centres, only those who are studying in schools with an enrolment of 20 students or more are eligible to apply for the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme.

This bill fails to address ongoing concerns regarding the operation of the Parent School Partnership Initiative program, whose increasing bureaucracy has only had the effect of alienating parents and Indigenous community members alike, and whose maze of grants and applications means that teachers and school administrators frequently become bogged down in submission-writing exercises. But perhaps most crucially, this bill does nothing new in terms of early intervention programs for Indigenous students. By continuing to limit access to ITAS to students in year 4 and above it ignores current education research that has highlighted the crucial importance of early intervention programs as a way of significantly improving a student’s chances of successfully finishing his or her schooling.

What this bill does is mask the continued underspending of Commonwealth funds on Indigenous education, which now stands at somewhere in the order of $126 million. This is money that the government has withheld from Indigenous education programs that are designed to help address the disadvantages and inequalities that a vast majority of Indigenous students still face. And when you look at the figures for school retention rates, what they tell you is that this government is still not doing enough in the area of Indigenous education and that we as a country still have a long way to go before there is anything like parity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

Year 12 retention rates for Indigenous students are still half that of non-Indigenous students. Only 39.5 per cent of Indigenous students made it to year 12 in 2005, compared with 76.6 per cent among non-Indigenous students. This figure of 39.5 per cent represents only an eight per cent increase in year 12 retention rates for Indigenous students over the six years since 1994. Of course that is not good enough. In terms of higher education, in 2003 the participation rate of Indigenous students in our higher education institutions actually declined relative to non-Indigenous students enrolled in higher education. There has been little noticeable improvement in the retention rates for Indigenous students at university relative to non-Indigenous students, and there is still a big difference between Indigenous success rates at university compared with the success rate of non-Indigenous students.

Whilst this bill promises an extra $43.6 million for strategic Indigenous education initiatives, the reality is that a whole lot more needs to be done across the board if we are to see any substantial improvement to Indigenous education. The bill signals but a small step in the right direction, yet current government guidelines that restrict access to educational assistance and tutorial programs for some Indigenous students as well as access to Abstudy only threaten to undermine whatever gains are made by this bill.

I take this opportunity to recognise the invaluable work done by Mr Terry Kildea and his staff at the Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre, which offers a Koori programs unit in partnership with Kangan Batman TAFE, and which is located in my electorate of Calwell. The Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre is a leading provider of vocational education and training to Indigenous students throughout Melbourne. The centre aims to empower students by merging the cultural heritage and values of the traditional landowners with contemporary Aboriginal culture and cutting-edge learning technology. It uses a combination of classroom, practical and applied initiatives, including art exhibitions, music festivals, community projects and cultural camps, to encourage its students to learn. Importantly, the learning centre also offers its students additional support in helping them find either employment or further educational opportunities once they have completed their studies.

I have had the opportunity to visit the Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre on a number of occasions, and each time I have been greatly impressed by the hard work of its staff, who provide Indigenous students with training and education courses and opportunities that they would otherwise not have access to. Many of the difficulties that the learning centre faces daily are broadly indicative of the enormous challenges that still lie ahead in improving attendance rates, retention rates and employment opportunities for Indigenous students. According to Terry Kildea, who manages the learning centre, one trend that remains of particular concern is the early age at which Indigenous students are leaving school. The centre has had to cater for school leavers as young as 11 years old who need assistance. The need to cater for large numbers of early school leavers as well as students who become caught up in the juvenile justice system is putting enormous pressure not only on the learning centre in Broadmeadows but on other Koori education units affiliated with TAFE institutions around Australia.

What this means is that much more needs to be done to find ways to significantly lower the number of early school leavers amongst Indigenous students, and to reduce the number of Indigenous children currently caught up in Australia’s juvenile justice system. Housing, health, transport and a host of other difficulties only compound the obstacles Indigenous students face in this country. A number of the students enrolled at the Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre live in public housing, which tends to make them fairly transient, and they frequently complain of difficulties travelling to and from school. Very few students have either a drivers licence or access to a car. Transport is a problem that affects Indigenous students living in urban centres, not just those who live in remote areas.

In response, one of the many initiatives that the learning centre in Broadmeadows has introduced is driver education courses for those students without a driving licence or without enough experience driving on the roads. The funding that is provided under the IESIP is crucial to this and many other programs and initiatives that the learning centre offers its students. It allows the learning centre to host a monthly rewards and recognition luncheon that recognises and rewards diligent students with such prizes as supermarket vouchers, travel passes and movie passes as a way of encouraging students to persist with their education and training. In themselves, these prizes speak volumes about the disadvantages and difficulties that Indigenous Australians and Indigenous schoolchildren still face. Food vouchers and travel allowances are a good indication of just how interconnected and systemic are the problems Indigenous children face.

One of the centre’s great success stories is its distribution of refurbished computers to those students who, because of travel difficulties, childcare commitments, family responsibilities and so forth, find it difficult to regularly attend courses at the learning centre. These computers make it possible for students to study from home, and since its introduction this program has seen something in the order of a 300 per cent increase in student retention and success rates.

IESIP funding also enables the centre to provide tutorial assistance for its students as well as cultural studies and cultural support programs that enable community elders to visit and speak with students at the centre and those in custody. These and other such programs initiated by the Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre provide vital resources and support for Indigenous students, making the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act and the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program key components in ongoing efforts to lift school retention and success rates among Indigenous children.

It is crucial that funding for these programs arrives on time. Mr Kildea drew my attention to delays that the learning centre experienced in receiving last year’s funding. Such delays often occur because of disagreements between the Commonwealth and relevant state governments. In the case of the Gunung-Willam-Balluk Learning Centre, the IESIP funding that was supposed to arrive at the beginning of the 2005 academic year did not arrive until late December 2005. The timely distribution of IESIP money is absolutely essential to future planning as well as to ensuring that a range of programs remain available at the learning centre.

As a 2005 report commissioned by the Council of Australian Governments clearly states:

Students who stay on at school and complete Year 12 are much more likely to undertake additional education and training. In turn, they will have more, and better, employment options.

In the long term, people who have completed secondary or post-secondary education are more likely to encourage their children to do the same, so that benefits can flow from one generation to another. Until we as a nation achieve parity in school retention and success rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, it is incumbent upon us to find ways to improve the educational prospects of Indigenous children in this country. As other speakers have done before me, I am happy to support this bill.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006, I take this opportunity to thank all previous speakers, particularly the member for Kalgoorlie and the member for Fisher, for their contributions to this important debate. The bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to increase appropriations over the 2006-08 calendar years to provide additional funding for intensive tuition for Indigenous students in year 9 and Indigenous students in vocational and technical education, support for community festivals for health promotion activities addressing substance abuse by Indigenous youth in remote areas and delivery of school-based sporting academies and related activities for Indigenous students.

Specifically, $14.5 million in new funding appropriated under this bill will encourage Indigenous students in year 9 to continue with schooling to complete year 12, thereby enhancing their opportunities for further education and training and employment. Extending intensive tuition to Indigenous students in vocational and technical education through additional funding of $11.2 million will complement a suite of measures under the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme. Up to 18,000 young people annually will benefit from allocating $7.3 million to the Indigenous youth festivals initiative; this is a component of the Community Festivals for Health Promotion program. Funding of $1.5 million will be used as part of a whole-of-government response to address substance abuse issues. This measure further consolidates the whole-of-government regional approach that was announced in September 2005. Funding of $9.1 million is being appropriated to support 18 school based sporting academies by the end of 2008 and related strategies. Over the four years that will, in fact, total some $20 million.

During the course of the debate, the opposition made a number of unfounded assertions. While it is very tempting at this hour to ignore those assertions, I believe they should be rebutted—at least for the record. The opposition’s amendment seeks to condemn the government for failing to deliver urgently needed funding for Indigenous students by insisting on bureaucratic process. In addition, the opposition claims that red tape has led to a decline in the involvement of Indigenous communities in the Parent School Partnership Initiative. The government rejects absolutely this assertion; it is just not supported by the facts.

Since the Whole of School Intervention Strategy was introduced in 2005—of which the Parent School Partnership Initiative is a component—its administrative procedures have been streamlined considerably. Two funding rounds per year have replaced the initial five rounds per annum; a single application form has replaced the previous two-stage application process; and contracts have been significantly simplified, especially for those of up to $50,000.

The Australian government views parental and community engagement as being an important—indeed, essential—strategy for improving Indigenous educational outcomes. Australian government expenditure has significantly increased for projects specifically designed to enhance the participation of parents and communities in the education of their children. As at 31 December 2005, $36 million had been approved under the Whole of School Intervention Strategy. By May 2006, approvals had increased to some $50.6 million. The 2,186 projects approved by May had leveraged around a further $34 million from other sources.

The opposition accuses the government of overseeing a $126 million underspend through bureaucratic processes; again the government totally rejects this accusation. Reported shortfalls in expenditure for 2004-05 were due, in part, to extended negotiation with some 20 major and 230 minor education providers in reaching agreement on education outcome targets to accelerate further closure of the education divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and to strengthen the accountability and reporting arrangements for the 2005-08 quadrennium. The act appropriates funding on a calendar-year basis and allows 18 months for that funding to be expended. So all of the funding appropriated for 2005 had been spent within the time allowed by the act, with more than $226 million in funding actually being paid to providers in calendar year 2005.

The opposition further accuses the government of failing to provide sufficient resources for early intervention in schools to raise Indigenous literacy standards. Again this assertion is absolutely rejected by the government. The Australian government recognises early childhood is a critical period for the physical, emotional, intellectual and social development of children. The government has committed an additional $5 million over the remainder of the quadrennium to strengthen early childhood education. Parent school partnership initiatives will focus on strong partnerships between Indigenous parents and early childhood educators and will help Indigenous children make a smooth transition from preschool to school. Indigenous specific funding is supplementary to mainstream funding and is designed to accelerate improvements in Indigenous education outcomes. It should not substitute for mainstream funding by state and territory government and non-government education providers. Mainstream areas should fulfil their responsibilities for all students, including Indigenous students.

Tutorial assistance is now more strategically targeted to key points in education where the mainstream has failed Indigenous students, particularly those who do not reach the national literacy and numeracy benchmarks. There is flexibility in the funding arrangements for the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme. This flexibility enables tutorial assistance to be made available to Indigenous students in years 1 to 9 who are at risk of not meeting the relevant literacy or numeracy curriculum outcome levels.

The opposition’s amendment claims the government has reduced the number of Indigenous students who can access tutorial assistance by making eligibility requirements more restrictive and short term. A part of the Australian government’s approach to accelerating Indigenous students’ school outcomes involved reshaping the tutorial assistance program for Indigenous students from 2005. At the same time as increasing the funding for this Indigenous-specific tutorial assistance, the Australian government is determined to make mainstream programs and services work more effectively for Indigenous students, particularly those in metropolitan areas.

Indigenous specific funds provided by this government are targeted to areas of greatest need, and the tutorial assistance program is now more strategically targeted towards identified key points in education for Indigenous students. Tutorial assistance is available to metropolitan schools with 20 or more Indigenous students. This funding should not be used by mainstream education providers to substitute for their own shortfalls in providing assistance to Indigenous students. Australian government mainstream general recurrent and targeted funding is available to all students, including Indigenous students in metropolitan areas. These Indigenous students generally have greater access to mainstream services than those in remote areas.

I can confirm to the House that over the last decade this government has tied its supplementary Indigenous funding for education providers to accelerating significant and measurable improvement in Indigenous student outcomes and to funding programs that have shown demonstrable success—and real progress has been made since 1996. For example, Indigenous school enrolments have increased by 46 per cent to 135,097 in 2005. Year 12 Indigenous student enrolments have almost doubled—3,427 in 2005 compared with 1,738 in 1996. Year 12 Indigenous student retention has increased from 29 per cent to 39.5 per cent in 2005. Six of the nine 2004 literacy and numeracy benchmark test results for Indigenous students are the best results to date. Indigenous vocational training enrolments increased 94 per cent to 62,726 in 2005.

The opposition’s amendment calls for the government to reform the funding criteria and guidelines. This is not supported by the government because Indigenous specific funding arrangements were reformed for the 2005-08 quadrennium to heighten the requirement for education and training providers to accelerate Indigenous educational outcomes. The government’s strategic directions for 2005-08 are to improve mainstream service provision for Indigenous students, redirect existing resources to initiatives that work and to provide a greater weighting of resources to Indigenous students at greatest disadvantage—those in remote areas.

Indigenous education is a major priority of the Australian government. The government’s approach is to give Indigenous Australians the same opportunities given to other Australian children to receive the best education available to develop their skills, to secure employment and to share in Australia’s wealth. In conclusion, this bill will appropriate an additional $43.6 million to accelerate further closure of the education divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The Australian government places great importance on achieving better educational outcomes for Indigenous students. To achieve this, new investment is necessary in schools, vocational and technical education and health related activities. The Australian government is committed to developing the capacities and talents of Indigenous people so they have the necessary knowledge and skills and values for a productive and rewarding life. I commend this bill to the House.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.