Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which seeks to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year. Initiatives included are the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. A similar bill entitled the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2010 was debated and passed last year and assented to on 29 June 2010. The bill provided a 12-month extension to program funding in order to align the funding with other school program funding periods.

The Sporting Chance Program and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program are two initiatives of the previous coalition government that have been continued by the Labor government. Both programs have achieved success in both retaining students in school and increasing their participation and success rates. But Labor have not committed to long-term funding for these initiatives. Instead they have simply provided a 12-month extension in the last two budgets. This extension is described as being necessary to allow for the completion and release of the review of funding for schooling report at the end of 2011. By the government's own admission, the review is focused on the mainstream but there may be some implications for the design and operation of programs that run under the IE(TA) Act.

Longer term funding and therefore future planning for successful programs is now being held hostage to the Labor government's endless reviews. While the coalition have committed to considering the findings of the review of schools funding, chaired by David Gonski, there seems little reason why these programs should be extended for just one year rather than a longer period of time. One of the greatest complaints from service providers who deliver these programs on the ground is about the seemingly endless stop-and-start cycle of the funding commitments made by governments. The coalition understands the uncertainty created by such endless short-term commitments that are subject to review. However, the coalition will support the bill as drafted, as we recognise the value of these programs.

Sporting Chance is designed to use sport and recreation as a vehicle to engage Indigenous young people in their schooling. It consists of two elements: school based sports academies for secondary school students and education and engagement strategies for both primary and secondary school students. Indigenous secondary school students both male and female enrolled in a secondary school, particularly those deemed at risk, are eligible to participate in an academy. 'At risk' is assumed but is not limited to students who have been identified as having low attendance rates at school, literacy and numeracy skills below that of their fellow students or the national benchmarks, increased likelihood of not completing school or other social or behavioural concerns.

These projects utilise sport and recreation as a vehicle to increase the level of engagement of students, to improve their educational outcomes. It is important to note the development of sporting talents and participation in sport are subsidiary outcomes to the greater educational purpose of the program. According to the latest advice from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, in 2011 a total of 22 providers are to deliver 68 projects under the Sporting Chance Program. This is intended to benefit 11,000 primary and secondary school students at risk of not completing their schooling. I also note that the Australian Council for Educational Research will undertake an evaluation of the Sporting Chance Program. The evaluation, to be completed by mid-2011, is expected to measure the extent to which the Sporting Chance Program is meeting its objectives. It will be crucial in shaping the future direction of the program.

This bill will also provide funding for the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program to continue. This program supports Indigenous youth who wish to move away from home to gain qualifications that will increase their chance of obtaining employment in their community or elsewhere. It has been mainly targeted at youth between the ages of 16 and 24 from remote areas, but it is also available to other students from larger towns and cities if they relocate to an IYMP host location to take up an apprenticeship, a VET certificate or university course. The objectives of the IYMP are ambitious. The funding supports 324 Indigenous youth and young people at any point in time undertaking an Australian apprenticeship, a vocational education and training course or study at university. This funding goes a long way to give these young students access to safe, supported and culturally appropriate accommodation while they are studying. The key principle of the IYMP is to provide choice for Indigenous young people and their families.

For many Indigenous Australians, especially those in remote communities, life chances can be severely limited by a lack of opportunity, both in education and in employment. This program is vital as it seeks to redress that opportunity gap, at least in part, by providing access to a full range of post-secondary education and training options that smaller communities are simply not able to provide. IYMP also provides mentoring and other practical support to help these young people while they complete their qualifications. IYMP helps build numeracy, literacy, financial literacy and other life skills of young Indigenous people. The program is also helping remote community capacity building by providing opportunities for those communities' young people to train for and return to jobs that have often previously been taken up in Indigenous communities by non-Indigenous people.

While on the subject of initiatives, I would now like to turn to some other issues that seek to lift education attainment and participation for Indigenous students. A recent report produced by the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council on Labor's National Indigenous Reform Agreement with the states and territories demonstrates there has been little improvement in lifting Indigenous children's reading, writing and numeracy skills. This is despite the government's promise that it would halve the gap within a decade shortly after coming into office. Results indicate that despite significant investment under this partnership, there was only a minor improvement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students at or above the national minimum standard in reading and writing and, to a lesser extent, in numeracy in the early years of schooling. Nationally the gap has increased in year 9 reading, in years 3 and 7 numeracy and in year 9 writing. Equally disappointing is that there has been no improvement in Indigenous students' attendance rates in year 10 in government schools since Labor came into office, despite having promised to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment by 2020.

Perhaps what is most concerning is that the government are unable to report on how they are meeting the target to ensure all Indigenous four year olds in remote communities have access to early childhood education within five years, with the report stating:

Labor are also unable to report progress on their target to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade. The report concluded:

For the millions of taxpayers' dollars spent to deliver programs under this agreement, the government, at the very least, should be able to report on whether these programs are delivering. Approximately $723 million worth of measures have been set aside under the national partnership agreement to pursue reforms to improve young people's education attainment and transition from school and contribute towards achieving the COAG targets. Yet, this funding is being spent without adequately monitoring performance.

The recent report on the National Partnership for Indigenous Reform Agreement comes on top of damning COAG reports that were released in April for the $540 million National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy. The April report for the National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy found that assessing progress in lifting literacy and numeracy across Australia was difficult because the states and territories set their own benchmarks. This means that because there are so many differences in the numbers and types of schools involved, the report concluded that the transparency of reporting at a national level is questionable. The report urgently recommended that Labor improve clarity and transparency in reporting arrangements of the initiative. If the government cannot adequately measure and track progress under their national partnership agreements, it begs the question: how do they think they can get away with making grand statements they are transforming education if the evidence or data is not available to support these claims? Under Labor's national partnership agreement for the Building the Education Revolution program for government schools, they also failed to monitor the performance by the states and territories, and it was found that billions of dollars had been wasted under inefficient procurement arrangements. There is little hope of Labor delivering on its commitment to improve literacy and numeracy unless drastic changes are made to adequately monitor its investment. Sadly, Labor abolished the former coalition government's program to improve literacy and numeracy, which was to provide a $700 voucher for tutoring to help students who were not meeting minimum benchmarks. This policy was found to be 97 per cent effective in lifting student performance. Improving Indigenous participation and attainment in education and assisting students who are struggling to meet literacy and numeracy benchmarks is simply too important for funding to be handed over to the states and territories without ensuring that a system is put in place to monitor the return on this investment.

The computers-in-schools program, another initiative being delivered under the National Partnership Agreement with the states and territories, is also in strife. More than 3½ years, or seven school semesters, after Kevin Rudd made his election commitment that all these computers would be connected to fast 100-megabitts-per-second fibre, not a single computer has been connected by the government to 100-megabits-per-second fibre. As at 31 March 2011, only 434,000 computers had been delivered out of the 788,000 new computers needed to achieve the promised one-for-one ratio of computers per student. That is only 55 per cent of the computers needed to reach the goal of every secondary school student in years 9 to 12 having a computer, and it took the government three years to get there. Now the government claims that in nine months it will deliver the remaining 45 per cent of the computers. Having delivered 55 per cent in three years, it now claims it will deliver the remaining 45 per cent in nine months. It will need to more than double the current rollout in order to meet the deadline of 31 December 2011—and I think we all know that is a chimerical claim on the government's part.

I read an article by Noel Pearson last month in the Australian in which he agreed that the computers-in-schools program has been poorly implemented. He was writing about the success of the student education trust scheme operated by the Cairns based welfare reform organisation that he works with at Cape York Partnerships. Special trust accounts operate in welfare reform communities on Cape York Peninsula. Payments into these accounts are made by families on a voluntary basis and set aside specifically for education. A trustee oversees the accounts, and there is a process for families to use their saved funds to pay for computers, books, uniforms, excursions and other education expenses. He made the following observation:

Kevin Rudd's "toolbox of the future" program has been beset with problems. The opposition highlighted controversies about whether parents were going to be levied by schools to pay for maintenance and whether students could take computers home.

He went on:

This program was poorly conceived. The goal of comprehensive computer access for high school students was right, but it should have been done on a matching subsidy basis. Families should have been required to put in some of their money and be responsible for maintenance costs. They could then own the computer and the kids could take them home. Income-earning families could have been subsidised through a rebate and welfare families could have been assisted through SET-style facilities.

SET-style facilities could form the basis for solutions to school uniforms and other costs that another federal program is aimed at. Instead, all these programs have been conceived on the basis of a 100 per cent handout.

Noel has made the very valid point regarding computers in schools—one that the opposition has been making for such a long time—that when a program suffers from continuing cost blow-outs and is underperforming, one has to ask the question of whether there is a better way to meet the policy objectives.

I would also like to touch on another matter that has been brought to my attention as I continue to undertake my consultations with the various parts of the education sector. It is a program called MULTILIT, designed by Professor Kevin Wheldall at Macquarie University and delivered by the Exodus Foundation's Reverend Bill Crews. I met with the Exodus Foundation to talk about this program. It is used in tutorial centres for disadvantaged students at risk of dropping out of school. It is a direct, systematic teaching of the sounds of the English language and, importantly, has been a tremendous success wherever it has been used, particularly in Indigenous communities. It opened in 2009 for fewer than 200 struggling Indigenous students and has received partial funding under some of Labor's national partnerships in some states. A recent article in the Herald Sun reported on some of the results under this program in Darwin. The article included references to a report from the Exodus Foundation that tracked the progress of six Indigenous children at the Holy Spirit Catholic primary school, one of four Exodus centres in Darwin, in the 2008 to 2010 NAPLAN tests. To quote from the Herald Sun article:

In writing, for instance, in the 2008 NAPLAN test the group started in Year 3 right on the NT mean (or average) of 338, a full 70 points below the national mean. Then the NT and Exodus progress lines diverged as the Exodus children gobbled up the phonics program in 2009 and learned to read.

By Year 5 they had literally closed the gap, reaching the Australian average for their age group. It was the same story with reading.

Yet Multilit is struggling to attract extra funding to grow. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the member for Kingsford Smith, has said that, due to budget constraints, there is no funding to expand the initiative. One of my primary concerns with the national partnership agreements is that programs that have the potential to be delivered and rolled out at a national level are constrained by the varying commitments made at the state level. There is no room for successful programs such as Multilit to flourish and grow. I am fortunate to be visiting the Cape York Peninsula in October this year, where Multilit also operates, and I am hoping that I get to see firsthand how this program works and how the results are yielded.

There is much more that I could speak about today on the topic of Indigenous education. Both sides of this House, I know, genuinely recognise the need to improve education outcomes and opportunities for young Indigenous people. The challenge is to do all that can be done to improve the current education reforms and the benefits that come from them. When a program such as Multilit has proven itself to be able to educate Indigenous young Australians to flourish and grow in national literacy and numeracy, it is a program that should be supported by government rather than starved of funds. I am certainly looking forward to hearing what David Gonski suggests in this area when his review of school funding is handed to the government. I hope that he will recognise, as the opposition has, the importance of programs like Multilit and the ability of local communities like those in Cape York and the programs run by the Exodus Foundation to actually address the real needs of Indigenous children on the ground, rather than assuming that all children will fit into a one-size-fits-all approach. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. Nothing defines the difference between the coalition and Labor more than their approaches to education. We have doubled the funding for education in this four-year period, while those opposite failed in this regard for so long. We have Closing the Gap targets in relation to Indigenous education, and we have an aspiration that, by 2018, another 100,000 Indigenous young people and older people will be in employment. We know that Treasury says that in the next two years we will need another 500,000 jobs in the Australian economy to keep our economy strong, to sustain the growth, to keep the employment going and to make sure our prosperity into the future matches what has happened in the past. Those opposite did not just disinvest in health, neglect infrastructure and fail in health and hospital outcomes but they also failed so much in terms of education and Indigenous issues. It was not just that they did not say sorry; they did not put the money towards Indigenous targets and programs. The commitment that we have is to close the gap, not just in jobs and health but in education as well.

We are delivering real and measurable outcomes in this regard. We have supported 168 Indigenous businesses or community projects Australia wide and achieved over 43,000 job or training placements for Indigenous Australians. We have a commitment under our Indigenous Employment Program of $650 million to support businesses and community projects to make sure Indigenous job seekers get work. The precursor to getting a job is a good education, so it is absolutely vital that we do this. I have seen this locally in my electorate and I have seen it across my home state of Queensland. We are supporting Indigenous students from remote areas to access places in very high-performing schools such as Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School. I have spoken to a number of the Indigenous students from places in Far North Queensland who are boarding at the grammar schools, where they are getting the best quality education possible in very high-performing schools. In particular, we are providing $20 million to the Australian Indigenous Education Fund, run by a private group of business people who want to make a difference in the lives of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. By the way, they are committed to matching the government's contribution by raising another $20 million through business. Over the next 10 years this fund, of $40 million, will send 2,000 talented, young Indigenous students to very high-performing secondary schools, many of them in the Blair electorate—great schools such as Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School.

The legislation that is before the chamber today amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act to extend the current quadrennium to incorporate the 2013 calendar year. It is about amending the appropriation of that legislation to formalise previous decisions the government has made, including, as I said, an election commitment to increase support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote communities to access schools both in my electorate and across the country.

This amending legislation will provide certainty until the government has had the opportunity to look at, consider and act upon the finding, due in 2011, by Professor Gonski, of the review of funding for schooling. We want to determine the funding. Hopefully, we will make some significant changes, because everyone who works in the sector knows that the SES model has not delivered the most just and fair outcome possible. Recently, I was in Ipswich speaking to some members from the Independent Education Union. They know that in private schools in my electorate the best outcomes have not been achieved. Recently, I was speaking to a number of public school teachers in my electorate—who were attending a Queensland Teachers Union conference there—from schools such as Minden State School, Ipswich Special School and Ipswich West Special School to find out what they thought. The legislation before us is about extending the funding until such time as the decision of the Gonski review is handed down and we can then act upon it.

I cannot let the member for Sturt get by without saying something about what he said in relation to some of their funding. There is a huge difference between us and them in terms of education. I accept that there is a bipartisan commitment to the targets with respect to closing the gap—halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children within a decade and halving the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment, or equivalent attainment, by 2020. I accept that those opposite have said that they want to agree to this. How we get there is another story. Those opposite do not think we are doing the right thing in that regard. We are backing up our commitment to closing the gap by not just putting initiatives or programs in place but also actually backing up with real money, real dollars. Yet those opposite seem to whinge, carry on and carp at education programs that we have brought in, when they know very well from visiting schools in their electorate that they are happy.

The member for Sturt waxed on about our computers in schools program, saying, 'You've only delivered 434,000 computers in local schools.' Go to schools like Bundamba State Secondary College, which has a very high number of Indigenous students and tell the students and the school administration that the computers in schools program is not successful and not good for their school. Go and tell them that. Go to Bremer State High School, which has a very high component of Indigenous students. Currently, that school has about 1,500 students. Next year, there will be 1,600 students. Go and tell them that that program is not appropriate and it is not good for their education outcome.

The other side went to an election last year proposing to abolish the computers in schools program and the trade training centres. All the time they claim that they are going to achieve good outcomes for education should they get on the treasury bench, but they are always critical of what we are doing. In this budget and in previous budgets and through this legislation here, we are benefiting not just non-Indigenous students but Indigenous students through things such as trade training centres. The Ipswich Trade Training Centre has both the Ipswich Girls Grammar School and the Ipswich Grammar School, where those Indigenous students are boarding under the programs covered by the legislation here. They attend the Ipswich Trade Training Centre, located at St Edmund's College, a Catholic school. There is a partnership of three schools. The Indigenous students boarding at those schools enjoy the benefit of the Ipswich Trade Training Centre.

And we have another one coming to my electorate: the Ipswich region trade training centre. It is going to be located at the Ipswich State High School, another school with a very high number of Indigenous students. Again they will benefit, not just from the BER program we put in for the Japanese immersion centre we have already located at that school but from the trade training centre. About 40 per cent of the kids who go to Ipswich State High School end up with trades. There are so many Indigenous students at that school. You only have to go to the assembly to realise that. But those opposite continue to oppose these initiatives, all of which would help not just non-Indigenous students but Indigenous students in my electorate.

And then we get to the BER funding—the multipurpose halls and libraries, all of which help non-Indigenous students and Indigenous students. The Ipswich-Logan corridor in South-East Queensland—I represent most of Ipswich—has a very high number of Indigenous students in its schools and Indigenous people in the local community, the jobs and the businesses across the area. Kambu Medical Centre, in my area, has a huge number of patients. It is a great Indigenous medical centre, well funded by the federal and state governments. I was there just last week talking about it.

It is not just in health and not just in jobs but in education that we are benefiting Indigenous students. The initiatives here are very important because the legislation talks about school programs, early childhood programs, vocational education programs and tertiary programs. The background to this legislation in terms of the programs is extremely important. The member for Sturt was talking about a number of programs which are important, and I think it is worth mentioning them as well. They are really important programs under this legislation. Being funded are things like the Indigenous education consultative bodies and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, which funds scholarships, boarding, tuition, leadership development and other educational costs for selected secondary and tertiary students aged to 25 attending participating schools—such as Ipswich Girls Grammar School and Ipswich Grammar School—and universities. Most of those young people in Ipswich come, as I said, from Far North Queensland. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program assists young people with accommodation and other support to facilitate their take-up of apprenticeships, VET or university in 16 major centres nationally. You can see the benefit of those sorts of programs in South-East Queensland, with great TAFE institutions like the Bremer Institute of TAFE, located in the western corridor from Brisbane through to Ipswich as well. The objective of the Sporting Chance Program is to encourage improved educational outcomes for Indigenous students, boys and girls, using sport and recreation. That is so important.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we handed down the report Doing time—time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system in the House of Representatives. As chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs I know we saw the value as we went around the countryside. There were 110 submissions and about 18 public hearings, including a roundtable at Redfern. We saw the benefit of Indigenous sporting programs. We saw the benefit of schools connecting to local Indigenous communities. We saw the benefit of mentors. We saw the benefit of real recognition of Aboriginal communities, the importance of cultural awareness and the importance of Indigenous language.

Programs such as these on the ground can make a difference in the lives of young people, making sure that they stay at school, do not engage in truancy and get an education. Getting an education is not just important to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty, violence, domestic abuse and incarceration but important for financial security as well. This legislation is really important because it is—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66A, I want to acknowledge the comments that the member is making. Can I ask him what the educational attainment levels are, what the outcomes are and what the employment opportunities are, given what he has been expanding upon?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not have to take the question.

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

Correct.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why doesn't he put that on notice if he is happy to do so. If I am making a speech—

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

Thank you. The member for Blair will continue.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member wants to put that question to the minister, he may do so—or ask a more important, relevant and sensible question than he asked in question time today. As to this particular legislation, I think it is important to note that what we have said in relation to the Gonski review, and what we have said to Indigenous students and to the private school community and the public school community, is that we in this government believe strongly that the arguments in relation to private versus public education are well and truly gone. We believe that parents have the right to send their children to whatever school they want and that kids have the right to go to a good public school as well. The public school system is the backbone of education. That is why so many students go to a state school, as we call them in Queensland, at primary school level, often then going on to schools such as St Edmund's College or Ipswich Grammar School or Ipswich Girls' Grammar School for seniors. But it is really important to make sure that we fund the system appropriately and well.

I have said before that this legislation gets us through to looking at the review and deciding how we are going to take funding in the future. But, as I have also said before, the previous government put in about $32.9 billion over the previous four years of their government. That was their commitment. That sounds like a lot of money, but we made a greater commitment to education: we put in $64.9 billion in funding for government and non-government schools over 2009 to 2012.

That is very important. There are also the national partnerships which assist not just Indigenous but also non-Indigenous students. We can see that. I was recently at Leichardt State School, a school in what we used to call a working-class area in my electorate, rebuilt through the State Schools of Tomorrow program and the state government's work in that school, and rebuilt, through the BER funding, with a new multipurpose hall and new library—a national partnership school which has made a huge difference. If you go there you will see that the connectivity between the local Indigenous community and the school is very strong—really strong. Lee Gerchow, the principal, is doing a fantastic job. And that is the difference that good funding for Indigenous students and non-Indigenous students can make in an area where there is a high Indigenous population. You can see that. We have seen the NAPLAN results. We have seen the improvements in attendance at that school. We have seen the improvements in literacy and numeracy. I support this legislation because it will make a big difference in the lives of the schools in my community. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. At the outset, may I comment on the question asked by my friend the member for Hasluck because it goes to the core of the issue, and that is: what are the educational outcomes that are being achieved by Indigenous children? That is a question which should be answered. It is at the core, as I said, of this and other legislation and programs. When millions and millions of dollars are spent on programs but they are not raising the educational outcomes for Indigenous children then questions should be raised about the programs upon which that money is being spent. That is not because there is any sense that it is inappropriate to spend the money; of course it is appropriate to spend money. But one must also ask whether or not the outcomes are being achieved, because, if they are not, then maybe there are other ways of spending money that will achieve the outcomes.

This bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements for the 2013 calendar year. Initiatives included are the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. After passing through the parliament, a similar bill, entitled Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010, received assent on 29 June 2010. That bill provided a 12-month extension to program funding in order to align the funding with other school program funding periods.

Sporting Chance and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program are two initiatives of the previous coalition government that have been continued by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government. Both programs have achieved success in retaining students at schools as well as increasing their participation and success rates. The Gillard Labor government have not committed to long-term funding for these initiatives. Instead, they have simply provided a 12-month extension in the last two budgets.

The Sporting Chance Program commenced in 2007 under the then coalition government with the objective of encouraging positive educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In 2011, a total of 22 providers delivered 68 projects under the Sporting Chance Program for up to 11,000 primary and secondary school students at risk of not completing their schooling. The use of sport as a key engagement tool in assisting in the educational development of young Indigenous people has been successful. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program helps young Indigenous people move away from their home to gain the skills one needs to get a job, whether it is in their community or somewhere else. Youth Indigenous people aged 16 to 24 from remote areas can relocate to a program host location to undertake post-secondary education and training options. Training options include Australian apprenticeships, vocational education and training, and higher education options that lead to qualifications in nursing, teaching, business administration and accounting, to name but a few possibilities.

This extension is described as being necessary to allow for the completion and release of the review of funding for schooling report due sometime in 2011. By the government's own admission, the review is focused on the mainstream but there may be some implications for the design and operation of these programs. Longer term funding, and therefore future planning, for successful programs is now being held hostage to the Gillard Labor government's endless reviews. This is yet another example of the Rudd-Gillard government's approach to policy and law-making: indecision, ineptness, reviews and, of course, short-term fixes. Labor has failed to pay due attention to what is an important issue and failed to provide any long-term commitment to programs that are improving school attendance and completion rates.

The coalition supports this bill. It builds on the good work done by the coalition in introducing programs, but there is a stark difference, I am afraid, between the coalition and the government. We make decisions; we take action. This Labor government is crippled by indecision and inaction.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. In doing so, I am reminded of some comments I made at a recent event for Mabo Day. In honouring the life of Eddie Mabo, I stated that this country had come a long way in achieving a true reconciliation between Indigenous and white Australia.

It was a proud day for me as a citizen of this country to watch the former Prime Minister make a historic apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples. However, an apology alone is not enough. While important in acknowledging past wrongdoings and hurt, an apology cannot fix today's problems. If we are to achieve a true reconciliation, we must bridge the gap in health, education, jobs and opportunities that exists between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. In the 21st century we should not accept that Aboriginal children have lower life expectancies than their non-Aboriginal peers. We should not accept that they do not have the same outcomes in education. We should not accept that they do not have the same meaningful opportunities for work. Most importantly, we should not accept that it is beyond the people in this place to fix this problem, to ensure that there is no difference between opportunities for all of Australia's children. We have to work hard as a nation to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We have to work hard to deliver the same opportunities to all Australians regardless of their background. I believe that to do otherwise would be a serious failure of government, a serious failure of parliament and a serious failure of each member of this House.

For this reason, I am very pleased to be able to speak this afternoon on this bill and on what this government is doing to support Indigenous education. I have said many times in this House that education through all levels of life is a silver bullet to solving poverty, improving health outcomes and increasing employment and productivity. I am very pleased to be in this place and to be part of a government that has education at its core—to be part of a government that understands the great transformative power of education to build confidence, to create opportunities and to deliver happiness and hope to so many Australians, not least of which are Indigenous Australians. Given that the government have an education reform agenda, it should come as no surprise to any member of this House that our approach to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous includes comprehensive policies designed to support the education of young Indigenous people. This bill provides a raft of programs to encourage and enhance the educational outcomes of students. In my electorate there are a number of programs that are helping Indigenous families and students get the education that is their right as Australians. The federal government has provided as part of the Parent and Community Engagement Program almost $360,000 for the Northside Community Service's Tuck-In education program that encourages parents to play an active role in their child's learning. It also strengthens the community's capacity to involve themselves in the school community.

Similarly, over $70,000 was provided to the Tuggeranong Child and Family Centre for its Our Mob Tuggeranong project that builds the knowledge of Indigenous parents, grandparents, family members and carers so they can engage with confidence and effectiveness with their school communities. There is also half a million dollars for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community literacy project. The project aims to improve the literacy skills of at-risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in years 6 to 9.

Finally, 68 of 72 Canberra schools are members of the Dare to Lead program, a $13.6 million program that provides principals and other school leaders with local school situation strategies that promote awareness and provide the drive to address educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Through professional development and cultural awareness activities, workshops and seminars, principals and school leadership teams are able to enhance their understanding of the educational needs of these students and to promote reconciliation in all schools.

These are four local Canberra projects but they exemplify what this act is doing nationwide. In highlighting these examples, I want to pay tribute to the teachers and the schools, to the doctors and nurses, to the community groups and to the Indigenous community themselves who are responsible for the ongoing success of these programs. While it is our responsibility in this House to provide the leadership and funding that allows these successful programs to continue, we should not forget that it is these individuals who are responsible for delivering the success of these programs on the ground day in, day out. It is these dedicated individuals and organisations that are making the changes that must be made person by person, family by family, community by community.

In my electorate, I have seen firsthand the work of dedicated teachers at Richardson Primary School and their commitment to Indigenous education. I have seen the fantastic work of the Winnunga aboriginal health service down in Narrabundah and its dedicated staff who provide a raft of initiatives and programs for people in dental health, diabetes health, infant welfare health, maternal health—a range of programs there; just a phenomenal organisation. It is through the work of these individuals passionate about the cause and committed to the very end that the gap will be bridged, and we must do what we can to support their efforts.

In this light, the amendment before this House today extends the funding for the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to incorporate the 2013 calendar year to line up with the Schools Assistance Act 2008, also recently extended, and timing of the review of funding for schooling. It will appropriate $159 million for 2013 to continue to fund those programs I have mentioned. The government does this to give sufficient time to consider any recommendations from the review of education funding while also ensuring that adequate and appropriate consultation is given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations. This is appropriate as nowhere is there a greater need to improve education than for our Indigenous communities.

I acknowledge that much has been achieved and there have been real successes in this area; nevertheless there is much more that still needs to be done. This will require an ongoing commitment from government across Australia, and I believe that this government has that commitment. This is a government that has the drive and the will to see this through to make policies that close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In my own life a good education changed what was possible for me, and I believe the same is very much true for ensuring what is possible for Indigenous Australians: it is the great enabler. In speaking on another bill in this place, I said that I would always stand up here in support of those bills that seek to enhance the access and outcomes of education for all Australians. I do so again today and I commend this bill to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. The bill seeks to extend the funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year for non-Abstudy payments. Non-Abstudy payments include funding for a number of Indigenous school programs, including the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program, which I want to talk about mostly because I am sure everyone else has covered every other aspect.

I support his bill but I have a number of concerns. The current bill seeks to extend the current funding arrangements only for another 12 months out, for the 2013 calendar year. The Labor government has failed to provide funding security for this education sector and instead has simply provided for 12-month extensions in the last two budgets. Extensions are no good. Ongoing funding in the forward estimates is what is really needed. The government claims that a short-term, 12-month commitment is necessary because of the Review of Funding for Schooling report, which is due some time later this year. The binding up of legislation through inquiry after inquiry and review after review is just typical of this current Labor government, which cannot make effective and timely decisions. This is seen in everything they do.

Thankfully the Labor government was wise enough to continue two important programs originally initiated by the coalition government. They are the Sporting Chance and Indigenous Youth Mobility programs. I could say much about these and talk about the fact that the Indigenous education programs are something that all governments commit to, and some eventually get somewhere towards their commitments.

The program I mainly want to talk about, Sporting Chance, has been a most successful program for Indigenous boys. The program was originally begun by Gerard Neesham of the Clontarf Football Academy. For those who are not aware, I will give a brief history. Clontarf is a former Christian Brothers school on banks of the river in Perth. It fell on hard times and then, in 2000, with a group of just 25 boys Gerard Neesham went there with a number of other school teachers who had decided to do something for Indigenous boys. For those who do not know Gerard Neesham, he was a very good AFL player who played for the Sydney Swans, amongst others. He also played football for Graylands Teachers College, where I knew him. He and I played together on that side. I think he made me look good! Eventually Gerard was the inaugural coach for the Fremantle Dockers. So his football pedigree is unbelievable. His whole family, the Neeshams, the Regans and the Millers are legendary in that area.

For Gerard to begin this, post his Dockers coaching, was something quite admirable. That is when I reconnected with him, after teachers college. With the support of the federal and state governments and the private sector the group of 25 boys grew into 400 boys in six academies. I first met Gerard out there under the ATSIC days when Philip Ruddock went out there to help him get money he was owed by ATSIC—$30,000, which was not much at the time. He then came to Canberra with Ross Kelly, the chairman of the Clontarf Foundation and put a case to the then education minister and, interestingly, his staff member Alan Tudge, who is now the member for Aston, came up with $100,000, which was just fantastic. Gerard then got bogged and came back with Ross Kelly again and asked for $1 million to continue his program. Gerard got this, on behalf of the foundation, through Dr Nelson.

I said to Gerard at the time, 'Be careful whatever you do. Once you start rolling out away from one academy you will lose control of the levers. You need to be hands-on yourself.' I was wrong because Gerard was able to roll out a number of academies in Western Australia by using ex-AFL footballers and people in the AFL and football industry who were very good at what they did. So, his selection of personnel has been the secret to his ability to run academies. The other part of his successful template is that he attaches himself to existing schools. For example, I went to the Broome High School when he launched a program there. I was representing Julie Bishop at the time, the federal minister. State members of parliament also attended, as well as Michael Chaney from the NAB and a representative of Goldman Sachs, who were there to help with private sector funding. This model does not rely on one bucket of money; it relies on money from three sources: federal money, state money and corporate money. This means that it is not dependent on one or the other and that means that should one decide to not deliver then the program would not be left stranded.

Gerard was invited by Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the time, to go into the Northern Territory. Some of the Aboriginal communities there, as we know, had become very dysfunctional. But what Aboriginal boys in particular do know about is AFL football. As Gerard tells me, you can ask any boy anywhere in Australia whether they know who the full forward for St Kilda is or who plays centre for Carlton and they can tell you. They wear their footy jumpers with pride in the heat and in the cold in the outback. AFL is a currency among Indigenous kids.

Why is this template so successful? Because it gets them to school with the hook of playing football. Some of them have gone on to be AFL footballers. There are quite a number who are currently playing AFL who came through the Clontarf academy. But the reality is that very few of them end up in the AFL. They end up playing football, but they go to school. That is the secret of the whole program: they go to school. When they get to school, their health improves. Their dysfunctional behaviour improves. Gerard quotes the figure of how much it costs to keeps a boy at Clontarf against the figure of how much it costs to keep him incarcerated. It is light years away. A program like this sees boys not only improve their health and their behaviour but also get into jobs. Clontarf delivers them not only to year 12 but also into employment and the workforce after year 12.

At the moment, over 80 per cent of Clontarf year 12 students are placed in employment or training within six months of completing school. Of the 160 boys who completed year 12 last year, 75 are currently in employment or further training. This goes on. The fact is that this program is highly effective because it gets the boys to school and gets them into a pattern. They stop sleeping in. They get out of their dysfunctional environment, because they are among peers. And this is where Gerard is also successful: he brings in Aboriginal mentors, particularly from the footballing fraternity, and these kids look up to them. They want to be at school.

Clontarf has a very ambitious program. Dare I say that this transcends both sides. This is not a Liberal Party thing or a Labor Party thing; this is a bipartisan arrangement. I mentioned Julie Bishop and Brendan Nelson. But when the government changed in 2011, Kevin Rudd, in an article from Thursday 11 December 2008—and Kevin loved a photo and next to the article there he is with the Clontarf boys in Perth—promised $10 million. And that was delivered. The state government under Alan Carpenter delivered his moneys, $4 million. The corporate world continues, through BHP and others, with their support.

The only thing that I will say to the members opposite is that the money that comes through the federal government and other governments is always a bit slow, because it is handed out piecemeal. There needs to be an ongoing commitment to the funding of these programs into the future, because their outcomes are so successful.

There have been other instances in which Indigenous people post their football life decide to start up some sort of program for Aboriginal kids. It seldom works. They get themselves a car and an office—in other words, a job—and there is no widespread effect; it is a one-man band. Eventually, once the money has gone, the program goes. This is a program for the future. This is a program, dare I say, is in the business of saving a generation of Aboriginal boys. We almost lost a generation of Aboriginal young men through alcoholism and dysfunction, mainly because, as most people know, they became dependent on welfare and the Centrelink model. This is getting them back into real jobs, getting them away from alcohol, getting them away from dysfunctional behaviour and showing them that there is another way. This does not just apply to football—and I will get onto that in a moment for my learned friend from New South Wales, and demonstrate that this model can be rolled out there. In Western Australia there are 21 academies with 1,335 participants. At one stage, three out of every four boys in year 12 were in the Aboriginal academies doing year 12. It was something that was unheard of—17-year-old Aboriginal boys doing year 12. In the Northern Territory there are currently 15 academies with 1,015 boys. In Victoria there are five academies with 190 boys. There is nothing in Queensland and nothing in South Australia.

The federal government currently contributes one-third of the Clontarf Foundation's operating costs—that is, $5.7 million per annum or $2,244 per participant. There is a way forward, and they want the federal government to continue its commitment. In the 2014-15 forward years they would like to have 28 academies in Western Australia with over 2,000 boys; 19 academies in the Northern Territory, with 1,490 boys; and five academies in Victoria with 550 boys—because there is a low Indigenous population in Victoria.

We know that New South Wales does not have AFL but the template works for football, and a well-known rugby enthusiast and champion, Smiley Johnson, is involved in this program and he is going to be part of the template in New South Wales to roll out this program for rugby for Indigenous boys. They are looking to have 44 of these academies and to include 2,820 boys. There is the same thing with rugby in Queensland. Big news: we have got the State of Origin coming up this Wednesday night and we know how big it is. They are looking to have 30 academies with 1,740 boys. In South Australia they are looking to have eight academies with 400 boys.

So we want to go from 2,500 boys in this current financial year to more than 9,000 boys. To make this happen, the federal government has to commit to an increment of $4 million a year so that they can continue building these academies on a sound footing. If the $4 million is not committed over and above current funding per annum, they cannot do this, because it ratchets up the other help from the state governments. They are obliged to come in with complementary funds, as is the private sector.

This is an outstanding opportunity for us to do something meaningful and real through the sporting champions funding for Indigenous boys. Dare I say it will work for Indigenous girls, with netball and other sports. But, as Gerard says to me, where the boys are the girls will be—and, if you go out to Clontarf, you see that the girls are at school, because the boys are at school. That is how it works.

I would advise those who want to criticise and say, 'This is a private arrangement,' et cetera, that this is audited and all the salaries are benchmarked on tertiary pay scales for principals, teachers et cetera. I implore this House to continue the support for this marvellous program for now and into the future. We know that there are lots of reasons that Aboriginal men go so well in the AFL. They seem to be particularly adept at it. It is a bit like the young men from the Balkans—the Jakoviches et cetera. They seem to have the physical shape to play football. Aboriginal kids from the Tiwi Islands through to Tasmania are really good footballers. The fact that about 2½ per cent of the population are Indigenous and yet more than six per cent of the AFL population are Indigenous says something about the ability of Aboriginal people in this sport. I commend this bill to the House and I implore the government to continue its meaningful and ongoing funding, because the program and the template work.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 13th of February 2008 was a historic day for Australia. On that day, for the first time, an Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, officially apologised to the stolen generations. This was a historic moment for Australia—a moment when we acknowledged the tragedies of the past and looked with a fresh eye to the future, a future in which there is no gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, educational achievement or economic opportunity.

When the Labor government took office in 2007, we inherited an appalling legacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inequalities. In the areas of housing, poverty and health, large gaps persisted under the Howard government. We know that Indigenous Australians have a substantially shorter life expectancy. When a young Indigenous baby is born, he or she can expect to live a decade or two fewer than a non-Indigenous baby. It should be simply unacceptable to all of us in this place. It is something that must change—something that will be changed.

Another main issue is improving the educational levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Improving education is fundamental to improving welfare and improving living standards. This government has set out to close the gaps in Indigenous disadvantage. We have set out to close the life expectancy gaps, to close the child mortality gaps, to close the gaps in employment opportunities and to close the gaps in access to early childhood education and educational attainment.

Horace Mann, the early 19th century US congressman and education reformer, whose personal political persuasions were actually more closely akin to those of members opposite, once stated:

Education … beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men—the balance wheel of the social machinery.

This Labor government shares those sentiments, regardless of the political alignment of their initial spokesperson. The importance of education extends well beyond partisan politics.

Education's place in helping to overcome inequality and disadvantage was reinforced for me when I visited Cape York last year and earlier this year, travelling with the House Standing Committee on Economics. Our task was to consider Indigenous economic development, so I used the chance to ask some of the witnesses about the local schools. It was an issue that had come up when we were chatting outside during the coffee break but which did not seem to be getting air time inside the room. Phyllis Yunkaporta, a witness appearing before the committee, told me:

The education system, as I knew it before, has been of low standard. The curriculum in the past, as it is in all cape Aboriginal communities, has been of very low standard. By the time our children go out to mainstream schools they are hardly there—a child in grade 8 still has the understanding of a child in grade 1. Speaking for Aurukun, I was one of the persons who were invited to the States last October; I went to New York and Los Angeles visiting African-American schools. What we have brought back to Aurukun is a new kind of teaching method and we are having that implemented in the school. Of course it took time. At the beginning it pretty much had been, in my words, chaos before that. Since having this new program come in, if you come to the classrooms in Aurukun the kids are fully focused. This new method of teaching has got them going. The teacher is full-on with the tasks given and you cannot believe it when you enter those classrooms—it is as if some of those kids are play-acting. They are not; they are just full-on, focused. I guess in time we have to have expectations for our children to be educated in a way where they have to balance both worlds—the Western world and the traditional way. Of course we want them to hang onto the traditional way because that is where they are going to be identifying themselves for the future. And with them having to venture out into mainstream, we want them to compete. It is a competitive world out there. We want our black little kids to start taking on the world. That is the aim of all this.

No words could be closer to the truth. In work that I did as a professor of economics at ANU with Xiaodong Gong, which was published in Education Economics, we looked at the educational attainment gap in Australian schools. We found that when Indigenous children first enter school they are about a year of educational achievement behind their non-Indigenous peers. We also found that by the time Indigenous children have got to the end of primary school the gap has widened—it is then about two years of educational attainment. Our view is that, perversely, that is something to be optimistic about, because there is something going on in the school system—a system which I think government policies are far more amenable to fixing than would have been the case had we discovered that, for example, the gap was already there when the children first entered school. So that work gives me optimism; it gives me a sense that we can do something about closing the gaps between the performance of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.

But those gaps, make no mistake, are substantial. In 2006, 58 per cent of Indigenous children were rated by their teachers as having low academic performance. In contrast, only 19 per cent of non-Indigenous students were rated as having low academic performance. Of those who started year 11, only 22 per cent of Indigenous students went on to complete the year 12 certificate, compared to 62 per cent of non-Indigenous students. These figures provide some sense of the magnitude of the task faced by this Labor government in addressing the gross inequality in educational attainment in Australia.

Since 2008, the Gillard government has invested over $51 million in Indigenous literacy and numeracy projects. Over 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in over 670 schools across the nation have benefited directly from this assistance. Over the 2009-12 period this government has invested $56.4 million nationally to expand literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous students. We have provided professional support to assist teachers to develop personalised learning plans for their students. We now have 200 additional teachers in the Northern Territory. The $2½ billion Smarter Schools National Partnerships, which holds Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education as a key focus, has been introduced to target disadvantage and to contribute to improving literacy and numeracy outcomes. We have also approved more than $25 million for 17 projects, over 2011-12, to continue these efforts.

We have seen the early results of such initiatives. The share of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders obtaining year 10 and year 12 certificates has gradually grown, as has the number of Indigenous students undertaking university education and achieving bachelor degrees. It is important that we continue to track these measures and hold our higher education institutions to account to ensure that the educational outcome that we want—boosting bachelor graduation—is actually achieved. It is my view that we should ask universities to publish as much data as they can not only on the number of Indigenous students who are accepted into the institutions but also on the persistence of those students through the system; the ability of our universities to hold on to Indigenous university students at the same rate as they hold on to non-Indigenous university students. Improving the standard of education among Indigenous communities is at the heart of this government's endeavours to affect broad social and cultural change and break the cycle of disadvantage that plagues these communities.

There are three initiatives that I am particularly proud of in my electorate of Fraser—Learning Journeys, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program. Learning Journeys, which is administered by the Northside Community Service, is a $359,000 program which started in May 2010 and is expected to finish at the end of June 2012. It focuses on the development and implementation of creative and innovative approaches to improving educational outcomes for young Indigenous people as well as on improving parental engagement in schools and with education providers and on the engagement of parents with children's education at home. The project focuses on motivating and encouraging adults within families to play an active role in their children's learning journey. This is the kind of active role that we know is so important to educational success. It aims to strengthen the capacity of communities to become active in the school community and to feel respected and empowered to comment on and contribute to the development of schools. It has been a little over 12 months since the program's commencement but already we can point towards a number of outcomes: 82 per cent of parents involved have reported a greater engagement with the local schools; 76 per cent of parents have reported increased presence in the local school community; and 58 per cent of parents say they attended extracurricular events at their school.

The Indigenous Youth Leadership Program likewise is helping to close the gap in Indigenous education disadvantage through support for disadvantaged Indigenous students, mostly from remote and regional areas. There are now six tertiary education students studying in my electorate of Fraser with the support of an Indigenous Youth Leadership Program scholarship. I would like to pay tribute to those students and wish them all the best in their continued studies.

Thirdly, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program supports young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students aged 16 to 24. This program is administered in the ACT by Auswide Projects, which was originally assisting around 16 participants and due to an increase in demand has now increased its number of places to 24 participants within the ACT.

It is absolutely imperative to the welfare and the quality of life of Indigenous communities that we maintain these efforts. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill will ensure the government's good work to date will continue. The current Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act provides funding over the 2009-12 period and this bill will extend the current quadrennium to incorporate the 2013 calendar, bringing it into line with the recently extended Schools Assistance Act. This will coincide with the timing of the review of funding for schooling, allowing the government to consider the findings of that report and determine the future structure of funding run under that program.

By re-aligning the legislation to reflect the Schools Assistance Act, we can make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education programs are afforded the attention they deserve. It allows us to engage in close consultation with Indigenous communities and create a cooperative and inclusive learning environment. Such a learning environment has been brought home to me in my own electorate of Fraser, which includes the Jervis Bay Territory. In May I visited Jervis Bay Primary, a school for the children of Defence Force personnel serving at HMAS Creswell and the children of the Wreck Bay Indigenous community. The school has the lowest ICSEA score of any school in my electorate but, when you do a like-schools comparison—as is possible under the government's terrific MySchool website—you actually see that on a like-schools basis Jervis Bay Primary is one of the top performing schools in the ACT system on pretty much every measure you look at.

Jervis Bay Primary is also one of the most beautiful schools in the electorate of Fraser. The oval looks out across the kangaroos to the Pacific Ocean. You get a real sense that this natural environment is part of what builds a strong sense of community in the local school. There are only 84 students, 63 per cent of whom are Indigenous, but everyone seems to know everyone else. As I walked through the K-2 room with two women from the P&C, I heard behind me one of the boys say, 'What are you doing here, Mum?'

I would like to pay tribute to the principal, Bob Pastor, who coordinated a Learning 4 Life meeting, a really valuable initiative which brings together representatives from the local school community as well as Vincentia High School, the main school into which Jervis Bay Primary feeds, the University of Wollongong, Noah's Ark, Booderee National Park, and local preschools and childcare centres. The group promotes the value of education to Indigenous parents and students, with involvement right through the education spectrum from early childhood right up to TAFE and university. It is that lifelong learning philosophy that pervades the bill that is before us today.

The existing range of programs funded under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act are aimed at improving educational outcomes for Indigenous people, taking a well-rounded approach to improving education outcomes and life opportunities for Indigenous students. The programs are designed to build strong relationships between Indigenous communities—children, parents and teachers—and the government to ensure that specific needs are met with targeted and effective attention. Such programs include the Sporting Chance Program, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, and the Parental and Community Engagement Program. These programs that are delivered under the act are complementary to mainstream schooling activities. The extension of funding for such programs until the end of 2013 will ensure providers, as well as the Indigenous communities, have certainty of continued program operation. I would like to use this opportunity to commend the bill to the House and extend my praise to all those who have worked in its drafting. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which extends the funding arrangements for the 2013 calendar year. I do so on the basis of my experience within a raft of key areas—not only my personal experiences over the last 59 years but also my experience of involvement with the Commonwealth Schools Commission when it was in existence, and the structures that sat underneath it; of the National Aboriginal Education Committee; of the period of the AESIP or Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Program, which became IESIP when 'Aboriginal' was changed to 'Indigenous'; and of two MCEETYA taskforces.

'Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mineworker can become the head of a mine, and that the child of a farm worker can become the president of a great nation.' That is a set of words that have always been dear to me because Nelson Mandela goes to the crux of the importance of education in all its facets. The programs that are there to support and make a difference are absolutely critical. So this bill is important.

I also want to commend both the member for Canberra and the member for Fraser—the member for Fraser in particular, for having gone out and sat with people and listened to their views and heard their opinions. That is an important element if we are going to change things. Our destiny is shaped by the choices we make and the decisions each of us enact in our professional, personal and social pathways. What is critical to bringing about success is our individual preparedness to challenge and overcome barriers and to deal with the setbacks to our dreams and aspirations. That is often underpinned by good education. A well-grounded education is fundamental to success, although many have transcended this through personal drive—and all of us have experiences of people who did not finish school but who became highly successful and for whom every interaction with another individual provides an avenue to acquire knowledge, information and experiences that enhance their repertoire of skills.

The preliminaries to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations articulate the challenge for all Australian governments:

Despite the concerted efforts of successive Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to address Indigenous disadvantage, there have been only modest improvements in outcomes in some areas such as education and health, with other areas either remaining static or worsening. Even in those areas where there have been improvements, the outcomes for Indigenous Australians remain far short of the outcomes for non-Indigenous Australians.

In December 2007, the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, agreed to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement partnership between all levels of government. It included a number of other elements in terms of NPAs that went to education, employment, early years and health, but particularly education. It also provided links to those national agreements and national partnership agreements across COAG, which include elements targeted at closing the gap in Indigenous affairs, and particularly targeted at Indigenous disadvantage. The National Indigenous Reform Agreement is the basis of this reform, and the bill, in promulgating funding for another 12 months, is important in achieving closure of those gaps. COAG recognises that individuals and communities should have the opportunity to benefit from the mainstream economy through real jobs, business opportunities, economic independence and wealth creation. Ultimately, Indigenous economic development is about providing Indigenous people with the same opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians. They will not achieve this universally, but education is the cornerstone of change and a prerequisite for employment within our contemporary society for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

I was invited to write the foreword to the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey Volume 3: the Educational Experiences of Aboriginal Children and Young People, which was officially launched on 24 March 2006. I will cite from what I wrote. Of the numerous research projects into Aboriginal education there is none so profound as the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey, Improving the educational experiences of Aboriginal children and young people. It provided confronting evidence that the benefits of education remain poorly realised by the vast majority of Western Australian Aboriginal children, and you could translate that across all jurisdictional regions of this country. The more fundamental issue is the failure over the past 35 years by education providers to improve the educational outcomes of the vast majority of Aboriginal students. It is important to accept the reality that failure over the past 30 years to improve educational outcomes of the vast majority of Aboriginal school children has affected three generations of Aboriginal children and young people who are highly likely to have limited access to lifelong learning, employment and economic opportunities.

There has been tacit acceptance of the nonachievement of educational standards by Aboriginal children and young people, and the resultant acceptance of this lack of educational success has had a cumulative effect—hence my question to the member for Blair. It is fine talking about programs, initiatives and funding, but what of the educational attainments at the end of 12 years of schooling? What of the outcomes after tertiary level education, be they through the vocational education training sector or through the universities? If our results show that the proportion has not increased on a comparative basis to Australian society in mainstream youth and young people going through, then we have a challenge that we still have to address, and we certainly need to look at those targeted outcomes.

It is based on the belief that Aboriginal children and young people will never reach their full potential and if they fall behind society then welfare will protect them. Their low level of educational success is accepted as a normative expectation. This has to change. If we are to change the outcomes, if we are to close gaps and if we are to take the advice that the women gave the member for Fraser, and others that I have been involved with, then we have to raise the bar. We have to say that programs are fine—funding does not solve the problems that become inherent when you fail within systems, because the outcomes that any society seeks will not be attained. Certainly, there is resentment at the level of funding that is channelled into welfare and supporting people who become passive recipients of programs and services. I would want them to be responsive. I would want them to be shaping the direction for the future. I would want them to be, as you described, part of the process, and where people are part of the process, things change. It has become acceptable for Aboriginal children and young people to work at their level unless it becomes problematic or the sociopolitical structures are pressured to bring about change. There is a moral obligation to redress the needs of Aboriginal children and young people to be successful and to achieve the level of educational attainment that builds social and human capital to be achievers in the Australian and global community.

The act as it stands has provided numerous opportunities over a period of time but I think the accountability that I wish we could emulate in what we are seeking in the new structures for the health reform agenda and the accountability of states and territories that go to some critical elements of health reform should be equally applied with passion within this arena. Otherwise, we are inconsistent in the way we address the gap that exists, because the problem with the lack of education and the lack of attainment is that we then see the cyclic pattern of people with generations of family members who have never been employed because their education attainment does not make them competitive within the society in which they move, live, work and play. We have to change that.

There is bilateral agreement. Those societies which continue to invest in the education, training and employment of their people have prospered and enjoy a high standard of living and access to resources , health and human and social capital, which builds upon individual and societal successes. All Australian governments acknowledge that investing in education and training is essential for Australia's economic and social prosperity. It is also about positioning Australia to meet the new challenges and opportunities, as I have said previously, in international markets in a world without economic borders, the emerging new knowledge based society, with the pressures for change, global and international competitiveness, access to information and technology and new and emerging global clients, which we often refer to in this House in terms of other legislation.

Australia will require a flexible, well-educated, well-trained, high-performing workforce to achieve and sustain these reforms. This will pose problems for the majority of Aboriginal children and young people, who continue to perform poorly in their education because they will not access the opportunities which will flow for well-educated Australians. Although I agree that we have had successes and we are seeing some good outcomes, they are not uniform—and we are seeing people succeed, even against the barriers, including barriers of racism in instances. But they have not given up, nor have they surrendered their will to achieve and to contribute.

There is growing demand for an educated, more highly trained and more technically skilled workforce. However, most Aboriginal workers are at the lower, shrinking end of the employment market and are becoming part of the growing underclass. The question that arises for Aboriginal children and people is: why are they excluded from the advantages of being an integral part of a vision in which Australia's global competitiveness and future depends upon all Australians having the necessary education, training and learning ability and that is dependent upon the application of knowledge to support innovation, stimulate business development and improve workforce productivity to live productive and fulfilling lives?

It is important for Aboriginal children and young people to acquire the same proficient standard Australian English, as well as to be taught to recognise the way in which language is used, contextualised, understood and applied in a global and knowledge based society, in order to participate in Australia's economy. The task of developing appropriate resources and teaching Aboriginal students to become proficient in standard Australian English should be achievable. Over a period of 12 years, a student should be able to learn English, when it is considered in this context. English has 26 letters and only 44 sounds. It has an approximate total of 550,000 words, and 2,000 words make up 90 per cent of most speech. Four hundred words make up to 65 per cent of most writing, and there are only 70 main spelling combinations. Graduation from the final year of secondary schooling provides measures of success, including the completion of school entry, to university and higher education, access to TAFE, apprenticeships, traineeships, employment and an income. Aboriginal children and young people who do not achieve secondary education and who do not acquire the basic skills of literacy and numeracy are unlikely to be competitive in the labour market, and that goes for any student who fails at schooling. They will subsequently be vulnerable to structural change within the labour market government reform and therefore will be reliant on government income support. Seriously, if you do not achieve year 10 graduation then you are doomed eternally to welfare dependency, unless there are interventions that break that dependency.

One thing is that we have got to stop focusing on programs, which is the reason I asked the member for Blair the question about understanding what the educational outcomes are. We have to stop focusing purely on money. The question that we as members all need to ask and know the answer to with a degree of certainty within our electorates is: what is the educational attainment not only of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children but of any child who experiences socioeconomic challenges and difficulty? I think it is beholden upon us to know what the gaps are within our electorates so that we can address them and advocate for and champion those who need the champions of this House. It is only through the processes of strong bilateral commitment that we will see the changes that are absolutely necessary for any child who requires a level of support and intervention, in particular in this bill.

I commend this bill to the parliament.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I commence speaking in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, I am proud to follow the member for Hasluck and the member for Fraser—the member for Hasluck because of his particular authentic voice in this debate as the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives and the member for Fraser because of his obvious passion for and commitment to education. In these times when politics and politicians are maligned nearly as much as climate scientists and economists, I think it is important for people who might be listening to this debate to understand that the work of the House involves people working across boundaries in the interests of the nation. That is the kind of work that I came here to do as the member for Robertson, and that is why I am very, very proud to be speaking today to this bill, which is firmly and squarely targeted at changing life outcomes for the most underprivileged and most isolated people in this great nation of Australia, our Indigenous people.

This bill itself demonstrates that the Gillard government are deeply committed to governing with a clear and dedicated focus on closing the gap that we have to simply accept exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in terms of not just living standards but every possible measure of life outcome: health, wellbeing, educational status and opportunity. Of all the tools at our disposal to achieve these equitable goals, education, in my view, is the most powerful one—and there is much research to support this. The adequate provision of education has been proven over and over, time and time again, as the greatest equaliser of opportunity available to a society. The Gillard government is absolutely committed to closing the gap in Indigenous education disadvantage. In my view, it is essential that it remain our most important objective.

Of all the national issues, this one, perhaps more than others, has a very particular local face in a range of different settings across the nation. I will always—and as I speak here today I want to particularly—value and appreciate the local Indigenous community in my electorate. The Central Coast is an area that has been proudly inhabited by the Darkinjung-Guringai people. I will always feel privileged to be the representative in this parliament of the land in which the Aboriginal elders of my region continue to hold their custodianship with such care. The coast certainly has a proud Indigenous history, and members of the Indigenous community have always sought to maintain and strengthen their cultural heritage, but the reality on the Central Coast is similar to the reality around the rest of the nation: our Indigenous kids are underrepresented in terms of health and wellbeing, they are underrepresented in the successful completion of schooling, they are underrepresented in our universities and they are underrepresented in their opportunities to be full, successful and participating members of our society with all the choices that are afforded to children who are born to non-Indigenous parents.

The purpose of this amendment bill is to extend funding amounting to $133.5 million for non-Abstudy payments for the calendar year 2013. Additionally, this bill will reduce by $157.7 million in net terms the appropriations allocated for non-Abstudy payments to fund previously agreed government policy and initiatives. While decision making that shifts money in economically responsible ways is necessarily a difficult task for all governments, we in this government understand that we must remember, in the allocation of funding, that it must go to where it is most needed and can have a powerful and positive impact on our communities. The changes to funding arrangements reflected here reflect changed arrangements which were implemented under reforms to federal financial relations.

It is always important to consider that not only is it important to provide welfare to Indigenous communities but its provision must be enabling for the communities. It must be efficient, it must be effective and it must be—as the member for Hasluck so clearly outlined—directed at real, practical outcomes. 'It's not about the money,' he said. 'It's about what we actually make happen, what we make possible, what we envision and what we deliver for Indigenous communities with Indigenous communities.' The new arrangements reflected in this bill provide greater autonomy for states and territories to tailor their own policies to suit local circumstances. This is a very important part of the bill—that the face of need in each community is different and that that needs to be taken into consideration at the state level as well as at the totally local level. The circumstances faced by Indigenous Australians vary phenomenally throughout this Commonwealth. It is appropriate, then, that policies in relation to education should also vary. Reform to the Commonwealth-state relations in Indigenous education policy has been immensely beneficial in the development of a policy aimed at closing the gap. An example is the approximately $80 million transferred to the Northern Territory national partnership agreement. This COAG agreement is aimed at closing the gap, and a significant part of the agreement is the National Partnership Agreement for Indigenous Early Childhood Development. When it comes to changing outcomes for Indigenous children, we must constantly acknowledge the power of investing in early education.

We talk about expectations—and I want to say a little more about that later. Expectation about what is possible for every child is at the heart of a teacher's role, but teachers do not do this alone; it is parents and the community in toto. It is often said it is not just the family that raises a child—it is not just the mother and father—it is the village. Early childhood exposure to great quality education changes expectations for everyone. It changes expectations for the children themselves when they begin to see other ways of doing, other ways of being, other ways of knowing, other ways of listening and other ways of speaking. In a clearly and carefully dedicated formal education setting that is combined with the sound advice of policy and research in early childhood, we begin early on the journey that might have positive outcomes for future generations of Indigenous Australians.

The National Partnership Agreement for Indigenous Early Childhood Development commits $564.6 million—that is a large amount of money—over six years. It is currently funding 36 children and family centres. I have not had the opportunity yet to visit one of those, but I certainly hope that I will have the opportunity, because the people working there are doing some of the most important work in our community. They are the people who will build these potential futures. This COAG agreement is designed to meet the specific needs pertaining to particular states and territories, who will develop and implement their own plans in consultation with their local communities.

The bill also reflects the government's election commitment to increase support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote Indigenous communities attending non-government and non-remote boarding schools. This initiative is really about making it possible for individuals who have different needs to receive different responses. There is no one Aboriginal culture; there are multiple Aboriginal cultures. There is no universal student; there are multiple individuals, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who need particular responses. The uniqueness of the human person is a challenge for all educators. This bill does many of the structural things that allow teachers to actually begin to do that kind of dedicated work.

Sadly, not every Indigenous Australian child will have access to the program, but significant numbers will. This really does have the potential to change lives. As a former teacher, I am very well aware, having spent 25 years in classrooms, that education transforms lives. I am passionate about education because I have seen it. I have seen kids arrive with low expectations and I have seen them at the end of 13 years of schooling, having been well engaged, being able to do wonderful things and fulfil their dreams. Sadly, some children have never had those possibilities offered to them. I see Australians who represent great resources, to themselves, to their families, to their local communities, to their nation and, indeed, potentially to the world, who, by the time they have left school, do not have the skills or the belief in themselves that they need to advance and really become the best people that they can be. Education is a rich field in which to work and a great education is a holistic experience. It empowers students intellectually, socially and, just as importantly, emotionally and culturally. This program of supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from remote areas to attend non-government schools has the potential to provide that empowering experience. But such programs must always be mindful of the challenges faced when moving from one cultural setting into another cultural setting. There is a lot of research about students from disadvantaged social backgrounds having two language practices, trying to identify in a tertiary setting and using a particular discourse capacity in that context and then also having to go back to their own families and talk, live, work and speak in different ways. This is not a small thing that we are asking. That is why it needs to be offered to particular kids who look like they are able to take up that opportunity and why it needs to match their particular needs.

Every Indigenous student who finishes secondary education and gains a tertiary qualification is benefiting their community. They are benefiting their local community, the Aboriginal community and the Australian community. The more successful we are at promoting education in remote Indigenous communities, the more able we are to improve the life outcomes of those individuals and their communities and to close the gap, which really is a shame and a blight on our national history at this point in time.

As a member of this parliament and this Australian community in 2011, I often hear the general public's frustration at the Commonwealth-state blame game. Indeed, I understand that in our federal system Commonwealth and state governments inevitably dispute. However, Indigenous affairs is an area of policy where we must not fail. We must not allow this gap to be maintained. It is for this reason that I am heartened by the fact that there is a defined COAG agreement, aimed at closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Commitment to cooperative targets is also demonstrated by the newly updated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014. This action plan commits the Australian government to 55 clear actions concerning the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. These 55 actions are linked to six priority domains, which are reflective of an outcomes based holistic approach to education: school readiness; engagement and connection; attendance; literacy and numeracy; leadership, quality teaching and workforce development; and pathways to real postschool options.

These six areas are critical and foremost and, under this agreement, each state was able to tailor how they approach those policy objectives in their own context. One approach I found particularly encouraging was the New South Wales strategy of developing a personalised learning plan for all Aboriginal students, in conjunction with students, parents and/or caregivers and teachers, including Aboriginal school personnel. In particular, it was focused on students' wellbeing in spiritual, cultural and personal domains. If we do not attend to those realities, then students will not be likely to engage in the intellectual domain.

This approach demonstrates the ideal that each student is a unique individual, with different strengths and weaknesses and a different personality that needs different responses. We must never forget that this legislation and the COAG agreement are being discussed here in this place today because, in 1967, again, very belatedly, the Australian people voted to enable the Commonwealth to legislate for Indigenous Australians. It is our responsibility in this federal place to have high expectations of ourselves and of the Indigenous community to be able to achieve these goals. It is therefore imperative that the Commonwealth use every power that we have at our disposal to assist in improving the educational outcomes of Indigenous students.

It remains a concern to me that, in 2010, only 64 per cent of year 9 Indigenous students achieved at or above the minimum standard in reading, compared to 92 per cent of non-Indigenous students. Twenty-four per cent of Indigenous students in remote areas achieved the national minimum reading standards. That is just not good enough.

Despite the challenges that face us, the Australian Labor Party and this government understand the importance of education and its enabling capacity. As a member of the House, I certainly have a vision for an Australia where Indigenous Australians have equity in outcomes and, on the basis of that, I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 and give it my qualified support. In fact, a lot of my thoughts will be exactly the same as those of the member for Robertson. My wife is in fact an early childhood teacher. One thing that I would like to see in the future is equalised funding going to primary schools and, in particular, to early childhood centres, because that is where the battle is won or lost. If we can get these kids into a classroom, get them to know their alphabet and learn the outcome based education, then we will all be a lot better off.

As I said, a lot of the things I will be covering here will be covered with exactly the same feeling as that of the member for Robertson; I will just come at it from a different direction. The good part of this bill is that it extends the current funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year. The funding covers programs such as the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, helping Indigenous youth move away from home to gain skills for employment. In the city of Townsville a number of people are prepared to assist with this. We have a fantastic TAFE, Tec-NQ and we also have Shalom Christian College. St Pats, run by the Sisters of Mercy, is a great school. It has an incredible population of Torres Strait Islander and Palm Islander girls, who come across there to complete their education all the way through, from grade 8 to grade 12.

The bill also covers funding for the Sporting Chance Program, which uses sport and recreation activities as a means of increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in school. Both these programs were implemented by the coalition and, to the government's credit, both these good programs have been continued. Both have been successful in increasing student participation and retention rates. This so-called necessary extension of funding is because we have to allow time for the report, which is due sometime this year, following the review of funding for schools. The government has acknowledged that this review may have implications for the programs run under the IETA Act. I would urge the government not to touch the programs that are working to get kids into schools.

This is where I start to have problems with this legislation and, by extension, all the legislation relating to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. For a start we have these good programs, using sport and recreation, which actually get the kids into school. When we get them there, we sit them down and either they participate in the NAPLAN or we make them prepare for NAPLAN. Too many schools these days are wasting time just preparing for tests and going through tests to get them ready. So we say to the kids from the missions: 'Come in, go to school.' We use sport, music, dance and art to get them in there and, as soon as we do, we throw that out of the window and they no longer participate and we wonder why they do not go back to school.

I agree with the member for Robertson: we as a community have to look at and decide what success is. Is the fact that they can actually speak English by the time they finish school a success? In some cases, it should be. But how do we qualify that and how do we ensure that they are getting the right funding? Those are the questions that we have to ask.

I recognise that this is a big issue. But, for the life of me, and the First Australians of my electorate, we cannot see where all the money is going. For all its good intentions, this place must see the frustration. For all its well-thought-out plans, bills and amendments we are still seeing a complete lack of clear results in our communities. Our Aboriginal and Islander school children remain the most troubled group. They are the most likely to be truant. They are the most likely to finish their education early. They are more likely not to possess the basic literacy skills required to achieve anything above menial labour. They are more likely to die young and they are more likely to suffer substance abuse. I have been a member of this House for less than a year, and yet I feel a great frustration when it comes to the provision of services for our First Australians. In my maiden speech, I pointed to people and organisations who were trying to make a difference. They are making a difference in the community by targeting specific groups, specific programs and specific native groups of people to get things done.

I continue to talk about, for want of a better term, federalising the industry of Aboriginal and Islander affairs, and the member for Robertson addressed that matter as well. I am not a federalist by nature. But, for the life of me, when I speak to the mayor of Palm Island, the mayor of Yarrabah or to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders in my community they do not know where the money is going. It goes from federal to state, to local and there is a trickle that comes out the bottom. They are raising concerns with me as to where the money is going. Are there too many consultants? Are the state governments robbing us blind? Is the federal government through the Public Service not getting the funds through? Those are the questions that just do not seem to be heard, because it all leads to money not getting to the pointy end—and that is what we need. Too often we see people falling through the gaps. We now have more people in care than during the stolen generation. When you think about how much money we have thrown at the issue, you have to pause and ask, 'To what end?'

I was at the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre recently. They have instigated a program where the boys in the centre are exposed to normal businesspeople who mentor them in life. They do not judge the boys nor do they care what they have done. The people who participate are there to see if there is anything that they can offer, anything in their own lives which they have done which could give these boys a chance they so desperately need. These people are not qualified as social workers; they are qualified as people who have jobs and who have life experience. They spend time with the boys. There are some of the Cowboys players that are so welcome in that place but, more often than not, they are just businesspeople going in and spending time with them.

When you go into Cleveland Youth you see the existence of foetal alcohol syndrome and abuse they have suffered are rife in the inmates in the centre. The blame for that lies across the whole region and the whole community. But the mentors do not let them make excuses. They tell them that sometimes bad things happen; some things are beyond their control; and sometimes you just have to suck it up and have a go. That is the mentors' basic message: have a red hot go, be prepared to fail and fall over but have a go.

It is with this in mind that I suggest that we change the way we do things. The current way is simply not good enough. If it was a business venture, you would have cut its head off long ago—too much money and very little return. I was on Palm Island last week and I sat down with Mayor Alf Lacey and acting council CEO Jeff Brown. Alf's mantra is: 'Do not talk to me about welfare. We are over it. What we want to talk about is economic opportunity to be masters of our own destiny.' To that end, Palm Island council are working as a council and as a community to try to lift the island's profile in Townsville for its economic opportunities.

You only have to come over the hill to see what they are doing with weed eradication, the way the town square has been spruced up with paint and the way the council chambers have been cleaned up. What a pretty place it is and is going to be. There is cyclone damage across the foreshore roads where you still have power poles basically in the sand. It is a long road to travel, but they are heading in the right direction.

We need to look at opportunities for our first Australians but we cannot have some bureaucrat or politician in Canberra telling them what that opportunity is and the money will be that and they will be doing this and they will be getting paid that. We need these communities to stand up and tell us what they want to do. We need to help out as a silent partner with business plans and paperwork. Let the residents have a go. Let them drive their own future. We need to micro manage each of these. We need to see what can be done and fund it directly. We need our ministers to do more. We need our directors-general to do that. We need our public servants to change the basic way they are dealing with this part of Australia's life.

For too long we have been giving money over and patting them on the back and sending them on their way. This has to stop. If there is an Aboriginal or Islander person who wants to change and wants to step up, we should be handling their case as a single unit. We need to set out goals and manage their future along with them until they have made it. We also have to acknowledge that this is not for everyone. The more we look at this issue, the deeper it gets; the deeper it gets, the less we do; and the less we do, the more money it costs us.

This is not a swipe at the government, but I do believe that spreading the portfolio of Aboriginal and Islander affairs across so many portfolios and having it as a small part of mega large departments does not seem to be the answer. I do not question the commitment of Minister Snowdon or Minister Macklin, but it is too easy for staff of the department and for even the ministers to say that it is the duty of another portfolio and another department and wipe their hands. That goes across the state as well.

We need to change our focus. We need to be outcomes focused and not budget focused. We need to have as the focus of each member of the Public Service that we want to educate our Aboriginal and Islander children, teenagers and adults. Those who want to work for it will be rewarded with the gift of literacy and better health and jobs and futures. We have to do this one person at a time. This year's theme for NAIDOC Week is 'The next step is ours'. Let us be right there with those who want to take that step and give them the assistance they require. No-one wants any more than that. They are not asking for any more than that. If I am to be accused of being simplistic, then so be it. My idea may not work. But what has?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging that we are celebrating NAIDOC Week this week, between 3 and 10 July—a week that has been recognised by Indigenous people in this country for almost 70 years. It started off with William Cooper back in the 1930s, when he formed the Australian Aborigines League, and at the time there was even a call for Indigenous people to b e represented in this place. What was originally considered to be a day of mourning has now become a week of celebration for Indigenous people across the country, and I certainly wish them well in the celebrations of this week because I know that, right across the country, in many, many communities, there are individual events taking place.

The purpose of this bill is to extend funding for existing programs under the Indigenous education targeted assistance for a further year and to reallocate some funds to other programs and initiatives. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 aligns funding so that the review of funding for schooling, due to report in 2011, can be considered and any changes implemented with adequate planning and consultation. In 2007 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to six targets for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, including in relation to educational achievement. Some of those targets were to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children within a decade, and to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment rates by the year 2020. These targets were formalised in the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (Closing the Gap) agreed by COAG in October 2008. The bill aims to extend the funding for the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to incorporate the 2013 calendar year to line up with the Schools Assistance Act 2008, and timing of the review of funding for schooling. This extension, if passed, will appropriate an approximate total of $150 million under the act for 2013.

Nowhere is the need for improving education greater than in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I think that everyone in this House would agree that, if we are ever to overcome disadvantage for any group within our community, then we should begin with improving the education standards. I think it is universally agreed across the world that that is the single thing that makes so much difference to the lives of people. Certainly here in Australia, where we know that Indigenous people are more disadvantaged than the rest of the people in this nation, then starting with a good education outcome is an important priority for the government, and it should be for the nation.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education focused programs run under the act are critical to the future of Indigenous Australia. Initiatives in funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already underway and there are a range of commitments that this government has already made with respect to reducing Indigenous disadvantage. I want to go through what some of those are. The sum of $56.5 million has been allocated nationally to expand literacy and numeracy programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and to provide professional support to assist teachers to develop personalised learning plans for students over the period 2009 to 2012. The government is honouring its 2007 election commitment of $21.9 million to support students from remote communities attending non-remote boarding schools. The government has also allocated $28.9 million for three new boarding facilities in the Northern Territory to support Indigenous kids to achieve a year 12 certificate; $23 million has been allocated for a quality teaching package to upskill and retain the education workforce in Northern Territory schools; $22.7 million has been allocated for on-site accelerated literacy and numeracy support for teaching staff in the Northern Territory; $107.8 million over four years for an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory has also been allocated; $35.4 million has been set aside for the school nutrition program for remote schools in the Northern Territory; $9.1 million of funding was announced in the 2009 budget to support creches; $8.9 million was allocated under the Building the Education Revolution for additional classrooms for remote communities, as was $2.5 billion of Smarter Schools National Partnerships funding which targets disadvantage and contributes to improving literacy and numeracy outcomes, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education a key of that focus.

All of those amounts highlight an additional important point—that is, if we are going to address Indigenous disadvantage and lift education standards of Indigenous people across the country, then we need to target funding to specific needs because the reality is that across Australia different communities do have different needs. If we do not recognise that then we will find that, all too often, money that has been allocated in fact does not target the people who need it the most. So by breaking it down into those specific allocations that I have just run through, it means the government well understands what the priorities ought to be and where the focus ought to be of that funding.

When I look at the programs covered in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 it is evident that many programs are aimed at engagement as well as education. The programs delivered under the act are complementary to mainstream schooling and employ a range of diverse programs designed to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Sporting Chance Program combines school-based sports academies with education engagement strategies that provide a range of sport, recreation and education activities for primary and secondary school students. Other programs include the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, supplementary recurrent assistance for both non-government vocational education and training and early childhood, as well as Abstudy and mixed mode Away From Base assistance.

If we are going to engage more children in our education sector, we need to begin by also engaging the parents. The act is also about community involvement, as is evidenced by the Parental and Community Engagement Program. The importance of community engagement should never be understated. Historically, low Indigenous engagement in the education system as well as poor education and employment outcomes mean that Indigenous students are less likely to have parental assistance in their studies than non-Indigenous students. The reality has several flow-on effects. Low parental and family education has: firstly, negatively affected Indigenous experiences of and attitudes towards the education system; secondly, reduced the capacity of Indigenous parents and families to engage effectively with the education system; thirdly, reduced parental involvement in school based activities and decision making; and, fourthly, limited the capacity of Indigenous parents and families to support their children in education and employment. The Parental and Community Engagement Program aims to reverse this situation. The government will continue to work at building and strengthening partnerships between families and schools supported by government funding and unflagging determination. In my electorate of Makin, there is an example of the Parental and Community Engagement strategy in place at the North Ingle school at Ingle Farm. The program, which is being run by Centacare Catholic Family Services, has been allocated $23,650 of funding for the family wellbeing project. The project started in January 2010 and is expected to finish on 30 December this year. Centrecare is conducting workshops to empower parents and caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who attend the North Ingle School to engage with school staff and support their children at the school. It is a good example of what can be done at the local level when you understand what the needs are.

The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 also aims to empower young Indigenous people through the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. The role Indigenous mentors and role models play in the community is an important one. This program also has the potential to underline the importance of culture, community development and governance in the school environment. The Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan was developed by the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs and launched on 9 June 2011. The action plan includes targeting approximately 900 focus schools and outlines 55 actions at national, systemic and local levels across the following six key areas: readiness for school; engagement and connections; attendance; literacy and numeracy; leadership; quality teaching and workforce development; and pathways to real post-school options.

In last year's budget $15.4 million over four years was prioritised to deliver on the government's commitments under the action plan. We have also approved more than $25 million for projects over 2011 and 2012 to expand intensive literacy and numeracy approaches for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Indeed, since 2008 the government has invested $51.5 million in Indigenous literacy and numeracy projects. Over 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in over 670 schools across Australia will benefit from this assistance.

In my home state of South Australia $1 million was provided to Catholic schools for their intensive literacy and numeracy program for Indigenous students and their whole-school planning for targeted personalised learning, with the dual focus on school intervention and literacy and numeracy. Government schools in South Australia will receive a further $1 million for the Unlocking the Future program, which is focused on literacy and teacher capacity. All schools in South Australia—that is, government, Catholic and independent schools—will receive over $3 million to deliver a national program known as Make It Count. This program is focused on improving literacy and teacher capacity.

I close by talking about a local project in the northern and north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide which was undertaken as a partnership between the federal government, the state government of South Australia, Woolworths and two training organisations: Trainme and Globally Make a Difference. It was put together by the Mining, Energy and Engineering Academy of South Australia. This is a program whereby Indigenous people of all ages are selected from the community. Woolworths, as one of key partners, guarantees them a job if they undergo a training program, which in turn gives them a Certificate I or Certificate II in Retail Operations. The program has been an incredible success. Roughly 100 people were originally listed for the program. To date, 91 of those people have commenced the program, 72 have graduated, 42 are currently working with Woolworths and 22 are doing further training. I think those figures are remarkable—remarkable because these were people of all ages who in many cases had never worked before. They were people who had found an incredible number of barriers along the way to getting them into the workforce. But providing them with an opportunity of training and, in turn, the guarantee of a job at the end of that training made a world of difference.

What also made a world of difference was that the two training organisations—and, in particular, Mark Siaosi from Trainme and Melinda Cates from Globally Make a Difference—really understood the people they were working with. They understood them well enough to understand how they should best tailor the training programs that they were providing. They worked with the trainees from start to finish to ensure that they not only completed their training but also participated in the employment experience that was provided by Woolworths along the way. It shows that, when you understand how to run a program and you can guarantee people a job at the end of it, you will get outcomes. I particularly commend Mike Batycki from Woolworths, who is the state manager in South Australia, for overseeing this program and making it available. I have now attended two graduations of the program—this year and last year. I was indeed impressed to see the people coming through the program having graduated and to see the excitement on their faces to think that they had actually achieved something and they had a job waiting for them at the end of the program. That is another good example of where sometimes, if you want results, you have to tailor make the whole program. The federal government has provided $1.2 million of funding as part of its Indigenous Employment Program to fund the program, and it is working. To those people involved—Alan Tidswell, from the Mining Energy and Engineering Academy; Mark Siaosi;Melinda Cates; and Michael Batycki—I say thank you and well done.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In considering the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, the question that comes before anyone who debates this issue on either side of this chamber is the No. 1 concern of school attendance. While we as politicians can continue to mouth the promises of small programs, small financial transfers and small gains in attendance in restricted areas and small cohorts in different parts of Australia, the only thing that will measure our time in public life will be whether we have turned education for Indigenous Australians in remote and rural Australia around so that attendance is something equivalent to what we see in the mainstream. It is great to focus on closing the gap, but today I want to look through the prism of the national quality framework and see what we have achieved since it was first raised back on 3 July 2008, to see some progress in Indigenous outcomes in both early childhood and later education. Secondly, I will look at the human rights issues around school attendance and compare them to worldwide concerns. Thirdly, I will look at the social and, fourthly, the economic implications of school attendance.

When we listen to our words today decades from now, the question will be not, 'Could we fill our 20 minutes with examples of what a government is doing?' but, 'Were we actually achieving any change whatsoever?' There are scarce few examples in this country of successful achievement in getting Aboriginal kids to school. I can start with a list of reasons, but our job is not to continue to expand on the list of reasons. We have one single role in this place, and that is to turn our words—our good words on both sides of the chamber—into reality, particularly in remote and rural Australia. So, while I have seen very, very alarming statistics that talk about only 24 per cent of Indigenous Australians even having a high school in their community and 40 per cent of Indigenous Australians completing year 12 but only 10 per cent of Indigenous Australians actually graduating from year 12, let us remember that it is magnified enormously the more remote or rural the area is. So, in areas like the Warlpiri communities around the Tanami of Yuendumu and Lajamanu, we have seen massive falls in school attendance at the same time as we were attempting the Northern Territory emergency intervention. It was not through any fault of the intervention. The intervention made it clear: send your child to school or face the impact of quarantining. The great problem is that quarantining was extended to absolutely everyone, and here we are, three to four years later, with an almost anthropological fascination with the intervention—watching, looking, talking about it and measuring it—but school attendance has not changed. No, school attendance flatlined for three years after we brought this intervention in. We got an initial 20 per cent jump, and it has sat there at 60 per cent ever since.

My great concern in those prescribed communities is that 40 to 45 per cent of Indigenous children simply do not go to school. I will say it again, and it will be remembered decades from now: it is Australia's greatest human rights violation that Indigenous Australians do not go to school. There is no greater tragedy for this nation. We know that levels of maternal education predict the futures of kids. We know that should be our No. 1 priority after child safety. But we are getting nowhere.

As I said, through the prism of the national quality framework, we talked about it in July 2008. We then talked about it again in October 2008. Then, Indigenous Australians can be delighted to know that on 2 July 2009 we accepted a revised version of the previous year's document—so there went one year. And now I move forward to 2011, and I say to Indigenous Australians, what have we delivered to you in the form of Children and Family Centres? This conversation started years ago. The kids who were most vulnerable in grade 1 are now most of the way through primary school, and what can I report to you? I can report that we had a press release in May saying that they were looking at setting up, in temporary premises, in the middle of this year, an arrangement for Doomadgee, Mareeba, Mount Isa, Ipswich, Mornington Island and Cairns. What about the other 16 remote Queensland communities? Nothing. It is one thing to run around and look for pilot schemes and roll things out in selected communities, but ultimately we need to remember we have two concurrent objectives here. One is the quality numerator—that is, how well we teach the kids. But no matter how good the quality is, if the denominator of school attendance is not there then quality means nothing. The great challenge is that we will have a rollcall and report that an Indigenous child has turned up at school but they are not there at lunchtime. They are gone by lunch, and they are not there on the other days when we are not counting the roll.

I now move to the second issue, the social issues in remote Australia. We put way too much pressure on bureaucrats and, in particular, on principals to be policing and pushing Indigenous liaison workers out to pick kids up from school in buses and cars. And for too long we have hung off the excuses of not having a pair of shoes or food in your tummy as an excuse not to go to school. But it is the other way round; the kids must be at school. There is no corner of this nation where there is not a law that clearly and explicitly points out that very fact. We are failing to apply ordinary laws that apply to the rest of Australia in remote Indigenous Australia. We are effectively creating a racial divide: a two-tiered system where the very rules that apply in most of Australia are exempted in Central Australia. And all most people would ask for is that the rules are applied.

As I said in my second point, from a social perspective I can appreciate there are damaged and incapacitated people in every community. There may well be more in some than others. So it is beholden upon us to identify those people and help their children because that is a child protection issue and that is No. 1. We know from the Bath report that there are 800-plus reports of completely uninvestigated child welfare issues. That is a failure, and without that being fixed we cannot even talk about education.

I have a fair bit of respect for teachers who say we need more resourcing, that we need better skilled teachers in remote areas and that we need to keep them there longer. They are all very important issues of continuity and quality of education. But, as I have said before, the denominator here is attendance. If kids cannot turn up then their parents need to bring them. And if kids will not stay at school because the minute the parents leave the children leave, then we have an issue where we must ask our parents to stay at school. We may well have to rethink education models and admit that, as was traditionally the case in Indigenous Australia, education was a multigenerational process. It is quite possible that caregivers need to remain at school and be accommodated in school grounds. I just ask the question: are we prepared to reconsider the way we deliver a Western education to promote attendance? I will have any discussion in any community about parts of the syllabus which Indigenous Australians do not support or have concerns about, but ultimately this is a discussion we should have had decades ago.

Fred Hollows identified this in the seventies. He found out a century too late for Indigenous Australia that education fundamentally had to be a buy-in process from the very families who send their kids to school. I can understand that it looks like there are no jobs at the end of the tunnel, but that is an argument for another day because No. 1 has to be school attendance, and that comes only through parental acceptance of its importance. When I visit Indigenous communities parents do tell me just that, but they will also tell me: 'Whether I send my kids to school or not, I'm quarantined. So there's no great incentive if I've improved my efforts in sending a kid to school. I don't see many carrots for sending my kid to school in a direct and real time. And ultimately if I thumb my nose at the system and I say, "Well, you've quarantined me and there's nothing more you can do," the reality is it is quite right, there is very little that the system can do.' So at some point we need to say that kids not attending school is just as serious as a range of other child welfare issues, and we need to be able to talk to aunties and extended families about ways of getting those kids to school.

There is a very easy way to reduce the number of kids that are in this situation—that is, to engage a community and ensure there is buy-in. There is nothing worse than going to a remote community where they say: 'We don't have much to do with that mob. We don't know the teachers very well; they come and go. We certainly don't have confidence that they're teaching the right things.' Then there is a driver for engagement with the community, and I would like to see more flexible state education systems start that conversation.

When Marion Scrymgour, as the NT education minister, moved English to a position of pre-eminence and then the intervention backed it up with mandatory four hours of English education at the start of the day, I can see what they were trying to do. But we have thrown out the entire cultural underpinnings of bilingual education for Indigenous Australians. Every other part of Australia teaches languages other than English as an alternative for kids, but we have lost that in many parts of Indigenous Australia that develop fabulous bilingual curricula. We need to bring that back, in no way threatening English because you need to learn English to be able to learn in English, so English must be a core part of education. But to remove the right of a community to have cultural and traditional elements in their curriculum is inviting disaster and disengagement. What we cannot afford is to lose these wonderful young kids at the ages of 10 or 12 when they go through subincision and other traditional processes and we lose them to education until they have gone through their final ceremony. In that period between 12 and 16 we have our greatest challenge in retaining kids, particularly in remote Australia, within our schools. The answer to that is simple: the answer to that is to talk about extended families and to talk to the senior caregiver—who is not always the mother. We need to talk to aunties and elders and ask them what we have to do for the children in your care in terms of keeping them at school. Once we have had that discussion in a community about what is valued in a curriculum it becomes far more powerful.

I have the sense that we are caught somewhere either side of this debate. Centrelink can approach an individual for not sending a child to school, and then at a community level we are trying to negotiate with elders. But in the middle there we need to remember that the strongest remaining part of Indigenous culture is the family group. Perhaps we have to talk to parents and say that part of the parenting payment is being a parent and part of being a parent is sending your kid to school. If they are not sending them to school, I would genuinely ask the question as to whether they are fulfilling their obligations in a modern society to your children.

Noel Pearson said in his Quarterly essay that we need to start thinking about Indigenous Australia not as being doubly disadvantaged but as being able to walk in both worlds and having the best of both. It is completely possible that Indigenous Australia, if it thinks about where it wants to be a decade or a generation or more from now, will say: 'We can retain our connection to land but we do not have to live there 100 per cent of the time. We can go and live where there is work. We can orbit from our communities and have the best of mainstream culture while having our connection to spirituality and the land.' Perhaps that is where we are heading. But it is time for Indigenous Australia to have that debate with itself, because that is a uniquely Aboriginal discussion to be had. I know that if that was to occur then education would be a fundamental part of it.

From our point of view, in the mainstream we need to recognise the important role that mothers, aunties and grandmothers play in education. I cannot see why in remote Indigenous Australia mums and aunties cannot be more than just teacher aides; they can be fundamental parts of an auxiliary volunteer education arm in a school. They could come along and do what auxiliaries do in hospitals, which is support your own education system. We have seen at Batchelor college the important role that elders can play through staying in residential colleges. That should apply in every community in which there is a school. The last thing that we can afford is to set up creches, preschools and kindergartens where Aboriginal families are encouraged to hand the kids over the fence and walk away. That works if you have to go to work, but leaving Indigenous parents completely separated from the education system that is over that fence is not the future.

We may have to be novel; we may have to try new things. But there is one thing that we should never back away from here: we must achieve the same school attendance results that we achieve in the mainstream in remote Australia. That can only start by allowing education departments flexibility, supporting the principals and not making them the policeman at the same time and having Centrelink work very closely on early identification of kids who do not go to school.

In the end, I appreciate that not all parents have the capacity to ensure that their kids go to school every day. But that is a child welfare issue as much as it is an education one. We need to take those children and talk to the extended family—the aunties—about getting them to school. As I have said before, we need to get them engaged with extended family.

Once we achieve that, the final part is the economic implications of school attendance. Everywhere you go, you will see worldwide that an extra year of formal education can do incredible things to a family's earnings over a life. So our priority must be to keep Indigenous kids at school—and particularly when they hit grade 7, because we know that from grade 7 to grade 9 when there is no high school to go to we have a huge drop out of kids.

Those figures that tell us that only one in four Aboriginal kids who stay to grade 12 actually graduate from grade 12 present us with another challenge, and that is whether we should be shifting large numbers of remote and rural Indigenous Australians onto welfare through Newstart. Is it right that large numbers of kids in areas where employment levels are down below 25 per cent should be shifted straight on to welfare payments? My argument is that that mitigates against exactly what we are trying to do, which is engagement through workforce participation. What we know is that all of the antisocial elements—such as alcohol or drug abuse—will always be higher where workforce participation is lower. It simply stands to reason. There are certain social problems that can only be addressed by engaging a greater proportion of people in the workforce. So as long as those figures roll along at around 25 per cent, I argue we can never ever start to get any form of improvement in social issues such as drugs, petrol and alcohol. It starts at school: once you keep kids at school, you give them a chance to transition to meaningful work, training or orbiting. We can do that in the time we have here in public life. But it will take the enforcement of laws that exist in this country now, throughout central, remote and rural Indigenous Australia.

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

At the outset, I am indebted to my friend the honourable member for Dawson for reminding me that private members business commences once again at 6.30, so my contribution will necessarily be brief tonight.

It is important, as a compassionate society, and as a society that seeks equality for all of its citizens, that we do whatever we can to improve educational outcomes for all Australians, including those Australians who are Indigenous. As a nation, we do not have a lot to be proud of with respect to Indigenous affairs. Governments on both sides, historically, have sought to solve the problem through throwing money at the problem, rather than focusing on practical outcomes and practical solutions to very substantial problems. The former Howard government had a much better policy than prior governments and it sought to achieve practical reconciliation and sought to improve outcomes. As chairman of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I was appalled to discover that Indigenous males live approximately 20 years less than non-Indigenous males. When one looks at Indigenous health, we see that so much more has to be achieved. Similarly with respect to education.

That is why I am very pleased to be able to support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, although with some reservations. This bill is a positive bill. It builds on the initiatives of the former Howard Liberal-National government. It essentially seeks to extend the funding for two Howard government programs. It is unfortunate though that the Labor Party has constantly indulged in reviews. Simply giving a one-year extension in funding for the second year in a row does not permit long-term planning and does not build on the very positive outcomes which these programs have successfully achieved in the years since they were implemented.

The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program along with the Sporting Chance Program endeavour to assist Indigenous young people. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program helps young Indigenous people move away from home to gain the skills they need to get a job in their community or elsewhere. The Sporting Chance Program is an Australia government initiative that started operations in schools in 2007, with the objective of encouraging positive educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

It really is important to make sure that Indigenous Australians have appropriate educational opportunities, because as we all know the key to success in life is a good education. If someone is able to read, write and count, then the employment prognosis is infinitely better. It really is important also to recognise that many in the Indigenous community have not enjoyed the opportunities of others in the wider Australian community and that governments must therefore focus on doing whatever they can to build positive futures for Indigenous people. The way to a positive future for Indigenous people is by building up the prospects of children and future generations of Indigenous people. It is important they are given the support they need to receive a good education and receive the guidance they require to make them move into a rewarding career where they can become well-rounded and contributing members of the community generally, and become positive role models for other Indigenous Australians. It is probable that the challenges and difficulties faced by the Indigenous community may be addressed and their harshness reduced if the current generation of young people are able to build their abilities and educational opportunities in the future.

Debate adjourned.