Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I present the committee's interim report entitled First steps for improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studentstogether with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today, I am presenting the interim report of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs inquiry into educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. We felt the findings of our inquiry to this point were too important to leave in abeyance until, we hope, the minister of the next parliament reinstates this inquiry.

Too often the statistics cite the failures of Indigenous students when compared with non-Indigenous peers. The NAPLAN results for Indigenous children are often below those of their non-Indigenous counterparts and their rates of further education and employment are below those of their non-Indigenous counterparts. These statistics indicate an education system that is failing many of our Indigenous students rather than the Indigenous students failing the education system. We set out to find out what worked, what had not worked, and what impediments there were to Indigenous students going to school, staying at school, moving on to higher education and taking every opportunity that is available to most Australians in this glorious country.

Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students live in remote communities where there is not secondary school opportunity. So Abstudy, a Commonwealth set of support grants, is needed to financially support these students, especially as some may have to leave home and go to a boarding school or into some other type of residential boarding arrangements. Abstudy is essential if we are to see equality of outcome for our Indigenous students. However, we received extensive evidence of delays, confusion, and an inability to get detailed and complex written forms submitted when families may not have been literate in English, may not have had access to the internet or may not have had some of the support documentation, like birth certificates, to complete the forms and send them through to be processed in time for students to start school at the beginning of the year. We heard evidence continuously—whether it was from communities, from families or from schools—about the problems with processing the complex Abstudy forms.

The committee repeatedly heard from parents that the consequences of these forms not being able to be submitted or to be processed in time were that some children remained in the Torres Strait Islands, for example, for some six months after the commencement of the school term. You can imagine the disappointment of a young Indigenous student in this situation. They have just completed their primary schooling and are ready to go on to secondary enrolment, they need to leave their home—in itself a traumatic thing for the student and their family—but the forms have not been filled in or may not have been processed, and so they are denied access to ongoing education in some cases for up to six months. That is clearly totally unacceptable, particularly for a program that is integral to the government eliminating Indigenous educational disadvantage.

That was one of the driving forces behind us determining to have an interim report placed on the record in this parliament so something can be done immediately about the complexity of the Abstudy forms and the inefficiencies of the process which seem to mean, in some cases, forms are lodged and not processed for up to six months. We want this problem dealt with, and we have recommended that it be dealt with as a highest priority of this or the next government. The breadth of concerns raised in numerous submissions to the committee's inquiry indicated that the whole Abstudy policy as well as the processes of application need urgent review. We also recommend that Abstudy be redesigned and the revised policy be fully implemented by 30 June 2017.

Our report also expresses great concern at the lack of equity in funding to provide for Indigenous girls' education programs, in contrast to boys' access to special programs. We are all very familiar with the excellent Clontarf sports related program, beginning in Western Australia, which has been around for many years. It has delivered many Indigenous boys a new sense of purpose and a new goal of finishing their schooling. It has been an enormous success. Unfortunately, there has not been an equivalent opportunity for girls—until very recently, when a particular program, the Stars Foundation, commenced. But it is in its infancy. It has only just commenced, and it is on a much smaller scale than, for example, a Clontarf program, when considering the numbers it can take and in terms of the funding. We are not recommending that funds be redirected to the girls' program, away from the boys' funded programs. Self-evidently, we would not want to see that happen to the detriment of boys' outcomes. Rather, we are recommending that the remaining funds in the Indigenous Advancement Strategy be allocated to girls' education programs and that future rounds of grants fund these programs for girls' and for boys' support in equal measure.

Also, in our evidence, we took information about some special Indigenous girls' schools which also accommodate their babies. This is a very important thing—of course, not just for Indigenous girls but for other non-Indigenous Australian teenage girls. We commend that program. For a young girl who has a baby, it is not fair that her education stops and that she has to, for the rest of her life, consider limited opportunities.

The committee also expressed some concern about direct instruction, a particular method of teaching that you will now find in much of Cape York and in some parts of the Northern Territory. Despite significant Commonwealth investment of some $22 million over four years, the effectiveness of this pedagogy, of US-based design, has not been independently evaluated. Nor have outcomes been compared with other forms of instruction in Australia. The committee is of the view that direct instruction should not receive additional funds from the Commonwealth until an independent, comprehensive and longitudinal study, or review, finds the teaching methods to be effective in delivering improved outcomes for the majority of Indigenous students. We believe it is very important for comparisons to be made between this particular form of instruction, called direct instruction, and other alternative ways of instructing Indigenous children from their earliest entry into primary school.

Finally, it is the strong desire of the committee for this inquiry to be resumed in the 45th Parliament. We think the matter is of great consequence and importance to the future of Indigenous Australians. We must have our young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys and girls able to explore every opportunity and have the same choice that other non-Indigenous children have before them. This inquiry is unfinished business. The committee has not yet completed taking all of the evidence. We also know that there are additional recommendations that can be made when more of that evidence is put on the table. Therefore, the report recommends that, following the federal election, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs task the new committee to resume the inquiry so that this important work can be completed and additional recommendations can be brought to the parliament.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the students, parents, teachers and organisations that willingly provided submissions and appeared before the committee. We were often travelling in remote places. We were aware that some of the people who came before us had also travelled for many hours and at great inconvenience to themselves to put their information before us. But they saw it as so important. I would also like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Lingiari, who is an expert on all of these matters given his electorate, but also given his previous life in education. I want to thank our committee members, all loyal and true, who make those special journeys, often taking many days out of their electorates. I want to thank the secretariat, particularly Dr Anna Dacre, who has done a superb job over many years working with this committee.

Finally, this is my last time, last term, last day, in fact, to stand as Chair of this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs committee. It has been work that I have greatly valued, teaching me so much more. But, also, it has allowed me to feel that I have contributed perhaps something to the greater good of our Indigenous Australians.

I thank the House and I commend the report.

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

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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