Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide a contribution to the second reading debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006. As the explanatory memorandum states, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2006 to appropriate additional funding to facilitate the provision of improved opportunities for Indigenous students in the school and training sectors, through additional tutorial assistance, support for community festivals, health promotion activities addressing substance abuse by Indigenous youth in remote regions, and delivery of school based sporting academies and related activities for Indigenous students.

The bill plans to do this through an appropriation of $25.7 million for additional tutorial assistance between 2006 and 2008 for Indigenous school students and Indigenous VET students; $19.1 million for school based sports academies; $7.3 million for Indigenous youth festivals, a component of the community festivals for the health promotion program; and $1.5 million for activities to discourage petrol sniffing and substance abuse in remote regions.

Of course, the Labor Party is not going to stand in the way of this bill. Why would we? Any money that can be appropriated to assist Indigenous education is a good thing. But, like my colleagues, I wish to make a number of comments about Indigenous education—and people in this place who know me would know that I would not miss an opportunity to do so. I will provide a few comments about the elements of this bill. The bill extends the tutorial assistance to another year level in high school, to students in year 9 and in vocational training. The extension is certainly most welcome, but I would note that it simply restores the support that was previously available under ATAS, the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme, which was not available under the current guidelines. So do not be under any misapprehension that this is a move by this government to provide some new whiz-bang initiative when it comes to support for Indigenous students. This measure simply puts back what was previously there.

The additional money, though, is offset by a tightening of the eligibility requirements for Abstudy allowance for Indigenous students under 16 years of age. The Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme, ITAS, funding guidelines restrict access for students in urban centres. They have to attend a school with an enrolment of at least 20 students. That of course means that many students will be refused assistance to meet their needs. There may well be many schools that do not have 20 Indigenous students and, therefore, some kids will miss out. This measure looks pretty good when you read the second reading speech or the explanatory memorandum but, when you get to the fine print, you notice that there are some problems.

As I said, I have spoken quite frequently in this place about Indigenous education. In the Northern Territory, we have more remote Indigenous constituents than any other constituency represented in this place. In fact, 33 per cent of the Northern Territory’s population is made up of Indigenous people—and that percentage is growing at a fast pace. Like my colleague Mr Snowdon, I regularly spend my time visiting many of these Indigenous communities and I always ensure that I visit the schools when I am in those communities. So I can certainly stand in this chamber and pride myself on knowing what is going on out there and what the Indigenous views are about education.

Only last week or the week before, Minister Bishop made her first and only visit to date to the Northern Territory. No doubt she would have seen, as I have seen, many people in the Territory who are doing a fantastic job in Indigenous education—but usually under very difficult conditions. Some schools and classes are getting excellent results and outcomes in literacy and numeracy but some places have a fair way to go. The overall state of Indigenous education in this country is only too well known. In fact, I do not think a week goes by where I do not see a newspaper, journal article or research document that talks about the failure of this country with respect to Indigenous education. This government may claim—and rightly so in a few areas—that Indigenous education outcomes have improved over the years, but what this government will not tell you is that there is still an enormous gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes. In fact, as Indigenous outcomes improve, so do non-Indigenous outcomes improve—and the gap is not getting any smaller.

Some weeks ago, this government tabled their annual report into Indigenous education. I think it was the fourth annual report. It was an initiative that I actually welcomed when it was introduced five years ago, but that report is 12 months overdue. The report is normally tabled in this parliament in October or November each year. This year, we got the 2004 report. I have yet to be able to ask questions in estimates as to why that is the case. Unfortunately, Indigenous education again got squashed into the last half-hour in Senate estimates this year, and asking such questions at 10.30 at night is probably not a good way to go when you consider that Indigenous education is in such a massive crisis in this country. I guess one of these days we might put Indigenous education up front and centre in estimates and give it the time that it needs. So we do not have any answer yet from this government as to why that report was tabled so late. But, with all due respect, I suppose they have not actually been given the opportunity to answer those questions.

The massive changes that have been undertaken in Indigenous education funding in the last two years have seen an enormous turnaround in the way that additional funding is allocated to schools. The Indigenous education act appropriates the IESIP money—previously the Aboriginal Education Program money. It is not mainstream school funding; it is money that is appropriated over and above the amount that is given to primary and secondary schools and VET colleges. It is a recognition that Indigenous students are disadvantaged and an additional bucket of money is needed to cater for their needs. Labor have been a supporter of the IESIP and the AEP money.

While Labor do support this bill—as it does give additional resources to the area of Indigenous education—I have to say that I have been increasingly concerned at this government’s approach not only to Indigenous education but also to Indigenous affairs for a long time. With little or no evidence to support them, the government, under the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Nelson, pushed through changes to Indigenous education funding which saw the old ASSPA, the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness program, abolished. It was a program that Indigenous parents liked. It was an incentive for them to participate in their child’s education. But, when the funding of that program changed, parents withdrew from their involvement in schools.

So we say to ourselves, ‘We’re not seeing any change here in Aboriginal attendance at schools; it has not been getting any better over recent years.’ But I do not believe that this government made a link between the involvement of Indigenous parents through ASSPA and their encouragement to get kids to go to school. One would think that after two years of this program being changed and refocused somebody in DEST might say: ‘Maybe the way we gave funds directly to the parents encouraged them to get involved in the school. Maybe that was the link to having good educational outcomes and good attendance.’ But no-one has quite seen that link—or this government is not prepared to see the link.

As we know, the government conducted a survey of the 3,800 committees in this country and got a response back from fewer than 70. On that basis they decided to make massive changes. People will be only too familiar with the fact that back then, when this chamber was able to do so some constructive inquiries that actually went in an intuitive nature to what this government were doing, we initiated the Indigenous education funding inquiry through the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee. That was an inquiry that specifically looked at the impact of the changes to the ASSPA program and now the new parent schools participation program, the PSPI. I will not reiterate all the speeches and comments I have made in relation to the refunding of that program, but I want to say a few things about it.

We are still waiting for the government to respond to the report on Indigenous education funding, which was tabled in June last year. The report made a couple of recommendations, one of which was that the Australian National Audit Office have a damned good look at what DEST is doing in relation to its IESIP funding and the way in which the PSPI programs are being funded. We recommended that the Auditor-General be requested to conduct an efficiency audit on current arrangements for the application and processing of funding for PSPI programs. No doubt this government will not do that; it will refuse to do it. As a senator for the Northern Territory, I have drafted a letter which I intend to send this week in which I request that the ANAO go into DEST and have a really long hard look at the way in which this program is now being applied for and processed by schools. It is highly bureaucratic, full of red tape and now requires principals to apply for this funding twice a year—at least that is an improvement. It does not now require them to put in a concept plan—that is also an improvement. But, boy, it took a lot of damned hard work to get the government to move on that. I know I made positive comments about the department making those changes, but, my God, they have a long way to go to make it easier for schools to get hold of the funds. No-one has asked the real, critical question on the changes to this education funding: why is it that we are now seeing fewer and fewer Indigenous parents involved in their children’s education out bush? No-one is asking that question.

The report also suggested that Tom Calma, as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, pick up the changes to this Indigenous education funding arrangement and comment on the implications of the changed funding of the PSPI program in his annual report. I think it has now been at least three years that this program has been in place and it is time that someone asked the social justice commissioner to have a look at what this means.

The ASSPA funding was changed from an automatic amount per head to the competitive submission based PSPI, which has seen many small remote schools lose their funding. Where funding has not been lost many smaller remote schools report getting funds through cluster arrangements very late in term 2, which makes it almost impossible for them to plan a year’s curriculum and program. Some successful programs, such as cultural activities and sporting trips, have been cut or severely reduced. These programs had in fact proved successful in encouraging Indigenous attendance as well as in raising self-esteem.

We know that in-class tuition funding was changed—from principals and teachers in a school nominating kids who needed that assessment to being tied to a formula whereby only kids in years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to reach the benchmark are counted as part of the formula to provide the extra tutorial assistance. I have used an example many times, thanks to a brilliant principal called Reg, who is working at Amanbidgi on the border of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I have used it again and again and I will keep using it. He says to me, ‘Trish, you know I’ve had 15 kids sit the year 3 test, and 13 of them passed, thanks to the tutorial assistance they had in the past.’ But under this formula the school now sends in only two kids who generate the formula that actually comes from the federal government. At the end of the day, it means that he can offer whatever money he can get to all the kids at the school. But essentially what is happening is that there is no incentive for schools to keep tutoring and providing additional assistance. It is almost as though, once the benchmark has been reached, ‘That’s it; we’ll wipe our hands of it and our job’s done.’ There is no commitment to ensure that these kids get ongoing assistance and training.

What I find with this government is that there is a lack of imagination when it comes to dealing with the problems of Aboriginal education. I clearly remember that in 1989 and 1990 the Aboriginal Education Program was first initiated and performance indicators were set by each state and territory. After about six or seven years of that program there was a national review of the AEP. At the time it was headed by Mandawuy Yunupingu, who had just completed a course—his Bachelor of Education. But this government has been in power now for 10 long years—incredibly hard years, I have to say, for those of us who are sitting in opposition and for those of you in my electorate who are Indigenous—and we have not seen an attempt to have a national review of Indigenous education in those years. I know that there is an Indigenous education conference occurring this week in Brisbane—which I would love to be at but I which I cannot be at—but it has not been initiated by this government; it has been initiated by people out there who want to continue to swap and exchange ideas on what is happening.

This government has failed to look at Indigenous education at the national level. It has failed to set up a peak advisory committee on Indigenous education. There is one for higher education, so why doesn’t the government go the full yards and have one for primary and secondary education in the schools sector? This government has failed to look at some of the initiatives that could be undertaken in Indigenous education. We know that it funds states and territories based on the enrolment in schools. I know that states and territories only then fund schools based on the attendance at schools. So let us take a community in the Northern Territory which might have the capacity for 300 kids go to school. If only 30 kids are attending that school it is only funded based on the 30 kids that attend, not the number who could potentially be enrolled in that school. Why doesn’t the Commonwealth government be a little bit creative about this and decide, even on a trial basis, to give some of those funds to communities based on the ABS statistics of the actual number of kids in that community who may be able to go to a primary or secondary school? You might say that would create an excess number of teachers in that community. What would they do? Perhaps they might set up as a liaison between parents and the community. Perhaps their job might be, until more kids come to the school, to be out on the streets and in the communities first thing in the morning talking to people about the benefits of education.

You do not see anything creative coming from this federal government on Indigenous education. What do you see? You see Minister Bishop going to the Northern Territory. She had fewer than three days there and then she headed off to the Tiwi Islands. What did she say to that community? She said, ‘Unless you give up your land for 99 years, we are not going to build you the $10 million boarding school we promised you.’ That is not what was said to the people of the Mutitjulu and Yulara region when their boarding school was built. That was not the condition put on the people at Woolanging when their boarding school was built, and I notice that Minister Bishop went to Woolanging. There was no condition put on those Indigenous communities that they had to give up their land for 99 years—in other words, forever. Let us face it, if you give up your land for 99 years, five generations later you will never get it handed back to you.

Why are Indigenous people being forced by this government to give up their land in order to have a boarding school in their community? It is an outrageous proposition. It is certainly something that would never happen in Canberra. It would not happen in Fremantle, Brunswick or any areas I can think of in Sydney. No-one would be asked to give up their private property, and that is what this land is in these communities. The Indigenous people have the title to that land; they own that land. Nobody else in this country is being backed into a corner whereby they are being forced to give up their land in order to get $10 million out of this government to build a boarding school.

I notice that Minister Bishop and Minister Brough suggested that, if the Northern Territory government was not happy with those conditions, it ought to build the school. I just want to remind them that the CLP was in power for 27 years in the Northern Territory and did absolutely nothing—zero—about providing higher education to Indigenous kids in their communities. At least under a Martin Labor government secondary education is now being provided at Galiwinku, Maningrida, Kalkaringi, Lajamanu and Ngukurr. So there has been a start out there. At least the Labor government in the Territory is starting to provide education where there the CLP and this government have failed to. They were in power for 27 years in the Territory and have been for 10 years federally and the best they can do is lambaste people into giving up their land in order to have a secondary school.

No doubt people in this place know I could go on for quite a long time on this, but I just want to finish by saying that this government stands condemned for being in power for 10 years and failing to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous education outcomes and for failing to have any kind of initiative or imagination when it comes to dealing with the problem.