Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. It will provide an extra $2 million in 2008 for literacy initiatives in the Cape York region of Queensland. The $2 million is expected to fund the Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy accelerated literacy program, otherwise known as MULTILIT, which is operating in Cape York in Queensland.

It is also expected to fund the establishment of student education trusts to encourage families to save for education costs. These student education trusts are voluntary trusts, where families can make regular contributions to cover the costs of their child’s education—such as for uniforms, books or excursions. We support the bill for two reasons: firstly, because, even though it is very small it recognises a very important part of Labor’s policy commitment to close what can only be described as huge gaps in the literacy and numeracy outcomes of Indigenous children across Australia including in Cape York. Secondly, the two initiatives to be funded through this bill are other examples of the need to fund evidence based programs. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in the programs that this government funds, but these are good examples of evidence based programs getting the additional funding that they need. At this point, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House provides bipartisan support for:eliminating the 17 year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation so that every Indigenous child has the same educational and life opportunities as other Australian children;Labor’s positive policy approach towards narrowing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous educational outcomes by:

(a)

providing universal preschool access for all Australian four-year olds, including Indigenous four year olds;

(b)

committing additional funding towards intensive literacy and numeracy programs across Australia;

(c)

developing new programs to tackle the gap in numeracy outcomes between Indigenous and other Australian children;

(d)

implementing the Australian Early development index for all Australian children starting school; and

(e)

introducing Individual learning Plans for all Indigenous children in Australia”.

I want to go back to May this year—the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum—when Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, announced that Labor would commit to a key target in the area of education: to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who failed to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks. We intend to do this over the next 10 years.

The Leader of the Opposition also said that Labor’s policies will be driven by measurable goals and evidence based programs developed in partnership with Indigenous people. To support our Indigenous education commitments, we announced nearly $22 million over four years to expand intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous children in our schools. In particular, we said we want to see intensive literacy programs, such as the one we are debating today, MULTILIT accelerated literacy and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project, all of which provide a heavily-structured approach to teaching literacy. Labor has gone further than indicating that we will support these intensive literacy programs. As part of our $22 million commitment, Labor will develop a new intensive numeracy program, and implement it, in the first instance, at a pilot stage. Unfortunately, the federal government has yet to sign up to this policy.

It is remarkable that there are no major equivalent programs in numeracy to those which we are debating today in literacy. There are many children struggling in literacy and this requires the intensive approach that is now in operation for literacy. The gap in education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children is widest in numeracy, and getting wider over time. In year 3, 80.4 per cent of Indigenous children meet the numeracy benchmarks. By year 7 this falls to 48.8 per cent, according to the National report on schooling in Australia 2005. So, fewer than half of Indigenous children in year 7 were numerate at a basic level.

I find it particularly shocking that these figures demonstrate that the longer the children are at school the further they fall behind. Unfortunately the figures show that our schools are not delivering for these Indigenous children. No government serious about improving the lives of Indigenous children should be sitting on their hands when confronted with such a shocking figure, but unfortunately that is what we have seen, particularly in the numeracy area, over the last period of time. I call on the government to provide funding for literacy and to deliver concrete programs to improve numeracy skills so that these shocking figures for Indigenous children can be turned around.

There are four other major policy commitments that Labor have made to support intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous children. Unfortunately, the government has also failed to support any of the policies that Labor have put forward. Most importantly, Labor have pledged $450 million towards universal access to preschool for every single four-year-old in Australia, including every single Indigenous four-year-old. We are guided in this by two principles: firstly, that it is never too early to invest in a child’s learning but it can certainly sometimes be too late; and secondly, children must be allowed to be children and learn through play and fun activities.

On this side of the House we know that early learning is absolutely critical. We know this as parents but we also know it from the research by people like Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, who has shown that the return on human capital is very high in the early years of life and diminishes rapidly thereafter. That is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why this government continues to refuse to do anything about the 100,000 children in Australia, including many Indigenous four-year-olds, who do not get access to preschool education.

There is also research from the leading developmental researcher Jack Shonkoff, who argues that from birth to age five ‘children rapidly develop foundational capabilities on which subsequent development builds’. Yet, the Productivity Commission estimates that around half of all Indigenous children do not have access to preschool, and this government is doing absolutely nothing about it.

We also saw in the figures the OECD released overnight that Australia’s effort continues to receive the wooden spoon award. We are the worst in the developed world when it comes to delivering preschool education for four-year-old children. What a shocking indictment on this government, which has been here for 11 years. We are the worst in the world, even though there is so much evidence from other parts of the world that intensive early intervention programs in disadvantaged communities—for example, the very well-known Perry Preschool Project in the United States—can produce large social and economic benefits for individual children and for their communities. The research clearly shows that before children start school they need to be ready, willing and able to learn. That way, they will do so much better when they get to school.

Labor’s plan will make sure that every single Australian four-year-old child, including all of our four-year-old Indigenous children, has the right to 15 hours a week of early childhood education delivered by a properly qualified teacher for at least 40 weeks of the year. I find it extraordinary that the Howard government has ruled out matching Labor’s promise to provide this early learning and preschool education for all four-year-old children. On 25 July this year, the Minister for Family and Community Services was reported as saying that it was up to the states to provide preschool education. That is leadership for you. While the minister is out there playing the blame game and blaming somebody else, our children are missing out.

Most Indigenous children, unfortunately, are already behind when they get to school. The shocking figures that I have already quoted show that they fall further behind the longer they are at school. Labor has also announced that, if we are elected, we will roll out the Australian Early Development Index nationally, at a cost of $16.9 million over four years. This is a rigorous checklist across five developmental areas to determine a child’s needs when they start school so that both parents and teachers can home in on the areas that need to be addressed for each individual child. Once again, the minister is funding a small part of the Early Development Index but has failed to commit to a complete rollout nationally.

Labor has also announced that, as part of the rollout of the Early Development Index, we will fund the development of a specific index for Indigenous children to take into account the differing cultural and language features of the early child-rearing environments of Indigenous families. At the moment, MULTILIT, the literacy program that we are supporting here today, operates from year 2 onwards. In our view, it is very important that we have ways of assessing children’s needs prior to that.

Labor has also announced that, after the development checklist has been completed for each Indigenous child starting school, each child will have their very own individual learning plan. This will be updated twice a year for every year of schooling up to year 10. We have to turn around the yawning gaps in achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. Labor will do that by funding intensive literacy and numeracy programs, by making sure that we have the developmental guidelines in place from the day that they start school and by also making sure that every single Indigenous child in Australia has an individual learning plan so that up until year 10 we are constantly assessing the child’s achievement and progress so that, if they start to fall behind, action can be taken by both teachers and parents to keep them up to the mark.

Every Indigenous child would have these learning plans, which would be developed by teachers in consultation with parents to make sure that they work for each individual. They will take into account the teacher’s professional judgements, the results of assessments—including the national literacy and numeracy tests—and the development index that I mentioned before. The plans would identify both the strengths and weaknesses of every child so that we can turn around their disadvantage. The plans will also target the basics and the need for intensive reading, writing, and numeracy programs so that children can advance through school more successfully.

Labor has also pledged $34.5 million over four years to provide professional development support to teachers to enable them to complete these learning plans. Parents will be able to access the plans so that they can be part of their children’s learning at school. Once the children’s learning needs have been identified, the funding and intervention programs that are needed can be targeted and implemented more effectively. This will benefit children. We have seen these initiatives working for Indigenous children in Cape York. The Queensland government is already implementing individual learning plans and working with the Cape York institute to provide intensive support and mentoring programs in Cape York and the Torres Strait. With respect and commitment from both teachers and parents, I am sure that we will succeed in delivering this program nationally to give Indigenous children the opportunities that they have not had before.

In June this year, the Leader of the Opposition endorsed and agreed to fund the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership’s welfare reform plan for four Cape York communities—Mossman Gorge, Aurukun, Coen and Hope Vale. This plan is expected to implement a range of initiatives to make family and welfare payments and housing conditional on school attendance and the proper care of children. As proposed by the Cape York institute, this would be done through four family responsibilities commissions, one in each of those communities. This local statutory body would ensure that welfare benefits go towards the benefit of children. We endorse the key elements of this plan. There must be an expectation in those communities that, first and foremost, children are safe; children are attending school; schools are provided for children to attend; adults do not behave in a way that puts their children at risk, either through alcohol or substance abuse, family violence or gambling; training is available; people do their best to seek work; and, tenants in public housing should comply with their tenancy obligations.

We all know that low school attendance, lack of safe housing, as well as horrific child abuse and neglect are all deeply connected to levels of welfare dependency. So we are particularly committed to intensive support for education in these Indigenous communities and to very tough measures to help break the cycle of welfare dependency, to get people into work and to turn the chances for these children around.

Returning to MULTILIT, I want to commend the program and look at the results it has achieved. It was originally established in 1996 at the Macquarie University Special Education Centre and has been on extensive research and trialling to teach low-progress readers effectively. Since then, it has grown significantly with outreach services provided through the Exodus Foundation and at tutorial centres in Gladstone, in Central Queensland, and in Coen on Cape York.

According to the year 2000 evaluation of MULTILIT, low-progress readers in years 3 to 6 attending a single primary school made mean gains of about 20 months in both reading accuracy and reading comprehension over two terms when experiencing an attenuated MULTILIT program for under two hours per day. It is very good to see that such progress can be made in primary school because, as I said before, we know from the latest National report on schooling in Australia that the number of Indigenous children who meet the reading benchmarks falls from 78 per cent in year 3 to just under 64 per cent in year 7.

I have also seen other successful remedial programs, particularly the accelerated literacy project and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project. These programs are operating in many schools in remote and regional communities around Australia. The accelerated literacy project, otherwise known as the Scaffolding Literacy program, assists low-achieving students to catch up to the average level of the rest of their class by using age-appropriate books to develop their reading, writing, comprehension and spelling skills to a high level very quickly.

Analysis by Charles Darwin University shows that students undertaking accelerated literacy improve their reading ability at an average rate of 1.73 year levels per year—around 21 months progress in reading a year. Similarly, the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project aims to deliver improved literacy and numeracy outcomes for students in remote and rural locations in Australia through accelerated learning principles and techniques developed by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

I also understand that the student education trusts that are in the bill before us today have been tested in Indigenous communities with success. According to the Department of Education, Science and Training, a recent trial in the community of Coen had an 80 per cent take-up. I have also seen firsthand just how successful the Family Income Management program has been on Cape York in helping families to save money for their children’s education and for household goods, food, bills and other basics. I certainly hope that the student education trusts can further build on the initiatives that are working well on Cape York.

It is critical that, across the parliament, we support initiatives based on evidence and demonstrated success. That is certainly the case with MULTILIT and the Family Income Management program. However, it is not always the case with other programs in this area. Unfortunately, the government has a habit of starting programs, giving them grants for a short period and then seeing them fold. What is really needed is constant long-term progress and support where there is evidence that a program is working.

There is no question that the terrible levels of Indigenous disadvantage are not going to be tackled with flash-in-the-pan initiatives or half-baked ideas. What would be helpful, in addition to the money that the government is putting on the table for MULTILIT today, is a baseline survey conducted at the start so that we would know where Cape York children were up to with their literacy. We should make sure that, as the program rolls out, we assess its impact so that, in future, we can judge whether or not it has been successful. We need to know what we are dealing with before we put in place or extend programs. We know that, in the case of MULTILIT, it has worked very effectively elsewhere; however, as a discipline, we should always do the baseline work on a program first and assess its effectiveness as we go along.

We know that education is critical to children’s life chances. We must take a hard-headed, evidence based approach so that we can assess the measurable goals and targets, if we are to have any hope of success. I support the bill that is before us today.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst much can be made of issues surrounding the education of Indigenous persons, the purpose of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to appropriate additional funding to facilitate the improvement of educational opportunities for Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge in the Cape York region of Queensland. That must be endorsed. It is the Howard government finding additional money to hopefully improve the educational opportunities of a disadvantaged people.

Nevertheless, in answer to the question put by the member for Jagajaga—‘How are a very large number of Aboriginal children managing at the moment?’—they are not. The principal reason they are not is that they are not going to school at all. It took the efforts of a government school principal in the north of Western Australia, in recognition of this problem, to approach Centrelink, and to say, ‘There is only one solution to parents accepting their responsibilities to send their children to school, to give them that first start and get them through the door: you will have to threaten their welfare payments.’ And Centrelink agreed with that. It became an unofficial program. The statistics are there to be seen. The attendance of Aboriginal children in school went up exponentially in that community. Then the Western Australian state education department and the Labor minister found out about it and threatened the teacher with the sack for taking this very practical measure of getting kids to school.

We are told about Labor’s programs in this pious amendment—and we seem to get one attached to every bill—which says nothing because it intends nothing. That is Labor’s positive policy approach towards narrowing the gap. Labor is running the state education system in every state and territory of Australia. It is not positive, yet the message we get from this new positive initiative is that Australian taxpayers have to pay twice.

It is not the blame game; it is a defence of the rights of taxpayers to pay once. I personally have no objection to a takeover of the education system by the Australian government, if that means the taxpayer only pays once, but that is not what we are talking about in this place. We are talking about doubling up. It is about asking all the residents of Australia to pay for something that many of them are already paying twice for through their choice of private schools. The biggest indictment of state education providers is the considerable financial pain that a number of people put themselves through so that they do not have to send their children to a school run by state education unions. And, if anyone thinks that is exclusive to white people then they should check again, because it is a similar choice made by the Aboriginal elite—those who are active in the Aboriginal industry and who, in many cases, are getting a better salary than that available to members of this House. Why are they the Aboriginal elite? Typically, because they are also the stolen generation. Whether we approve or disapprove of that practice, the reality is that they were educated by highly dedicated nuns and other religious orders who believed they were doing the best for those people. Amongst them are those who will stand up and honestly say that their removal from a dysfunctional family was the reason that they could stand in the community, articulate and capable of taking employment in many areas.

We are talking here about this being a better program: more money is being provided, and you can double, treble or quadruple that money but if you do not get the kids through the front door it is no good having some survey system that tells you how they are doing at school; they are not at school. Some credit must be given to the government for trying to provide some formality to that approach, which put pressure on the parents of students to see that they attended school.

Nevertheless, another area of significant funding which this government has provided—and I thank the member for Canning for his interest in this matter in the early stages—is to the Clontarf scheme, run by Gerard Neesham, the one-time leading AFL coach. It is to be looked at as a magnificent alternative. It has what are called, I think, Clontarf institutes of sport, and they have now spread. What did Gerard Neesham do? He went down there virtually as a volunteer and said to the numerous Aboriginal kids of that district, ‘I will teach you how to play football. We will have a top-class youth football team, but there’s one rule: you will be registered as present in your classroom at nine o’clock in the morning and you will still be there at three o’clock in the afternoon or there will be no football.’

That had a twofold outcome. The first outcome was that we recognised the high level of natural skills existing in Indigenous people, particularly as to the rugby codes. They are good at it, and they are entitled to earn the good money which is available in professional sport today. But the other thing is the incentive. The initial incentive—the professional opportunities—probably featured very little in the minds of those children. They just wanted to play football. Consequently, Neesham gave us politicians a lead as to how these sorts of things can be achieved without compulsion.

This is a very difficult area. The intrusion of well-meaning people over more recent years, and more particularly this parliament since it obtained the right to be involved in 1967, has done little good. My wife and I became small businesspeople in the north-west town of Carnarvon in 1958, nine years before the referendum that brought the Australian parliament into the business of Aboriginal affairs. You might be interested to know that there were no unemployed Aboriginals in that town, notwithstanding that collectively they represented 30 per cent of the total population of that town. One reason was that they had all gone to school. Their parents had work and they were accepted in the community as being no different from anyone else. In addition, the hinterland was where very large numbers of these people lived and, whilst their employment could not be defined as permanent, they lived on pastoral properties and were paid for the work that was available and of course they were provided with food, medical assistance and other things of that nature.

The trade union movement thought that was a downright terrible situation and went out and said that if anybody were resident on a property and worked occasionally they were full-time employees. So they were all kicked off the properties. That was the commencement of the degeneration of these people, because out on the pastoral properties there was no grog—nor did they need it—and yet they had entitlements. When they had accumulated their wages—and there was nothing to spend them on out there—they came to town and had a party. I well remember—I was one of the hotel proprietors.

The reality was that their children typically stayed back on the property and were looked after by neighbours or relations or elderly people. The point I want to make further is that in that circumstance there was a mission—and that is almost a dirty word after silly people ran the campaign of the stolen generation. In reality it was a hostel and the kids from those pastoral areas came in and lived in ideal conditions and were bussed into the school every day. Nobody even thought that was unusual—they were the ‘mission kids’. During the school holidays they went back to the pastoral properties and joined their families. And it all worked. It had no help whatsoever from the Australian government. It was the expectation of those Aboriginal people that they had to have a job. They worked in my hotel, they worked for the main roads department and the council electricity undertaking. Some owned their own trucks and were in business on their own behalf.

So where are we now exactly 40 years after 1967 and what has been the achievement of the Australian parliament regarding these people? We handed responsibility over to a lot of people who knew nothing and we created an Aboriginal elite. I return to Carnarvon infrequently these days but all of the people that I knew as productive workers in the town, and their kids who went to school, now work in the Aboriginal industry. They produce nothing and they are self-sufficient. This parliament funded a $4 million or $5 million interpretive centre for them. The building has been constructed and on my latest advice—though it is from a little while ago—it has never been opened because the locals cannot agree on which family is going to get the administrative responsibility and the wages that go with it.

This is what we are talking about—an absolute failure of this parliament—and I will spread the blame across political parties in managing a problem that arguably did not exist, certainly not in the areas where I lived for 25 years. The other day we met with a group—and there were quite a few members of parliament there including some ladies from the opposition—and I said I was probably the only person in the room who had voted in the 1967 referendum. Not one of the ladies wanted to correct me, and I thought that was interesting—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which way did you vote?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for two good reasons: one, they did not vote and, two, they were not going to declare their age, and I do not blame them on that matter. But the fact is that I voted yes. I voted to give this parliament a responsibility. With hindsight I regret that decision because I think this parliament has made a mess of it in every possible regard and we are now being confronted with it.

The member for Jagajaga of course used the opportunity—considering this is a bill of fairly narrow moment, but important moment—to extend her views and make comments about the general education system. I would not like to make any predictions as to where it might go but in terms of the involvement of the Australian taxpayer—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If my ‘shadow’ ministers want to chat while I am talking would they please go outside the room. Did you hear me, Bruce? If you want to talk, come up here, mate!

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will ignore the interjections.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the second time in two days. There is no courtesy coming from the desk. Put in that context, when one talks about education there is an ongoing misrepresentation about who pays the bill for education. If anybody studies any of the state governments’ budgets—be they Liberal or Labor, and they are all Labor at the moment—one will find by proper analysis that 50 per cent, give or take one or two per cent, of all expenditures of state governments are provided by the Australian taxpayer through the generosity of this parliament—half. We have a constant and ongoing argument that the Australian government—and not necessarily only this particular government—does not put in a fair share to state government schools. The evidence is that this parliament provides half.

I am fed up with advertisements showing little kids in a white car that is driving away from a school because it is a state school—outrageous stuff. I think that type of advertising is at the bottom of the pit. It is wrong, because this parliament has no money; we just administer the Australian people’s money. The inference is that they have to put their hands deeper into their pockets to prop up a failed system which, by their own evidence, many on low incomes choose to take their children away from—that is, state government education. We still call them state schools, yet we are told in this place that to refer to them as such is the blame game.

I am most in favour of doing the right thing by state schools and by the parents who choose to send their children to a state school. There is a simple solution that should be endorsed by all members of this House. It is a well-argued case involving vouchers. Fund the parents, not the school. There is the basis that in round figures it seems to cost something a little less than $10,000 per annum to educate a student in a state school; there is your base figure. Wouldn’t it be better to sort out this argument, get rid of those outrageous advertisements, withdraw all funding of state and private schools by direct grant—and that means 50 per cent of the operating costs of state education departments—send that money out by way of a voucher to parents who have children of school age and let them then take it to the school of their choice?

The member for Jagajaga tells us we have to have more oversight and more indexes so that the teacher and the student’s parents know better how the student is going, but one would think the teacher would have a good idea from day one. Why did teachers oppose public examinations? They knew that those examinations were a test of their teaching abilities. If at any socioeconomic level you have a class full of kids who all fail, there is some question about your teaching abilities. But who is going to be able to tell?

Of course, if every parent got a voucher, they would make up their minds. Be they Indigenous or otherwise, they would have a pretty good idea of where the best benefits came from and each and every parent would get equal resources. Of course, if they took their voucher to a state education institution, it would be up to the state government to fund the other half of the operation from its other revenues; and, of course, if they took it to a private school, it would be up to the parent to pay for the rest. But when one looks at some of the fees that are paid in Catholic and other religious schools, the $5,000 would get them nearly all the way. What is more, it would open up opportunities for targeting: you could increase that $5,000 to $6,000 in some socioeconomic or geographic circumstances and in others you could reduce it and make it $4,000. (Time expired)

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker talked about the 1967 referendum. I think it is worth while pointing out that in that referendum there was bipartisan support for a yes vote. He voted yes but says he now regrets the way he voted in that referendum. The honourable member does not need to regret the way he voted. It is not the passing of the referendum that has been the problem; it is the way that both sides of politics have engaged in Aboriginal affairs since that time that has been the problem.

I am a great believer in the ideals of that referendum, which were to give the national parliament a say in and a responsibility for Indigenous affairs. I do not think we should make any apology for that. The problem is that the areas of Aboriginal affairs and immigration have not been bipartisan for a lot of the time since then. That has resulted in some real problems for long-term programs and long-term directions in both immigration and Indigenous affairs. It becomes a problem when there is a change of direction upon the election of a new government and the new government dismantles the former government’s programs.

In relation to the last 11 years, there is no doubt that there has been a different direction. Frankly, it is a direction that I think predates the 1967 referendum and encompasses the philosophies that existed prior to the 1967 referendum. I think that is a bad thing. In effect, governments have fought Indigenous people every inch of the way in relation to a number of successes that they have had in a number of court cases in the High Court where the High Court recognised what I think were some fundamental principles. Indigenous people found themselves fighting against a government that wanted to wind back those rights instead of embracing them when, in effect, those rights did not threaten other individuals in our society. But the court cases were misrepresented and that created a lot of problems in communities.

The member for O’Connor attacks people who ran the campaign regarding the stolen generation. The truth is that the policies of governments of both political persuasions of the past, even though they were well-intentioned, caused great damage within communities. Children who were not being improperly handled by their parents were taken away merely because of their colour—because they were half-castes or whatever—or so that they could have their Aboriginality bred out of them. Imagine the ramifications of the government just plucking a child from the midst of a family in any other community in Australia—the Lebanese community or the Jewish community, for example. We need to acknowledge and accept that.

That goes a long way in terms of the intervention in Cape York and other parts of Australia with regard to Aboriginal people. The key theme has to be that you have to do it with the community. We have to bring on Aboriginal people in terms of education and literacy, making them role models within their communities. The way forward is teaching Aboriginal communities in remote areas the skills that can help them maintain their community, rather than relying on whitefellas coming into the community. The $400 million-plus being spent on the Northern Territory is quite remarkable and another $100 million was announced yesterday, yet the costs to administer the programs are $200 million. Why? Because, in the lead-up to an election, the government sailed in without much thought and without consulting with the Northern Territory and basically tried to wedge the opposition. I wish the government well in terms of their goals. I just think they are making it so much harder for themselves, and they will be judged in due course.

I have risen today to make some remarks about measures in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, which we are debating. A number of such measures have been introduced by the government over the past few years. Each has patched up a glaring problem in relation to Indigenous education issues, but for too long Indigenous people in this country have lived in what can only be described as Third World conditions. Despite the government’s dramatic intervention in the Northern Territory, Third World conditions exist in many Indigenous communities. Labor did support the intervention and many of the other piecemeal efforts to address the glaring poverty trap that many of our Aboriginal Australians find themselves in. We are only scratching the surface in relation to the multitude of appalling conditions that the Indigenous population lives in. Mortality rates, for example, indicate that 24 per cent of Aboriginal men live to the age of 65 and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women live until the age of 65. Can you imagine what would happen if those statistics related to any other section of our community? There would be outrage; we would not accept it. But this situation has prevailed for some time, and we have not got to the root cause of the problem.

Before I move to the substance of the bill, I would like to make some comments to put the bill into the context of a broader framework. Whilst the bill deals with a national issue, which as a parliament we have a responsibility to address, the need for such a bill emanates from over 200 years of ignoring the living and working conditions of Indigenous Australians. I want to use this speech as an opportunity to put on the record some letters I received recently from students in my electorate which caused me to reflect on our obligations as a parliament in an international context. We have a national context and an international context in which I think we are also obliged to act. Social, economic and education inequities exist in other countries of the world too.

Two weeks ago I received 10 letters from students of De la Salle College at Revesby Heights—may I say that my old alma mater is a wonderful teaching institution—and the note from the teacher which accompanied the letters explained that the year 8 students had been studying a topic called ‘global change’ and, as a result of research and discussion about the changing nature of the world, the students had become passionate about global inequity issues. With the support of their teacher, the students decided to promote further discussion of the matter with their local member of parliament. Further, the students requested that I raise the matter with my colleagues to promote awareness of the issue. Even though we are dealing with a national issue, I think it is appropriate that we can look at it in an international context. That gives us some consistency in viewing it through this prism.

The specific matter the students are concerned about is the use of sweatshops overseas and also the global businesses which utilise such sweatshops to produce manufactured goods in particular. I would like to read into the record some of the comments the students made. I believe it is important that as parliamentarians we listen to the views of members of the youngest generation and hear what they have to tell us. One student, Alan, succinctly put the thoughts of all the students when he said:

The multinational corporations hire the poor people to work for them and make their products when the workers conditions are nowhere near up to the standards of other countries like the UK, Australia or the US.

Daniel said:

... the people in these sweatshops are treated very unfairly because of the long hours they work and the very small amounts that they are being paid ...

Adam enclosed some photos of people, including a young boy, working in sweatshop conditions. He went on to say:

But the worst thing is ... it’s mostly children of my age and under, working for a bit of money to buy food for his or her family.

Cameron made a plea for justice when he said:

They don’t know the experience of working in different countries, like Australia, so they expect what they get paid are normal and satisfactory. That is just plainly cruel to the workers.

As the workers work long hours, “the Company” makes the profit. Companies think they can “use” their employees and don’t care what they do, only if they notice that they have empty wallets.

To let you know, the workers’ wallets are empty, too. They might not even be able to feed their families for a week, even with their jobs.

Jordan spoke of the comparison with First World countries and said:

While we sit back and live our consumer lifestyles, they toil for trans-national corporations. Should we just sit on the sidelines ill-informed about these injustices? No, we should rein in these companies, they should be held accountable for the injustices they have enforced, we should fight for these poor people.

Matt wrote about the video he and his classmates had seen on conditions in these sweatshops. He said:

... there are people in other countries making nearly all our clothes and accessories for less than $2 an hour and working for around 18 hours a day.

Jimmy talked about the cheap labour in some Asian countries and the poor rates of pay, and concluded:

... so please Mr Melham, stop this immediately to make tomorrow a better day for these workers.

Beni wrote about the high mark-ups the manufacturers receive in using this type of labour and said:

... these workers have a type of merchandise and when these merchandises are sold they are sold up to very high prices and these workers only get 3 to 4 dollars an hour and this does not work out.

Raminda asked me whether people are classified as slaves. He said:

Well that is what people in the foreign countries are being treated like! They have no choice and no LIFE!!! They have to work, to feed their families BUT the main issue is that they are only at the age of 16+, they are only children!

We should put a stop to this! Children feeding their families!? At the age of 16! That is not right!

And, finally, Joshua said:

It is unfair that there are people working in these sweatshops for long hours and getting paid little money per hour. They should get paid a fair amount like we do in Australia.

And so they should. From these students, who on average would be about 14 years old, we have been told of conditions that are totally unacceptable in any country. As we have a moral obligation to deal with the issues of poverty, disease, education and living conditions of our Indigenous people, so we have a responsibility to take action about sweatshop conditions overseas.

John Donne famously said:

No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

Never were those 16th century words as true as they are today in this global age. We are all part of a whole. The diminishing of the life of another person diminishes all of us and diminishes Australia. We have been reminded by a class of 14-year-old students of that fact.

That is why I do not apologise for parliament’s intervention in relation to domestic issues with Indigenous people. I think it is required to assist them to allow true equality to permeate our society. True equality requires differential treatment. That is why I find it offensive that governments tend to intervene in relation to native title to back companies and to back everyone other than Indigenous people whose rights are being trampled on. We should be allowing Indigenous people to better themselves through partnerships with the mining companies to create employment, to create education and to assist in providing infrastructure and health in local communities. We should be engaging with and assisting Indigenous people in relation to other skills that they have to ensure that their literacy levels are improved and increased. You do that by working with the community. That way you raise their standards.

If we did not have infrastructure and assistance in parts of suburban Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and other places, there would be outrage. People cannot do it themselves. In regional Australia, it is hard enough as it is. We accept giving assistance to farmers, because we recognise that in terms of infrastructure and the difficulties of living in regional Australia people cannot do it on their own. It is a policy decision to assist our fellow Australians.

I understand that this particular intervention by the government is welcomed by the community in Cape York. It is welcomed and we should not apologise for it. Both sides of the House should be supporting it because it is about helping our fellow citizens. But too often we see the scratching of an underbelly that is a dark side within our society, because there is a political advantage to it.

I will never forgive the Prime Minister for his 7.30 Report interview—not when he was announcing that he was going to hand over the leadership sometime after the next election, but during the middle of a debate in response to the Wik High Court decision—when he reached for a map underneath the desk and raised a brown-stained map to make out to the Australian population that a large percentage of Australia was subject to native title claim and that their backyards were not safe. I will never forget that. It was beneath the Prime Minister. It was inappropriate; it was an abuse of his office. Prime ministers, in particular, in relation to Indigenous affairs need to support their Indigenous affairs spokesmen and women. Being the Aboriginal affairs spokesman in government or opposition is not easy, because there is not a lot of bravery on either side of the political divide when it comes to Indigenous affairs. Indigenous affairs spokesmen need the support of their leader in relation to policies such as this.

I note that this Prime Minister is very supportive of his Indigenous Affairs spokesman. For some of the policies that they are implementing, I think it is an important thing that the Prime Minister is there with his Indigenous Affairs spokesperson. I think the Indigenous Affairs spokesman has a lot to learn in relation to this area; he brings his army mentality to it. He needs to be a little bit more sensitive to the culture and to the elders within the community—but that is another matter for another day. He has managed to secure a bucketload of money for this area, which is deserved, but over time the government will be judged on the success of these programs and how appropriate they are. My caution is that a lot of them lack proper consultation with the community.

In researching for this speech, I remembered the work undertaken by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union in the matter of sweatshops overseas. I refer specifically to the ‘FairWear’ and the ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaigns. Both these organisations are involved in activities which encourage manufacturers to take an ethical approach to manufacturing and to be responsible for staying informed about the production of their garments. The ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaign allows manufacturers to use labels on their goods which indicate that the item was produced by people being paid, as a minimum, award wage rates. It is important to remember that, within Australia, there are textile workers who do not earn even the most basic wage. These are often those who are classified as outworkers.

For over two centuries, Aboriginal Australians have been treated as second-class citizens. It is not well known that in 1946 an estimated 600 Aboriginal stockmen throughout the north of Western Australia went on strike. They refused to work until they had been guaranteed a minimum wage of thirty shillings a week. Some had previously been receiving food and clothing but no pay; others had been paid up to twelve shillings a week. The strike continued for a year. In the end the Aborigines won their demands. It was a landmark for Indigenous rights in this country.

We have all heard of the 1966 Wave Hill strike. Aboriginal stockmen went on strike at the Northern Territory Wave Hill station. Led by Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari, they walked off the job and set up a camp at a place called Wattie Creek. The dispute over wages and conditions turned into a demand for land rights. It dragged on for years before eventually being resolved by the Whitlam government.

Since European settlement, our Indigenous people have lived and worked in what are effectively Third World conditions. Today we are debating the merits of some specific measures for the children of Cape York and the Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge. In previous speeches relating to the introduction of specific measures to assist education in Aboriginal communities, I have referred to the fact that, in trying to resolve these matters, it is important to work with the local communities. I trust that, in this case, it is actually happening. There have been successful trials.

What I have learned over my years of involvement with Indigenous communities is that, at its most fundamental, we must work with the communities in a respectful way. We must not charge in with well-intentioned policies and impose ‘white fella’ solutions. We must make a long-term commitment to the education of Indigenous young people. I know that there are no easy answers. No government—Labor or coalition—has ever found the magic solution to these profoundly difficult matters. There are specific measures we are considering today: the embedding of the MULTILIT—Making up for Lost Time in Literacy—teaching methodology in classrooms and tutorial centres and the implementation of special education trusts. The latter are individual trust accounts to enable families to save to support their children’s education costs. Both are no doubt worth while but in reality represent only a drop in the bucket of what is needed. Nonetheless, Labor will be supporting the bill, as it is yet another small step in the right direction.

As a society, we have finally accepted our responsibility to redress some of the damage inflicted on our own Third World conditions. The sign of a truly mature society is to take the next step—recognition of the appalling sweatshop conditions experienced by workers throughout the world and, having recognised that situation, then to do something about it. I am very proud of the students from De La Salle College at Revesby. They have taken the initiative, as 14-year-olds, to assist their brothers and sisters in other countries. They are looking beyond their own immediate environment to be proactive on an issue they did not create but which they want to solve. I suggest the students check out the websites for the ‘Fairwear’ and ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaigns. These sites provide some practical measures to take the next step in a most commendable effort. I commend the bill before the House.

David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to declare that this is my final speech—although I may have to make a speech in tabling a report tomorrow. This is also the 371st speech I have made since 1981. If you go back to the beginning of my career in 1975, I suppose you could add 100 on to that—so we are probably getting very close to the 500th speech I have made in my 30 years in this place. I was not going to make a final speech. I thought it might be more appropriate just to ride off into the sunset and let others judge my career and what I may or may not have achieved. But I have been convinced that I should speak today, and I looked at maybe getting a text on which to base my speech. I thought an appropriate one was the 129th psalm, which opens with: ‘Many a time have they fought against me. Yea, many a time have they fought against me from my youth up, but they have not prevailed against me.’ I think that is a fairly appropriate opening for this final speech, because the thing that I appreciate more than anything is that I am leaving this place in my own time—they did not get me.

It has been a wonderful career, and I hope that I will be recognised over the years as making some contributions. From my own point of view, I think the highlight of it has been my association with the electorate. I have been very fortunate to represent a huge part of southern Queensland. When I first stood in 1974, my electorate ran from the north of Moreton Island to Springwood and west to Sunnybank, an area of something like 642 square miles with a population of 125,000 voters. It was also one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia and included not only the Wynnum Manly district and great areas of metropolitan Brisbane but also the Redland shire—which at that stage had a population of about 25,000 people and now enjoys a population of about 180,000 people—and parts of Logan City, which then, I think, had about 30,000 people and now has a population of more than 200,000 people. Over the years, by means of various distributions, that electorate has gone further south, to the point where I now represent the northern end of the Gold Coast, which in itself is still the second fastest-growing area of Australia, with growth rates of 14 per cent.

In that respect, my job in this place was to be an advocate for those very fast developing areas and to become involved in areas like local government, particularly in education, to make sure that the infrastructure and the facilities were available to the people who were flooding in to the south-east corner of Queensland. As somebody said at a farewell function recently, one of my epitaphs will be the number of plates on school buildings which I opened. That is probably true. One of the most satisfying things has been my involvement in local schools to see that the best possible infrastructure and the best possible education could be achieved. I think of some of the great schools that I have represented—for example, the new Moreton Bay College and John Paul College, which are two of the finest private schools in Queensland. I think of my association with MacGregor high school, which produced the honourable member for Moreton, and, in more recent times, Springwood High School. These are great institutions. It gives you a great deal of confidence when you visit them to see what they have done.

There has been tremendous Commonwealth investment in my electorate in areas such as roads—and the demand for that infrastructure is going to be more and more as the years go on and the population continues to increase. It really has been a challenge to work out what the attitude should be in our approach to local government. There have been moves and suggestions that local government should become part of the Constitution. I do not know whether or not that would work, but there has to be a much greater relationship between this place, the government of the Commonwealth, and local government. It is a plain fact of life that, with the inefficiencies of the system we have at the moment where the state governments are involved, it does not always work and is not necessarily to the betterment of  the people in those areas.

I was originally a radio journalist. I was thrown into the coverage of the Queensland state parliament at the ripe old age of 19. It was that period in the early sixties when radio had decided that they were really being threatened by television and they were going to take them on. Macquarie Broadcasting Services set up about 57 stations. They all had news representatives and there were key stations in every state. And, frankly, they took on the ABC. I am not quite sure whether or not the writing or the accuracy were always quite as good but, in terms of the speed in delivering the news, we used to beat the ABC hands down. The news editor walked in to the station one day and said, ‘We need a state parliamentary roundsman.’ Obviously no-one put their hand up, so he looked at me—a cadet at 19 years of age—and said, ‘You’re it.’ For a number of years I had the experience of covering the state parliament and the state government of the day under Premier GFR Nicklin. I guess that is what really opened my eyes to politics and what it was all about. I made a decision then that one day I would enter parliament, because you had to be on the inside to change things. I then went to television but still had that association with state coverage.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The days of being a teenage idol! I thought I had my life all worked out, and I thought my mid-40s would probably be a good time to go into television. Then we had the advent of the Whitlam government and I was a bit upset about some of the things that were happening. I joined the Liberal Party and somehow found myself as a candidate in 1974. And that was the end of it, because I had the bug, I had the calling, and I came to this place in 1975.

A media background is one of the best bits of training you could possibly have for this place. I always acknowledge what I learned at that time and the things that I could apply to my work in here, in areas such as committees. Journalists should have inquiring minds and a process of getting information out. I am not sure of the attitude to some of the committee work that I have done, but I hope that that process has been in there to a great extent, because it was good training.

I have probably made only one really major mistake in my committee work over the years, when I was on the committee that examined broadcasting procedure. We went through the process in the early 1980s, when we knew we were coming to this House, as to whether or not the proceedings of this House should be telecast. We saw tapes from around the world. The Canadian parliament had seen a vast improvement in the behaviour of its members since it started telecasting. We saw tapes from the United States and that seemed to work very well. Britain had just started, I think, and that was a little bit of a mess. The decision was made, unanimously, I think, to proceed with the telecasting of parliament. When I say it was a mistake, I think people should have access to everything that happens in this place, but the reality is that the quality of the coverage and the journalism that come out of this place have suffered severely. There are two inputs into the coverage of this place, apart from the handout press releases—and you do get lazy journalists who will just run a release as it is written. There is the side door in the morning, where everybody gets bailed up and that gives them their news until midday; then you have question time and then you never see another journalist in the gallery again. That is, I think, one of the great pities of it. Some of the great debates and some of the great discussions that happen in this place do not receive the coverage these days that they probably deserve. And AAP sit up there, as they have for years and years, and faithfully report every word.

I do think it is a pity that we do not have some of the great reporting that we had 30 years ago when I first came into this place. I am not sure what you do about it, because the whole nature of the coverage of political events in Australia is changing so fast. You wonder just how many people under 30 bother about reading newspapers these days. A lot of them do not even get their news from television sources. Whereas if you go back 20 years about 92 per cent of the population got their primary news coverage from the six o’clock news and they did read newspapers. That is gone, and I think that is one of the tragedies of this place.

There are a couple of other things that we have seen over the years. I know I have mentioned this publicly before: I loved the old house. It had the most magnificent debating chamber, and our lives in some respects were better in the old house. While we did not have space to move and we seemed to be thrown in on top of each other, there was much more interaction between the members. If I can be critical at this late stage, could I say that the design mistake in this place was putting in a separate ministerial wing. If you want to go and see a minister you have got to pack a cut lunch and a thermos of Milo, and probably make an appointment to go around there to see them. Whereas in the old house there was likely to be a ministerial office next door to your office. If you could not get to see the minister in those days, you would probably run into him in the gents toilets anyway, and you could bail him up on great issues of the day. I also think that the camaraderie that existed between both sides of the House, because we were mixed up and so close, was much closer in those days.

As I look back over the years, I note some of my good mates in this place came from both sides of the House—and they still do. Some very close friendships developed in that old house because we were thrust in together. But I would never knock the facilities in this place. The equipment that we have to work with now is absolutely marvellous and we should make the most of that, but it is a different parliament from the one that was there before. One of the great privileges of serving in this place is the fact that we have access to what must be one of the best parliamentary libraries in the world. I pay great tribute to the people who provide that service for us. They certainly do a magnificent job and have helped me so much over the years.

It is a funny place. My mind goes back to matters of great moment and great tensions in this House. I mentioned in my comments on the passing of Sir Jim Killen that the first speech I heard in this place was on Tuesday, 17 February 1976, just after the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Then opposition leader Gough Whitlam got up and gave an amazing speech and, about halfway through, Prime Minister Fraser beckoned to Jim Killen to come over. It was obvious that while Mr Fraser was listed as being the next speaker, he would ask Killen to do that speech. Without a note, Killen got up and did a devastating rebuttal of the arguments of Mr Whitlam. At the end of that time, Mr Whitlam walked out one side door with smoke coming out his ears; Killen walked out the other side with smoke coming out his ears. Legend has it that Mr Killen went around to the bar, ordered a bottle of champagne, got two glasses, scribbled a note and asked the attendant to take it around to Gough’s office—‘Gough, can we still be mates?’—and they sat there and had a very pleasant evening together.

There were great dramas like that. Things that people probably do not realise we have to wrestle with are some of the great moral issues. It is not easy to deal with things like abortion and everybody takes full responsibility for themselves on those issues. One of the most difficult issues that I ever had to face was the first Iraq war during the period of the Hawke government. It was the first time that I had to make a decision agreeing to commit Australians to war. While from memory I think it was a unanimous vote, it was not easy and one got that sense of responsibility.

I have been privileged to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for more than 20 years. I never cease to be amazed at the quality of the work that is done by the Australian defence forces. With a number of other members in this place, I have seen them operate in places like Bougainville, which had a civil war for 10 years. Something like 16,000 people were massacred in that civil war. We went up there as a peacekeeping operation. Our young men and women were there without an armament—they were unarmed. I remember the members of the committee speaking at the end of the tour. We spoke to the women, who really ran the place, and they commented to us that they were very appreciative of all that Australia had done. They were very appreciative because we had included women within our forces and they found it much easier to speak and negotiate with women. We spoke to the men and they were also very appreciative, and one reason they were appreciative was that we had been there and had not raped their women. The work that was done was quite tremendous. The other place we visited was East Timor. A joint foreign affairs and defence delegation went there in the December after the problems and after we had settled them down. We saw the respect the people held for the Australian troops and heard the thanks from the locals for settling a dreadful situation. It was similar in the Solomon Islands.

One of the great privileges I had was four or five years ago when members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade flew to Kuwait. My good mate Steve Gibbons, the member for Bendigo, was with us. We were on HMAS Melbourne watching them patrol the Gulf. We flew up to Kyrgyzstan and saw the refuelling work that was being done by the RAAF and we heard from the French and others that they really preferred to be refuelled by the RAAF, rather than by some of the others, because our people were so professional. We then went to Bagram Air Base—what a godforsaken place it was. It was 46 degrees and blowing a gale. It was as hot as Hades and there was dust everywhere. The place was surrounded by landmines and there in the middle of it were the Australian troops—the SAS. I am not sure if I am supposed to speak about this, but those fellows had earned themselves a most tremendous reputation. They were wonderful folk. They very proudly took us around to their accommodation, which was in an old hangar. The beds were all lined up—I do not know how many there were—and in the middle of them was a bed with a clothes line above it. Hanging from the clothes line was a black bra and black G-string. I thought that sense of humour could only happen with the Australians. It was one of the things that will always stick in my mind: here in the middle of this godforsaken place was this washing hanging on the line. But it says a lot, and the contribution of our troops has been fantastic.

When Clyde Cameron retired from this House, Mr Speaker Snedden granted him unlimited time. He spoke for about 48 minutes in one of the best speeches I have ever heard. I am not going to ask for an extension. I just say in conclusion that the time I have spent working on committees here has been most satisfying. I have had a marvellous career. I am going to miss the place. There are aspects of the work that I am not going to miss, but some aspects of the work here are going to be hard to replace with other things. I thank everyone for the support that they have given me. I also commend the Clerk and thank him and his team for the support they have given us over the years. I congratulate them for the work they do in developing other parliaments. That is terribly important. You can see what is happening around the Pacific. It is marvellous work that they are doing. There are too many people to thank—the car drivers and the caterers. We are looked after so well in this place and it has been a great privilege for me to be able to serve in this parliament for more than 30 years.

Honourable Members:

Hear, hear!

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

I thank the House for its acclamation for the member for Fadden. I note the Speaker took the chair for the member’s last speech. I am certain it is the view of all members that the honourable member deserves a very long and healthy retirement, and we wish him well.

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

As I am the first person to stand up after the member for Fadden, I want to thank him for his contribution to this place. I say that even though he sits on the other side and we throw things at one another, metaphorically speaking, in terms of that side against us. I have been an observer of and a participant with the member for Fadden since I became a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, about which he spoke just a moment ago. I was on that trip to Bagram with the honourable member and I have to say that his observations were 100 per cent correct. More importantly, I think that, when a member gives their last speech in this place after such a distinguished career, whether or not you share their partisan views is fundamentally irrelevant. What is relevant is that we acknowledge the contribution they have made to the community in which they live and the community which they represent and, most importantly, how they behave in this place and the contribution that they make here. I say to the member for Fadden that he will leave this place knowing he has many friends on both sides of the chamber, knowing that he has made a contribution and has earned the respect and admiration of many among us and knowing that he leaves this place with our best wishes.

I say to the member for Fadden: you and I, along with others, have been participants in the committee system in this place over many years, and your observations about the committee system and the way in which people participate in the committees are something which we all need to reflect upon, even when we are involved in the partisan barbs that cross this chamber. There is no doubt at all that on these committees we have the capacity to work profitably and constructively together despite our different views. I think I am right in saying to the member that, in the time that I have been on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, there have been few occasions—I cannot recall one precisely—when there has been a dissenting report to one of our committee reports. That in itself is a commendation of the productive nature of, and the productive way in which we engage on, those committees. To the member for Fadden, I say thank you for your friendship whilst you have been here. I know that we will be friends long after you have gone.

My other purpose in rising today is to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, which has already been addressed by others, including the member for Jagajaga, the member for O’Connor and my friend the member for Banks, Mr Melham. I want to hark back to the contribution of the member for O’Connor. I want to do that, not because I particularly want to pick a fight with him—although I should not pick fights with anybody and I would not. I do have points of disagreement with many, and on this occasion I have a few points of disagreement with him. I do not want to spend my time needlessly repudiating his observations. Mr Melham made a very appropriate contribution in responding to the member for O’Connor’s comments about the 1967 referendum. I want to make a couple of observations about his comments about the stolen generation. From his comments, the member for O’Connor would have you believe that members of the stolen generation were taken away because it was in their best interests. Frankly, that is an insult to those members of the stolen generation who were stolen from their parents for no good reason other than that they were Aboriginal kids from mixed partnerships.

I know a story about this. Not so long ago, within the last two years, I met a person who had been taken away from his family in Katherine in the Northern Territory when he was a small boy. The day he was taken away, a person whom this House will know, Patrick Dodson, was taken by a girl into the long grass and told to lie down. He was told to lie down because the troops—or, in this case, the police—were out after kids. Patrick observed this young boy being taken by the police, not because he came from a bad home but because he was a young Aboriginal kid from a mixed relationship. He was taken away. He would have been no older than eight or nine, if that. Patrick was not taken away at that point because he was hidden. I say to the member for O’Connor: you might argue, as you have done, that, for many of the Aboriginal people who were taken away, it was in their best interests, but I absolutely refute that 100 per cent.

I ask him to read a book—I assume he does occasionally—not the form guide. The book that I would ask him to read is a book produced by the Institute for Aboriginal Development Press in Alice Springs, co-authored by Gerard Waterford and Alec Kruger and calledAlone on the Soaks: the life and times of Alec Kruger. I would ask him to read this, because it is the life story of Alec Kruger. Alec Kruger was a member of the stolen generation and was taken when he was five or six. Alec was effectively handed over to a pastoralist and became dependent upon the pastoralist, and the pastoralist treated that person almost as a slave. Under no circumstances could you argue that it was beneficial, that it was in his best interests.

So I would say to the member for O’Connor: whilst you make these absurd generalisations, reflect upon them, because there is no doubt in my mind that the business of taking kids away from their families was appalling, insulting, demeaning and racist. There are no other words for it. It has not been in the heart of the Prime Minister to be able to apologise to the stolen generation on behalf of this nation, but I am pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that, if Labor is successful at the next election, he will apologise on behalf of the nation to the stolen generation. I say to him: good on you; well done; it is about time.

That is all I want to say about the stolen generation, but I say to all members of this House and anyone who might be listening to this debate that if you can get hold of this book by Gerard Waterford and Alec Kruger called Alone on the Soaks: the life and times of Alec Kruger, read it, because it will do your heart good but make you cry. It will give you an insight into the experiences of these members of the stolen generation and put to rest the absurdity of the argument which has been put by the member for O’Connor.

I thought the member for Jagajaga summed up the purposes of this legislation very aptly, but it is well to remind ourselves what this bill is about. It will appropriate additional funding under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to support the expansion of the Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy—MULTILIT—teaching methodology and the establishment of student education trusts for Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge in the Cape York region of Queensland. I commend the legislation and I say to the government that I am happy to support it, not because I agree with everything the government does—I damn well don’t!—but I because, when it comes to putting money into providing opportunities for young Indigenous Australians, wherever they might be, if that can be done in a way which ensures effective and better outcomes for their education then it is well and good and should be supported. In this case I am happy to do so.

I would not want it to be thought that for some reason Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy was something other than just another program which has been successful. There are numerous literacy programs operating in Indigenous communities in various parts of Australia which get support, deserve support and are successful. This particular program, as we have been told, was first developed by Professor Kevin Wheldall and Dr Robyn Beaman of the Macquarie University Special Education Centre. I commend them for their initiative but I want to make sure that we do not leave this place without understanding that the other programs, some of which were mentioned by the member for Jagajaga—the accelerated literacy program that operates throughout the Northern Territory and other places and the Yachad Aboriginal Accelerated Learning Project—are also quite successful and deserving of support. Again I acknowledge that the government have not been reticent in supporting those proposals either. I acknowledge their support.

I want to talk for a moment about the accelerated literacy program in the Northern Territory. By 2008, 100 schools in the Northern Territory will be operating the accelerated literacy program and 90 per cent of those schools will be in remote areas—that is, schools in communities which have been targeted by the Commonwealth government’s intervention in the Northern Territory. The program will support in excess of 10,000 students in accelerated literacy by 2008. Over 700 teachers will have been trained in the program, 370 of whom will be in a position to coordinate programs in schools and train others. The progress of this scheme is being monitored jointly by the Charles Darwin University and the Australian Council for Educational Research. It is a program which provides a systematic and stepped approach to the learning of literacy and works in conjunction with other programs which might operate in schools.

I want to talk about some of those programs in a moment—specifically, bilingual education. I want to speak about bilingual education because we do not hear it mentioned much in this place from anyone other than me. I have been talking about it since I first came into this place—as far back as 1987. I am proud to say that my support for bilingual education has not subsided. I think we need to get back into the debate the construction of a discussion about the merits of bilingual education operating in conjunction with these other programs.

There are a number of reasons to support bilingual education. I have an article in front of me from the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 November 2006, headed ‘Aboriginal literacy project is good news in any language’. It refers to the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation and the results of a pilot project about helping Aboriginal kids in the Northern Territory read and write in their own language. It should come as no surprise that the cofounder of the foundation, Mary-Ruth Mendel, a speech language pathologist, described first language literacy as the missing link in efforts to improve social and economic outcomes in Indigenous communities.

I mention that because it has come to be seen by many that literacy and numeracy in the first language is not important and that we have to have these kids succeed in year 1, year 3, year 5 and year 7 in these MAP testing arrangements. If they fail at years 1 and 3, then, somehow or other, we have failed them. We need to look at the success or otherwise of bilingual education and the way in which bilingual education is stepped. What happens in bilingual education is that, when a child starts school, they might get 90 per cent of their lessons in their own language. Each year, it changes so that the proportions are eventually reversed. What people have discovered is that by year 5 those children who have been undergoing intensive bilingual education in their schools from appropriately trained teachers perform very well on these universal tests. We should not presume that because kids in bilingual schools may not achieve the same level of results on MAP testing at years 1 and 3—or whatever years you choose to pick—somehow or other they are failing in literacy. These tests are all in English, not in their first language.

The other point to be made here is that teaching kids in their language is not only just about language: it is about them, their community, their family affiliations and their culture—that whole range of things which intermingle to make up the person. It is important that we have a strong endorsement of bilingual education as well as these other literacy programs. It is very important also that whoever is teaching whatever program—it does not matter what it is—has knowledge of the culture of the country in which they are working. I am talking about countries in a generic sense, meaning Aboriginal nations across Australia. They identify land as part of their country and can talk about their country and all that happens on that country. It is important that the teachers who are trying to impart knowledge in those communities understand the relationships which come with those obligations about country. If they do not have that understanding, they are going to find it very difficult to appreciate the learning difficulties that might be in these communities.

On that basis, I want to refer the House to another book, one by Richard Trudgen called Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. I would ask members of the parliament, and indeed those others who might be fortunate enough—or unfortunate enough in one sense—to be listening to this debate, if they ever get the opportunity, to read this book. Like the one that I spoke about earlier by Gerard Waterford, Alone On the Soaks, if you get the opportunity to read Why Warriors Lie Down and Die you will immediately get an understanding of the importance of culture and language for Indigenous communities across this country. If you as a person get that appreciation and knowledge of language and culture, it will make it a lot easier for you to be able to impart knowledge to those communities. You will see yourself in a different light and you will see those communities in a different light. You will see individuals in those communities in a different light and that will make it easier for you to impart knowledge and produce and develop different approaches to pedagogy, which will produce results we can all be proud of.

The other point that I want to raise very briefly is that the one element of this which we must contemplate and which is not addressed in this legislation is the whole question of Indigenous poverty. Until we address Indigenous poverty we will not improve educational outcomes. I was going to make some observations about Wadeye, which was on national television last night. It has the highest incidence of rheumatic heart disease in Australia. Thirty-four people live in two-bedroom houses, as we were informed last night. Under those circumstances, it will not matter what educational system we have because the kids will just not learn.

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

In summing up the debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, I thank all members who participated in this debate for their contribution. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 will appropriate funding of $2 million for the 2008 program year to improve education opportunities for Indigenous students in the Cape York region. The funding will be used by the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership to embed the Making Up Lost Time In Literacy—MULTILIT—accelerated literacy program and to work with parents and guardians to establish student education trusts in the Cape York communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge. These initiatives represent a key component of the broader welfare reform agenda to tackle disadvantage in Cape York communities. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in the House.

The bill will provide additional education support for up to 800 Indigenous students and their families in Cape York who may require intensive literacy support or additional assistance to save for the costs of education. The MULTILIT component of this measure will enable the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership to address what it describes as the Cape York literacy crisis. Strong literacy skills are a critical factor in school completion and in longer term success. Under this measure, those Indigenous students with the greatest literacy need will have access to the accelerated literacy program, MULTILIT, in their classroom and through a MULTILIT tutorial centre in their community.

The Cape York institute also identifies that poor literacy outcomes are exacerbated by the fact that upon entering the school system many Indigenous children fail to make literacy gains and in some cases slip increasingly further behind. The Cape York institute estimates that by the time Indigenous students are in year 2 some 60 to 80 per cent already require additional support compared with 10 to 25 per cent of non-Indigenous Cape York children. The intensive MULTILIT approach has already produced positive outcomes in Cape York. A trial of MULTILIT conducted in the community of Coen in 2005 saw participating students experience improvements in their reading, with a 43 per cent increase in the number of words that they could read correctly per minute and average comparative monthly gains of 4.3 months for reading comprehension, 13.6 months in reading accuracy and 15.9 months in spelling.

In looking at a range of best practice early literacy engagement strategies, the Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2007 report identified the establishment of MULTILIT in the Cape York community of Coen as an example of an initiative that worked to improve the educational outcomes experienced by Indigenous students. The intensive support provided through MULTILIT will be complemented by the establishment of student education trusts. Through the establishment of these trusts, low-income families will be provided with the right support to better use their income to ensure that their child is school-ready and to have the support to meet education related expenses. This may include school expenses such as fees, uniforms, textbooks and excursion fees, as well as home based expenses such as reading books and learning aids.

This measure reflects that, while some Indigenous parents in Cape York already contribute financially to their child’s education, the high number of schoolchildren who start school without the required uniform or equipment and with minimal learning support in their home indicates that many do not. The roll-out of the student education trusts into the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge will enable parents, guardians and extended family members to make regular financial contributions to meet their child’s ongoing education related expenses from birth to graduation. The trust accounts will establish normalised financial expectations in relation to a child’s education and, in turn, will increase the perceived value of and commitment to education. This initiative is an important part of the Cape York institute strategy to increase the demand for education in Cape York.

Education trust accounts were successfully trialled in the Cape York community of Coen in 2005 and are now a permanent component of educational reform in Coen being driven by the Cape York institute. The trial in Coen in 2005 achieved an outstanding 80 per cent take-up in the first two months and successes from the trusts trial included that 70 per cent of primary schoolchildren had their school uniforms purchased and were ready to start school on time, 80 per cent of primary schoolchildren had on average two books purchased through the school book club and children participated in sporting and education excursions, subsidised by savings from their student education trust.

MULTILIT and student education trusts will have a positive impact on the education outcomes of Indigenous young people and their families in the Cape York region. They will enable the provision of educational assistance to Indigenous students with the greatest need and will improve the financial capacity of individuals and families to contribute to their child’s education.

While I am pleased that the opposition supports the measures that are opening up educational opportunities for young Indigenous people in Cape York, the government will not be supporting the amendment as proposed and moved by the member for Jagajaga. Her amendment is just about catch-up. The fact is that spending on Indigenous specific programs has gone up by almost 50 per cent in real terms over the past decade. All of the Australian government’s policies over the past 10 years have been directed towards reducing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous processes; however, as the Prime Minister has said, it is a long process. The government will continue with practical measures to improve health, education and employment.

In relation to preschooling for Indigenous children, in July 2006 all ministers for education endorsed the Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-2008 paper. Preschooling for Indigenous children is already a key direction for all jurisdictions. We are already providing significant supplementary funding for Indigenous preschool initiatives. In 2006, for example, I announced $5 million in funding under the Parent School Partnerships Initiative, which is specifically targeted at preschool for Indigenous children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, the Commonwealth does not own or run schools. Each of the five bilateral agreements that have been signed with state and territory leaders has specific education priorities such as early childhood education, school retention rates, improving literacy and numeracy, and improving vocational training and employment opportunities.

In relation to the provision of intensive support, the Australian government already has underway a series of accelerated literacy pilots that set out to extend and systemise proven methodologies and build teacher capacity in over 150 schools. Over $19.3 million has been invested in taking successful methodologies and approaches, such as accelerated literacy and the MULTILIT program, to the next level. For example, the accelerated literacy program is training 700 teachers in 100 schools in the Northern Territory in the successful methodology, which is improving the literacy outcomes of up to 10,000 students, including those in remote schools. This approach is being replicated in 15 Western Australian Aboriginal independent community schools, in six Catholic schools in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, in 12 schools in the Aboriginal lands district in South Australia and at Shalom Christian College in Queensland.

The Australian Early Development Index is one of the many prevention and early intervention initiatives supported by the Australian government. The AEDI is a community based population measure of the health and development of children undertaken at the beginning of the first school year. The Australian government will re-run the Australian Early Development Index in up to 61 current AEDI communities, implement it in a further 14 disadvantaged communities and develop and trial an Indigenous index. The development of an Indigenous AEDI will enable us to more accurately assess the early development needs of Indigenous children and take into account cultural and language differences.

Just prior to coming into the House, I was meeting with the chairs of the Indigenous education consultative bodies here in Parliament House. They have been providing me with a snapshot of what is happening in their jurisdictions in terms of strategies and initiatives that are working for young Indigenous people. A number of them referred specifically to individual learning plans. Back in July 2006, all ministers for education endorsed the Australian Directions in Indigenous Education paper, as I said. They have committed specifically to delivering personalised learning plans for all Indigenous students that include targets against key learning outcomes, incorporate family involvement strategies and provide professional learning for teachers to enable them to adopt approaches that result in high levels of academic expectation and achievement by Indigenous students.

The measures in the bill are all part of the Australian government’s support for welfare reform in Cape York. They reflect the recommendations made by the Cape York institute and the Australian government’s continuing commitment to ensuring that Indigenous students, wherever they live, have access to educational opportunities.

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

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

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.