Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1649 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
reference to expanding indigenous education programs in the Department of Education and Community Services. The only cash that we could discover in relation to that was Commonwealth money which has been contributed to the ACT's coffers.
This government has been keen to say that this budget is a budget about building social capital. I would have thought new initiatives, not continuing initiatives, to deal with indigenous education might well have been appropriately mentioned in a high-profile way in the budget-not merely describing it as a highlight in education. But no additional funding has been provided, certainly within Budget Paper No 4, as far as I can make out.
Leaving that aside, the motion sets out, to use the government's term, though a different interpretation on the government's theme, to build social capital, because that is an area where the Australian community has failed to deal with issues facing indigenous citizens. No more pointedly so than in the ACT education system were we reminded of that just a short time ago when there was a leak, I suspect, of a Commonwealth report into the performance of the ACT system on the provision of education services to indigenous people.
According to the report, the federal government had given the ACT Department of Education and Community Services a damning report card in relation to the matter. It is clear that the report was damning of the ACT government's performance. The minister adopted the usual defence, although he did concede, according to a newspaper report, that the highly critical Commonwealth assessment had indicated that further work is required, but that the government was making significant beneficial changes. All of this has been happening behind closed doors. In light of the newspaper reports which have appeared, there has been a great deal of concern emerging in the community, no more so than with the parents of Aboriginal students who use our schools.
As it is the theme of the motion, I would like to refer to another report on that. A Canberra Times article of 5 May 2000 quoted a parent of an Aboriginal student as saying:
... this week's debate about the Federal Government's highly critical report on indigenous education in the ACT was necessary, as the Department of Education was not being accountable for improving standards.
That is a parent's view. That is a very serious accusation. The article went on to say:
The report, which showed indigenous students lagging behind non-indigenous students, was "very painful for parents".
"It upsets us as these are our kids, but we would rather have public disclosure and do something about it," he said.
That is the very point of this motion and the driving issue for it. I will go on with a few other issues upon which this parent is quoted in the Canberra Times. I am paraphrasing some of it and these quotes are selected because I do not want to read the whole article into Hansard as I am sure that the minister is aware of it. The father said that most indigenous parents had had negative experiences in schools and felt isolated from their children's education. He said:
"We are following a cycle which has to be broken.
"Koori kids are falling out of school with no literacy or numeracy skills and are going to be the next generation of parents and they ar
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .