Doorstop, Mural Hall APH
Subjects: $120 million to for Indigenous early education, Closing the Gap, impact of COVID on teachers, car parks.
KEN WYATT:
Today is National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children’s Day. We’re proud in culture, strong in spirit and it’s in that intent that we’ve made today’s announcement. It is about looking after our children in the early years of their life, investing in their future, grounding them in a solid foundation. And what’s been an absolute privilege is working with my colleague, Minister Tudge, in the way that our portfolios have focussed on key initiatives that will make a difference to Indigenous young people. A solid foundation in the early years, enables a better pathway through education, into employment and wealth creation and job opportunity. So, it’s been a tremendous journey, working with both of our agencies, to make today’s announcements and I’ll hand over to my colleague.
ALAN TUDGE:
Well, thanks so much Ken. If we want to close the gap, we’ve got to go back to the beginning, and that means going all the way back to those very early years, before kids even start school. And we know from the data that only about one in three Indigenous kids starts school ready to learn. And we know if you’re not ready to learn when you start school, you’re less likely to stay on track throughout your school years. So today we’re announcing $120 million package of measures with the aim of getting kids to the starting gate, ready to learn. And when they’re ready to learn and they start on track, they tend to stay on track.
This $120 million is really based on three themes. It’s based on expanding supply, lifting quality, and backing in communities. And I want to take you through each of the four particular measures. Most of the money, $82 million, is going to what’s called the Connected Beginnings program. Now, that’s already in place in 23 communities and it’s been shown to work very well, and we’re expanding that up to another 27 communities. That particular measure - what it does is coordinates the early childhood services in healthcare, maternal health and maternal support, and other services in a local community. And the evidence shows, it makes a big difference. It makes a big difference to getting kids to preschool, and it makes a difference on vaccination rates, it makes a difference on maternal health, and it makes a difference overall on kids getting to school ready to learn. So that’ll help another 8,500 kids with that particular measure.
The second measure, $30 million, increases the supply of child care services in those areas where there is no supply. And that will help, we estimate, about 3,500 children as well, to get access to the critical early years.
Thirdly, there’ll be $9 million which will be going to a very intensive support for those super high-risk kids. And again, expanding off something which we know has worked well to a number of these sites. Now, it’s been exciting what the trials to date of this program have done, because we’ve taken the most high-risk kids and got them to where the average Australian is by the time they start school. We’re expanding that further again.
And finally, we’re spending $1.9 million to trial the introduction of explicit teaching and more structured learning as an element of pre-schooling in some of the disadvantaged areas. Now, this again is based on some evidence in the United States, where that explicit instruction as early as three can really make a difference to kids’ literacy and numeracy rates before they start school. And so, we want to trial that here in Australia as an element of their pre-schooling, that sits alongside more of a play-based learning.
So, $120 million focussed on those early years, to get kids up to the starting day of school, ready to learn. When they start on track, they’re more likely to stay on track in their schooling. Tomorrow we’ll have more announcements on Closing the Gap which will include measures in the other parts of the Education portfolio. But this is so important to get those early years right. This will make a big difference with the thousands of kids’ lives. And if they start well, they’ll be more likely to achieve later in life.
Happy to take any questions on these measures.
QUESTION:
Can I just ask what does explicit instruction and back to basics teaching actually mean in practice? And how specifically, is it different to what happens in classrooms already?
ALAN TUDGE:
So, this is modelled off, as I said, something which has been done in the United States, which has elements of explicit instruction from as early as three years old - structured learning rather than purely play-based learning. Now, it might only be for a relatively small amount of the day that a child might be in preschool. But it has shown in the United States to make a difference. And so, this is going to be trialled here in Australia to see if that can make a difference here as well. Overall, our $120 million we’re investing here, other than this particular trial, is all based on scaling up successful programs already. The evidence is in and we want to make sure that we expand those programs that have been demonstrably working to reach more kids.
QUESTION:
In what way does it make a difference to children learn to read and write earlier? What’s the evidence?
ALAN TUDGE:
Well, for example, say in the Connected Beginnings program, which is most of the money here, $82 million. We have increased participation and attendance at preschool. Vaccination rates of kids is higher in those 23 sites which already have the Connected Beginnings program in place. Maternal health tends to be better and, overall school readiness improves. So, we’ve got 23 sites which we’re already funding. We’re going to add an additional 27 sites here, 8,500 kids and their families will benefit from this. And that means that hopefully, when they all start school, those 8,500 kids, they’re going to be ready to learn and ready to thrive throughout their schooling.
QUESTION:
How are those 27 sites identified? Do there have to be an existing pre-school in place for this program to work, or can you set up preschools if there are remote Indigenous communities that don't have a pre-school in place and therefore might miss out?
ALAN TUDGE:
So, in terms of where the pre-schools don’t exist, that’s the second measure, the $30 million to support effectively new pre-schooling supply in, we estimate, about 20 further communities. In relation to the first question, how will those 27 sites be selected? It'll largely be based on the data, where the largest number of Indigenous kids and where are they most behind? And then we'll go and work with those communities to see whether or not they would like to have this program introduced into their communities. At all stages, and this is obviously led by Minister Wyatt, it is working closely with Indigenous communities, that’s a big part of the work that Minister Wyatt’s been leading, and which very much guides all of the Closing the Gap measures and our approach generally on Indigenous affairs.
QUESTION:
Explicit instructions sound a little bit similar to direct instruction, which is used in the Cape York Academy, and which has been criticised by a lot of educators. And secondly, on that same thing, educators have also said that Indigenous students shouldn't be taught differently to other non-Indigenous kids. What do you make of that and what are the differences that are between this explicit instruction and direct instruction?
ALAN TUDGE:
So, you're asking the question there in relation to schooling. This $1.9 million a year is specifically targeted at pre-schools. I very much support explicit instruction being taught for all kids in schools. Why? Because the evidence is crystal clear that explicit instruction makes a difference to your learning. Crystal clear. Just as the evidence is crystal clear that phonics is important in terms of being able to read. And so, yes, that should be applied in every single school right across the country.
QUESTION:
Then why hasn’t it been suggested in other schools as well? Why hasn't it been introduced into private or Catholic or other public schools?
ALAN TUDGE:
Well, in many schools, explicit instruction already is part of the learning, but it's not in all schools. And that's something that I would like to see changed. And I believe that starts at the teacher education faculties. Because students are coming out of their teaching degrees, not necessarily having been taught phonics or explicit instruction methods. And the people who miss out who were most disadvantaged from that, are the kids. Because they don't learn as fast or they don't learn to read. So, I intend to change that. I’ll have more to say about that later on.
QUESTION:
You've been very vocal about the need to increase teacher quality, like that being a big, big part of some of the components of our high school students. Where’s that at? I know over the last few months that you've made a lot of speeches. What's going on in that space? And are you concerned about the role COVID has had? Teacher quality has already been an issue; we’ve got an unprecedented couple of years. Are you concerned about that impact on our teacher quality, on people studying to be teachers and people having their first year of teaching and so on?
ALAN TUDGE:
So, in answer to your first question, we've got a review underway led by Lisa Paul and we have an expert panel supporting her, and they'll be reporting to me shortly. I'll have a little bit more to say about this in at the Press Club in a couple of weeks’ time. Am I concerned about the fact that some teachers may not be getting the practicums that they might otherwise get? Yes. It's been a very difficult one, obviously, across the board in terms of universities being closed and some schools being closed, and therefore teachers not getting the practicums which they might ordinarily get.
I want to see more teachers at the university level have more practicums generally. I don’t think we do enough, compared to what we used to do in decades past. But yes, that is something I’ve been concerned about. It’s difficult to know how to, how to rectify that problem in a COVID world, but it’s something we need to be conscious of.
QUESTION:
Sorry, could I just ask a question about the car park scheme? Can I just put that question to you please, Minister? I know you’re here to talk about Indigenous funding, and that’s fair enough, we’ve taken some questions on that. But this was a scheme spending $660 million of taxpayer funds, and is the subject of a very critical audit by the Auditor General and a lot of media coverage, so I think it warrants some questions here to you…
ALAN TUDGE:
Happy to answer them.
QUESTION:
It’s been six weeks since that audit. Now, it found that 77 per cent of those sites were in Coalition electorates. We’ve spoken to former judges who say that this looks like an instance of corruption. Why did 77 per cent of those projects that were funded, why were they in Coalition seats? Was that corruption?
ALAN TUDGE:
The commuter car park sites were chosen on the basis of need. And most of those were basically in Melbourne, where the need was the greatest, and it was off the back obviously of Infrastructure Australia’s suggestion that new car parks are important mechanisms to address congestion in our cities. It’s also done in the context of where we have other commuter car parks that we’d already funded, or indeed the state government funded. For example, we’d already funded 10 commuter car parks out in the west and in the north, 80 per cent which were in Labor seats - no one said anything about that.
The State Victorian Government has committed to 33 commuter car parks, nearly all of which, or the vast majority of which, are in the west and northwest, predominantly in Labor areas. So, when you’re balancing those out, you see that there are commuter car parks being funded right across the north, which is where the need has been the greatest. I would also point out, by far and away the greatest infrastructure funding that we’ve had, particularly in Melbourne which has been focus of this, has been in the west and the northwest of Melbourne. By far and away the three biggest mega projects that we’ve had were all in the west and the northwest of Melbourne through these Labor areas. They were chosen based on need as well. And that’s, the Geelong Fast Rail, the Airport Rail…that’s the intermodal terminal - that’s $9.1 billion. We used to have a mega project, by the way, in the east. We used to have one, and it was called the East West Link that got cancelled [indistinct]…
QUESTION:
So the former judge, David Harper, said this was corruption. What’s your response to that assessment by a former Victorian Supreme Court Judge?
ALAN TUDGE:
Well, as I’ve just given you my answer to how these were selected. And the Auditor-General also said that they’re all lawfully based. The ones, I think 33 of them were ticked off by the Department [indistinct] a decision, and we took those to the Australian people and the Australian people voted. I’ll say in the same manner that the Labor Party also had a commuter car park fund. Which they took to the election equally.
The Labor Party also had a commuter car park fund dated to the election, and 100 per cent of their commuter car parks went to Labor seats or target seats. And that was the Labor Party’s policy.
QUESTION:
Minister, can you answer the question please - if it was based on need, why did you need a list of the top 20 marginals? Was it based on the infrastructure need or was it based…
ALAN TUDGE:
I’m not aware of such a list.
QUESTION:
There is evidence from the ANAO that there was a movement of a spreadsheet between the PMO and your office, with the top 20 marginal seats.
ALAN TUDGE:
I’m not aware of that.
QUESTION:
Can you explain how Kooyong gets four commuter car park stations? The next electorate, Chisholm, which does not have a sitting member in the Liberal Party at the time, gets zero. And then Mr Sukkar’s seat gets five. This program manages to jump two rail lines to a very important seat, that just didn’t happen to have a sitting Liberal member.
ALAN TUDGE:
As you’ll see it’s largely based on the lines and our aim is to boost the capacity right across these particular lines. So as you’ll see down the Sandringham line, our aim is to boost capacity along that line. And equally across some of the eastern lines. Because if you can boost capacity in one location, obviously, it supports the capacity further down the track. Because, you know, I had this representation as much as anybody did across Melbourne, that people would go to commuter car parks in the morning, find that the first one was full, so what do they do, they drive to the next one. The next one’s full, so they’ll drive to the next one, the next one’s full and that keeps going. So, it’s in part by the additional capacity [indistinct] was based [indistinct] on need.
QUESTION:
Minister, can you answer the question, was it based on infrastructure need or political need?
ALAN TUDGE:
[Indistinct] most of our infrastructure and expenditure across Melbourne, which is the focus of this, has largely been in the west and the northwest.
Thanks everybody.