Mr TOYNE - 1998-12-02
The short-sighted and ill-conceived decision to axe bilingual programs is causing uproar across the Territory. The bilingual programs have given birth to success stories such as the band Yothu Yindi. The consultation process undertaken by the education review task force was inappropriately selected. Why did the minister not consult with qualified Aboriginal teachers before deciding to axe this highly successful program? Why won’t he support both the English as a second language program and the bilingual programs currently in place?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, as usual the honourable member has misrepresented the situation. The fact is that we did speak to Aboriginal bilingual teachers. Unfortunately, as was the case with some of these situations in the past, there was one area that we didn’t receive input from. That was the opposition, and the opposition shadow on education. This was to be a wide-ranging inquiry. We had over 120 different interest groups that have a stake in education. The only area that was disenfranchised from this entire process was the opposition and the spokesperson for education.
A broad cross-section of the Aboriginal community have told us they wish our priority to be the teaching of English in schools. This does not mean that the culture of a community is diminished in any way whatsoever. The spokesperson talks about wide-ranging condemnation. Quite frankly, I haven’t heard any of it yet. The calls we’ve had so far have been quite positive.
The whole thing wasn’t unanimous. But we have taken a decision, a tough decision to an extent, after consulting with the community. Despite what members of the opposition may say, we have spoken to Aboriginal leaders, we have spoken to the economic committee, the advisory committee, we have spoken to the indigenous education councils, we have spoken to all sorts of communities. On 3 occasions this year when I visited Aboriginal communities, I was personally requested to look into what the communities can do about dropping bilingual programs and beefing up what can be done in the ESL area. 120 different stakeholders took part and had some valuable input into this.
I believe that, as in so many other issues, the member for Stuart stands condemned for not taking the time or making the effort to have any input into this whatsoever. There isno doubt about it - he is lazy. No doubt about it - he sees this as a political football. He doesn’t want to see any actual, proper political debate take place on this. Maybe he was still busy studying there at Latrobe, but I ask him why didn’t he take the time to put in a submission. If he thought this was that important, if he had an opinion on this, why didn’t he bother to pick up a penor put finger to keyboard and put in a submission as 120 stakeholders did? The member for Stuart stands condemned.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, as usual the honourable member has misrepresented the situation. The fact is that we did speak to Aboriginal bilingual teachers. Unfortunately, as was the case with some of these situations in the past, there was one area that we didn’t receive input from. That was the opposition, and the opposition shadow on education. This was to be a wide-ranging inquiry. We had over 120 different interest groups that have a stake in education. The only area that was disenfranchised from this entire process was the opposition and the spokesperson for education.
A broad cross-section of the Aboriginal community have told us they wish our priority to be the teaching of English in schools. This does not mean that the culture of a community is diminished in any way whatsoever. The spokesperson talks about wide-ranging condemnation. Quite frankly, I haven’t heard any of it yet. The calls we’ve had so far have been quite positive.
The whole thing wasn’t unanimous. But we have taken a decision, a tough decision to an extent, after consulting with the community. Despite what members of the opposition may say, we have spoken to Aboriginal leaders, we have spoken to the economic committee, the advisory committee, we have spoken to the indigenous education councils, we have spoken to all sorts of communities. On 3 occasions this year when I visited Aboriginal communities, I was personally requested to look into what the communities can do about dropping bilingual programs and beefing up what can be done in the ESL area. 120 different stakeholders took part and had some valuable input into this.
I believe that, as in so many other issues, the member for Stuart stands condemned for not taking the time or making the effort to have any input into this whatsoever. There isno doubt about it - he is lazy. No doubt about it - he sees this as a political football. He doesn’t want to see any actual, proper political debate take place on this. Maybe he was still busy studying there at Latrobe, but I ask him why didn’t he take the time to put in a submission. If he thought this was that important, if he had an opinion on this, why didn’t he bother to pick up a penor put finger to keyboard and put in a submission as 120 stakeholders did? The member for Stuart stands condemned.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016