Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care) Share this | Hansard source

We have just heard the member for Warringah casting around a lot of cheap slurs and spending about 10 minutes posing a lot of questions—the answers to which he could have easily found out, I would have thought, by looking at the detailed notes—but saying almost nothing about the consequences of 20,000 children not being enrolled in schools across the country. I find it perplexing, because I know that the member for Warringah has spent time recently—and I praise him for this commitment—with Indigenous educators and children in Australia helping with reading. So I know that commitment is there, which is why I think his response on this bill is puzzling.

But I wish to speak in support of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. As the minister outlined in her second reading speech, the bill gives effect to measures outlined in the budget and is aimed at improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform. It will place conditions on the receipt of income support payments whereby parents are obliged to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are enrolled and attending school regularly.

Another point that the member for Warringah missed is that this is a measure that is going to be trialled in six sites in the Northern Territory, in an area in Cannington in Western Australia and in one other metropolitan site. Of course, trials are all about looking at what works and indeed examining some of those questions that the member for Warringah put. Importantly, what I feel that he failed to understand is that, while he talked about the issues of Centrelink and of principals at schools, in fact all parents under this bill receiving income support who live in the trial locations will be required to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s enrolment. Parents who fail to do this and fail to provide a reasonable explanation will be required to further engage with Centrelink, and there will be a very particular kind of complex case management around that.

The impact of this measure will be minimal for those parents who do the right thing and ensure that their children are in school. Those who do not take reasonable steps to improve their child’s attendance may have their income support payments suspended until such time as they can show that they have addressed the issue. This measure is a last resort. It will be applied in those cases where a parent has not provided a reasonable excuse that can account for an inability to comply. This is a very strong measure—there is no gainsaying that—but let us consider what has provoked this and why the government is acting.

ABS data suggests that the total number of children of compulsory school age who are not enrolled is around 20,000. The data further suggests that school attendance rates across states and territories are between 91 per cent and 93 per cent, with the rate for Indigenous children around 10 per cent less. That is 20,000 children not in the system. So what are the consequences—the consequences that the member for Warringah did not even attempt to address? These 20,000 children will never make it to a high-school graduation, will be unlikely to ever get a foothold in the job market and, more than likely, will be disengaged citizens for their entire lives. Without even the most basic tools by which they can navigate a complex world, those without adequate schooling are likely to be lost, unhappy and, I think it is fair to say, resentful souls. If they themselves parent, those same attitudes will be passed on to their children—lack of engagement and distrust of the value of learning.

Up to this point in time, we have tolerated this; the previous government tolerated this. I think it is extraordinary, when you look at that level of nonparticipation. Frankly, it is intolerable. Every day community organisations across the country deal with women and men with poor literacy skills whose capacity to cope in a very competitive environment is exceptionally limited. The cycle is repeated over and over again when children of such families also grow up with a very negative view of schooling and a mindset that is hard wired for failure. Social policy planners, of course, have been wrestling with this issue of intergenerational disadvantage for a long time and, as we know, with mixed results.

I think one of the great paradoxes of the times is that, while Australia has been enjoying record prosperity and very strong jobs growth up to now, the welfare bill, far from being reduced, is higher than ever. Through the boom years, we have simply failed when it comes to social inclusion. At a time when many of our industries are crying out for particular skill sets, we are being forced to rely on our immigration program to import the competencies we need. I think recognition of this problem has been building for some time but now, across the spectrum, the notion of passive welfare is seen more and more as the problem and not the solution.

We have to make a place for those who are now excluded from schooling, from employment and from civic society. With this bill, the government is sending a very clear signal to parents to do the right thing by their children and ensure that they attend school regularly. The matter is urgent. I was having a conversation with my colleague the member for Rankin this week. He talked about a survey that had been conducted two years ago in Logan, on the south side of Brisbane, which is in his area. That survey showed that 300 Logan year 7 students were absent—this is just one group of students in that area—for one-third of the year. That is a terrible figure. This bill is a start, a mechanism for sending a signal that this situation is not tolerable.

It is part of our wider agenda also to do something about our really quite dreadful high-school retention rates. Let us look at those. At around 74 per cent, the school completion rate has barely budged in 15 years. This is at a time when other OECD countries have managed to progressively and incrementally improve school completion rates. That is the legacy of the Howard years—a seeming indifference to this dreadful high-school completion rate. It is why over half a million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are not in either full-time learning or full-time work. That is half a million young people who are not in a job and not involved in some kind of study or training.

There are multiple costs to tolerating these statistics. There is a national cost, with fewer skilled workers available to fill the demands of a modern economy; there is the community cost, as services, or even the justice system in some cases, struggle with people who are likely to vent their frustration in unacceptable ways; and there is the personal cost that I think is counted in a really diminished life. Life is hard for many, many people. A child born into a troubled family can be subject to such a level of toxic stress that it really inhibits appropriate brain development, and this is the case for many children in Indigenous communities but not exclusively so. These children will struggle through their school years. They will underperform at every level and feel that, at the end of it, the school system just spits them out. It is these children that we have to save. It is why, in my particular area of responsibility for early childhood, all our policies are focused on children’s development and on helping parents. We are putting that at the centre of policymaking because we know that the earlier the intervention, the greater the likelihood that children will be able to make a happy, healthy transition to school.

This is by way of saying that the circumstances that have produced what is unarguably a harsh measure, this bill, are complex. If the only thing we were to do as a government was to wield the blunt instrument of income suspension, then I would not be supporting this bill—but it is not. The concept of social inclusion is central to our policy approach, as are policies aimed at the development of healthy, well-supported children. The government has committed $3.2 billion in expenditure this year to support a whole range of ambitious initiatives that will support very young children and their families, and I am just going to mention a couple of them.

In its first budget, the Rudd Labor government committed $32 million over five years to a program to help disadvantaged children aged three to five to prepare for school under what is called the Home Interaction Program. This will be delivered, in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence, in 50 disadvantaged communities across the country. The Home Interaction Program will give disadvantaged children a better start in life by supporting parents to improve their children’s school readiness. So it is help for children and, importantly, help for parents. Early intervention programs like HIP can increase school retention rates and attendance rates and, in the long term, employment opportunities, because they develop work readiness and leadership skills in participating parents.

Another current initiative is the ongoing work between the Australian and state and territory governments to establish integrated approaches to meeting the needs of children, families and communities. Specifically, this involves developing proposals for children and family centres in states and territories. We expect that centres will provide a mix of services that are responsive to community needs and will also provide early learning and parent and family support services. As part of this initiative, governments are working to improve outcomes for Indigenous children and families.

Most importantly, at the National Press Club last week the Prime Minister outlined our big national ambitions for an education revolution, which revolve around three central pillars of reform. They include: improving the quality of teaching; making school reporting properly transparent; and, most importantly, lifting achievement in disadvantaged school communities. We will be doing this through new funding arrangements with the states to put more resources into the schools that need them most. The Prime Minister was absolute in his comments that we will not tolerate underperformance. Of course, part of that is not tolerating nonattendance.

In conclusion, the government is moving on multiple fronts when it comes to engaging with parents, with schools and with the states and territories. We unashamedly want to lift the bar for everyone. That means ensuring that young people enrol in and attend school. This bill has a role to play as part of a suite of government measures aimed at ensuring that all children get an equal start in life.

See this speech in context