Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

In joining this debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 I want to associate myself with all the remarks that have been made from this side of the House from the opposition’s perspective. As has been said, the opposition are not opposing this bill. The principle of mutual obligation was introduced into this parliament by the former government. It did so against the strong opposition of those who now form the government. But as previous speakers have pointed out, the current government’s approach to this bill highlights a chaotic policy approach on their part, it highlights inconsistency and it highlights something that we have seen in the now almost 10 months of the Rudd Labor government—that is, an incredible focus on announcements and very little focus on detail or implementation. We have seen it in so many areas. We have seen it with Fuelwatch and through so many other areas: the real focus is the headline, the announcement; but, when it comes to actually implementing the things that they announce, there is always trouble.

We do not oppose this bill. We absolutely agree with the principle that it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure their son and daughter are at school. That is a principle that unites all members of this parliament, and every measure necessary to ensure that kids attend school obviously needs to be taken. When a child is deprived of an education at school, they are deprived of rights. They are deprived of their best opportunities. They are deprived of all of those things that will give them an equal say and a great future. That is why it is absolutely vital that every child be at school and every parent meet their responsibility to have their kids at school.

However, when this measure was announced—or should I say reannounced—a week or so ago, the public were entitled to be sceptical about the government’s motives and about what their real purpose was. We saw that in the announcement itself. It was not an announcement—or reannouncement—from the minister here in the parliament. It was not a ministerial statement. It was announced in the Daily Telegraph, which is fine for the Daily Telegraph but very clearly reminiscent of that new comedy series which those opposite obviously believe to be a documentary: The Hollowmen. Clearly this was dreamed up on the Sunday afternoon at the Lodge. Something needed to be announced and the solution was: ‘We’ll reannounce something that was in the budget and we’ll ring Malcolm Farr.’ That goes to the priorities and motives of this government.

The member for Parramatta, who just spoke, talked about state truancy laws and said, rather casually, that up until now they had not been used very much. That is the nub of this debate in so many ways. It is the law of every state and territory that children attend school, yet we have heard nothing about that from those opposite. We just heard then, very casually, that these state laws had not been used very much, as if they were some sort of optional advisory requirement. Those opposite cannot bring themselves to say that the state laws are either ineffective or not being administered. If all of those state laws were administered, we would not have 20,000 people, as the minister says, not attending school. They casually say, ‘Well, the state laws are not administered; that’s a shame,’ as though the bus did not turn up and that is just the way it is. Those opposite turn a blind eye. Forget the fact that all the state governments are Labor governments; they should be honest enough to say that the failure to administer state truancy laws is an absolute disgrace. Did we hear even a mention of that when this was reannounced? Of course we did not.

The other point previous speakers have made in this debate is about inconsistency. This is the problem those opposite have when they are in a Hollowman huddle making up announcements for the next day. As they met, presumably at the Lodge, on that Sunday before they rang Malcolm Farr, they forgot that, on the issue of suspending payments for those people who are on unemployment benefits and who refuse to attend job interviews, they had taken a directly opposite approach. As the shadow minister next to me, the member for Boothby, has pointed out, the new minister has acted and has criticised the process whereby someone on unemployment benefits who refuses their mutual obligation to attend job interviews will no longer have their payments suspended. At the very time he is reversing this position and arguing how important it is to act, two of his other ministers are racing past him on the other side of the road, heading in the other direction. That itself highlights the chaotic nature in which this government makes policy and the reasons why they make announcements.

We see it in the lack of detail in this announcement. This is the truly amazing thing with this reannouncement. The ministers opposite say it was first announced on budget night, and that is true. But three months later it was reannounced through Malcolm Farr in the Daily Telegraph. There have been three months to do all sorts of things, but still there is no detail about the regulations—that is to be worked out later. Even in those three months, the minister responsible has done precious little work. First it was announced on the budget night, and that was the end of it as far as the minister was concerned. Then it needed to be reannounced to occupy some headlines on a Monday morning before a parliamentary sitting week. When we look to the detail, we find that all of the key detail on reasonable excuses—on how this legislation will actually work—is not there yet. That is all to be developed in due course.

Amongst those opposite speaking in this debate—we are told through the media were members on the back bench concerned with this legislation. Those speaking in this debate cannot in good faith look their constituents in the eye and not mention the failure of state governments. We are going to support this bill; we are going to vote for it. But those opposite should also be banging the drum on state government failure. It is important that every single child attend school. This measure is designed to put pressure on those parents who are on unemployment benefits. Only the state truancy laws and their effective administration can have the effect for which they were introduced—to put pressure on all parents who do not meet their responsibilities.

Those opposite cannot say that they value the education of every child, and that is why they are putting this bill forward to deal with children of parents on unemployment benefits. At the same time, those opposite are covering up and concealing the states’ failure to implement truancy laws that apply to all parents. I think there are some members on the other side who believe that. I know it will not be in the dot points that are circulated by the Prime Minister’s office. It will not be in the spin manual. It will not be in the speakers notes. But I do have some faith that there are some over there who do believe that every child has a right to an education and that state truancy laws should be enforced.

See this speech in context