Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. This bill aims to introduce conditions on the receipt of income support payments whereby parents are obliged to ensure their children of compulsory school age are enrolled in school, as well as taking reasonable action to ensure regular school attendance. The bill provides the mechanism to suspend or cancel welfare payments of parents who are considered negligent in this role.

I preface my remarks tonight with what I hope is a statement of the obvious: education is the key to the future. It is the key to my future, it is the key to my children’s futures and it is the key to my grandchildren’s futures. In fact, it is the key to all children’s futures in this country. Although the opposition supports this bill, I have some serious concerns about the extra bureaucracy and administrative burden the bill will place on welfare agencies, particularly Centrelink. I also have concerns that the Rudd government is imposing a punitive measure on parents while doing nothing to address the issue of truancy itself.

I believe in its essence this bill has good intentions. It aims to reduce the high levels of truancy currently being experienced by schools across Australia—that is a good thing. And it certainly is a good thing that those of us speaking on this bill recognise what we are trying to achieve through this bill. Parents certainly must take responsibility for their children and they must also respect the importance of education. There is no denying that truancy is disruptive. It disrupts classes and it disrupts education programs being run by schools. Many of society’s long-term problems such as unemployment and social disadvantage have their origins in a lack of school attendance.

I think it is great that the Labor Party has finally come to realise what a number of other Centre Left governments around the world came to realise a decade or so ago—I am referring the United Kingdom under Tony Blair’s leadership and the United States during the Clinton administration. Both the UK and the USA learnt long ago that welfare was seen as an inalienable right that came without any responsibilities for the recipient. It was not so long ago in Australia that if you questioned welfare payments or suggested welfare reform you were called ‘mean-spirited’. Certainly when we were in government we had those types of tags placed upon us. If you raised those same concerns in regard to Indigenous people, you were called ‘mean-spirited’ and a ‘racist’.

I am pleased to see that the debate has finally progressed in this country. The truth is that there are no easy solutions to the problem of truancy. It is a complex and multilayered issue. The reasons for truancy can be related to medical problems. They can be related to financial problems. They can be related to crime in certain suburbs. Of course, we all know that families are under enormous pressures and stress at this time. They are feeling it through rising grocery prices and cost-of-living pressures.

The Rudd government could do well to study the welfare situation in the United Kingdom and heed some of the hard lessons they learnt there. In the United Kingdom 55,000 students a day were missing lessons during 2003-04; this was an increase of 4½ thousand students from the previous year. In response to this poor result, the Blair government decided on a tougher approach to persistent truancy. Parents were given 12 weeks to improve their child’s attendance or face the threat of court action. Potentially parents faced fines of up to £2,500 or three months in jail. This approach in the United Kingdom has resulted in parents of truants spending time in jail, and yet the statistics out of the United Kingdom show that this hardline approach has not tackled the problem. The Blair government spent almost £1 billion pounds on measures to tackle truancy—and it would be fair to say the problem has worsened in the UK; it certainly has not improved.

In the light of the UK situation, can the Deputy Prime Minister point the House towards any evidence that the Rudd government’s approach is going to get more truants back to school? I think that is a question that needs to be asked and certainly needs to be answered. In an interview with ABC 774 in Melbourne on 26 August, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there will be a range of support measures for families to help them get their child to school every day. The Deputy Prime Minister reiterated that same point four times in her short interview with ABC radio. What she did not explain once was what these support measures exactly entail, and tonight we still do not have those details. What are these support measures that the Deputy Prime Minister feels are so important to mention—four times during that ABC interview—but fails to provide any further details on?

My concern and the concern of many on this side of the House is that the Rudd government is introducing a punitive measure without concurrently addressing any of the causes of truancy. At a time of rising inflation, rising grocery prices, rising fuel prices and stretched household budgets, this measure could place even greater stresses on households. As it is, families on welfare survive on barely more than $400 per week. What is missing from this measure is the parenting skills course, access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and an attempt to address the causes of these issues affecting people’s lives on a daily basis, which in turn affect young people in this country.

I move to ask what it is that the states are doing to prevent and address truancy. It seems obvious to me that the answer is, ‘Very little,’ because, if they were, there would be no need for the federal government to introduce a bill that does the job that the states should be doing. It is their responsibility. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that he will end the blame game. If his answer to ending the blame game is to do the job of the states for them, I can only assume that in due course he will be seeking a constitutional amendment that abolishes the states. The much lauded saviour of wall-to-wall Labor governments is a complete and utter failure. This is their role; this is their responsibility. It is up to them. The new federal government is picking up the ball for the states. Where is the strengthening of truancy programs in this bill? Perhaps the minister might explain to members the process she intends to undertake through COAG to work with the states and territories to strengthen the truancy programs.

Perhaps of more concern than the inability of the state Labor governments to do their job—after all, that is something we have come to expect; we see it day in, day out with the federal government picking up the states’ responsibilities—is that this new program from the Rudd government will be administered by Centrelink. The Prime Minister and the finance minister have taken a great deal of pride in the work of their razor gangs. Centrelink, a large and extremely important government agency, did not escape the razor gang following the Rudd government’s first budget in May. With 2,000 jobs at Centrelink on the chopping block, it is beyond comprehension that the government seeks to further increase the administrative burden on an agency that is already stretched beyond belief. What extra resources, what extra personnel, will be allocated to Centrelink to undertake this task?

The detail of this bill requires school principals to report truancy to Centrelink if parents fail, as the explanatory memorandum puts it, ‘to comply with the school attendance requirement to the satisfaction of the person responsible for the operation of the school’. Does this mean that school principals will become judge and jury over welfare families, making their own determination about whether parents have taken reasonable steps to ensure that their children are enrolled in and attending school? If so, will it be administered consistently or on a school-by-school basis?

In bringing this bill before the parliament, the Rudd government seems to be saying that it is only welfare dependent households that have or will have problems with truancy. This is patently not the case; it can occur in any household. However, this government is of the belief that in low-socioeconomic areas it is the family that is to blame. This is reflected in the communities chosen to trial this new measure. Given that truancy is occurring in the main in the most dysfunctional communities, schools should be given the capacity and the resources to work with these families, to find out what the problems are and to work with relevant government agencies to help these families.

Indigenous families will be particularly hard hit from this new measure. Indigenous students do not always have schools to go to, particularly in remote areas. By denying them an education, you deny them a future. You deny them the opportunity to reach their own individual goals. You deny them the opportunity to flourish. You deny them secure futures. The alternative—no education—can lead to a continuation of the cycle of poverty, welfare, crime, alcohol and drug abuse.

The lack of distinct detail in this bill as to how the government will address the issues really concerns me. I know this is of concern to many members on this side of the House. Statistics can only tell us part of the story. There is no simple solution. Try as they assuredly will, there is no easy grab for headlines for the government. There is no easy fix to the problem. There is one thing I can say with certainty: any attempt to address this issue will be resource intensive. I am just not sure that this government have the stamina or the focus to see it through.

Notwithstanding my serious concerns about the bill that is before the House tonight, I do believe that both sides of the chamber want to see something done about truancy in this country. We do want to support those families and those kids who need an education. For me, an education for every young person in this country is extremely important. It is really about the future of this country. I certainly hope that, with the will of the government and with our support, this bill will address the issues and the concerns regarding truancy in this country. With the reservations I have put on the table tonight, I do support the bill and hope that, in doing so, we support the young people of this country.

See this speech in context