Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I enter into the body of my speech on the second reading of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, I will correct for the benefit of the member for Herbert some of the information that he has provided. Having worked in schools for a long time, 11 years as a teacher and five years as a union organiser, in both state and private schools, I am very well aware that attendance records at schools, the rolls, are actually public documents. Anyone who has organised a school reunion would know that. They are public documents that must be kept as a record, as can be seen in the Queensland archives—you can go and track down the attendance record of anyone who has received public money. It is already a process that is in train in terms of people recording the attendance of students at school, as it rightly should be. It would only be a small task for a school officer—and I have a lot more faith in the school officers and the education sector than the member for Herbert—to pass that information on administratively to Centrelink. It would be a click of a mouse, because the data is recorded every day anyway.

I think this initiative, the legislation before the House, is a great piece of legislation because it will go some way to achieving that great Labor goal that the member for Herbert did touch on—that all children have the right to high-quality education. It is a basic tenet of the Labor Party that we support good education. Every parent, every community and every MP in the House, I am sure, would support the proposition that every student has the right to a high-quality education. That is especially so for the Rudd government. Our Prime Minister has had success in life because he was given an opportunity through education. For so many of the people on this side of the House that has been the case. Bright minds—I am not talking about myself—have been given an opportunity to do well.

Parents, teachers and school communities all play a crucial role in providing a good-quality education, but ultimately it is the role of governments to raise the standard, increase investment, guard against inequality, boost attendance and ensure that all children can achieve to their full potential. That is why the government that I serve is so serious about delivering an education revolution to this country. The Rudd government’s education revolution includes a half-billion-dollar investment in early childhood pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, halving HECS for those studying maths and science at university and then halving HECS again if they choose to pursue a career teaching or working in maths and science. These are great initiatives that will produce real results—real, life-changing decisions—for people who are out there considering an education career.

The Rudd government is committed to a new national curriculum in the core subjects of maths, science, English and history. Many Australians do not see the state borders anymore. They move regularly following work, following sunshine and following lots of things, so it makes sense now, in 2008, to have a national curriculum rather than the old horse-and-buggy approach of the states looking after it. We are also committed to a new national action plan on literacy and numeracy and a $2.4 billion education tax refund, which will help out so many parents and, more importantly, sends the key message that education is to be valued.

We are also committed to a $1.2 billion digital education revolution to give every student in years 9 to 12 access to a computer. I have seen this in my electorate, where I was able to proudly hand over the certificate to the principal of one of my non-government schools and where they were able to put more computers into the school. Ironically, in the only school in my electorate that received computer funding in the first round, the principal was a paid-up member of the Liberal Party. That is just the irony of it, I suppose, but it goes to show that the Rudd government is, without fear or favour, committed to ensuring that every student in years 9 to 12 has access to a computer.

We are also investing $30 million to boost education for remote Indigenous children, including a trial linking family and welfare payments to school attendance. This is the plan the Australian people voted for. If we are to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, school attendance rates in remote Indigenous communities must be improved. I come from a country town in Queensland with a significant Indigenous population. I know too well the difference between wandering away from school and staying at school and going on with a career. Too many of my friends dropped out early. This policy would have changed lives. Perhaps it would even have saved lives.

There are about 2,000 Indigenous children of compulsory school age in the Northern Territory who are not enrolled in school—2,000 people. That is the size of the town I grew up in. That is 2,000 people, 2,000 lives and 2,000 opportunities wasted. That means that one in five Aboriginal children in remote communities in the Northern Territory is not even enrolled in school. A further 2½ thousand are not attending regularly, and about 8,000 Indigenous children attend school only 60 per cent of the time on average. Without continuity, obviously the chances of getting a high-school certificate or a tertiary qualification are very, very limited. If we truly believe that all children have a right to a quality education, then a child growing up in the remote community of Katherine should have the same chance to get an education as a child in Brisbane. That is why I am proud to speak in support of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (School-ing Requirements) Bill 2008.

Children not enrolled in and regularly attending school miss out on an education and are severely disadvantaged later in life when it comes to seeking employment and gaining financial independence. This bill introduces greater support for parents to help ensure that their children are enrolled and, more importantly, that they are regularly attending school. It also introduces conditions, tied to school attendance, on income support payments. These measures will be trialled in six Northern Territory communities, one site in Western Australia and another metropolitan site to be determined.

Parents who fail to enrol their children or take reasonable measures to get their children to go to school may have their income support payments suspended until their children are enrolled or they begin attending school. Parents will be required to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s school enrolment. Parents who fail to do so without a reasonable excuse—and that is most important—may have their income support payments suspended until they enrol their child. Centrelink will also work with those parents to help them meet this requirement.

This bill also authorises schools to report poor attendance to Centrelink. Once again, Centrelink will then work with the parents to help them improve their child’s school attendance. Education authorities, local schools and Centrelink will work together with parents to improve school attendance. They will work together to improve their children’s lives.

A decision to temporarily withhold a parent’s income support will be a last resort—only a last resort. The first thought that came to my mind was: when would the trigger event happen? It is reassuring to know that it will be the last resort, where it can be shown the parent has failed, despite help from the school and Centrelink, to exercise parental responsibility and regularly get their child along to school. Full back pay will be provided when parents have met their responsibilities within a 13-week period or longer. Basically, they have a quarter of the year, 13 weeks—a season, I suppose—to get it right. Much has been said about the measures in this bill which give Centrelink authority to suspend welfare payments, but this bill is not about punishing disadvantaged families. It is not an attack on the poor and the vulnerable. Instead, it is about putting in place a system to support parents and help them give their kids the education they deserve.

If I could just touch on my own experience, I came from a family with 10 children. My mother was not receiving Centrelink payments so there was no lever for the government to pull in terms of school attendance. My mother was a single mum and she worked as a registered nurse at the hospital. When she left in the morning, it was up to us to get ourselves to school, basically. There were six of us at high school and primary school at the one time. I know that one of my brothers—who I will not name—had a shocking attendance record; it was absolutely shocking. Unfortunately, we do not have a social lever to pull to get someone like my brother off to school, so this will only affect those people who are receiving Centrelink payments. Hopefully, there will be other mechanisms in place to try and ensure that people not receiving Centrelink payments do send all their children to school. I stress again that income support payments will be cancelled only in the most extreme cases, where parents refuse to cooperate with the school and Centrelink.

I am hopeful that the trial areas will experience a surge in school enrolments and attendance as a result of this bill before the House. This in turn will dramatically boost the lifelong potential of many children in these trial communities, because there is so much evidence indicating that more education means more chance of having a job that pays more and that is not part-time, casual or based on seasonal factors. I am also pleased that an evaluation process will be undertaken and that the results of this trial will be monitored before the program is expanded to other areas.

This approach, of linking welfare payments to social outcomes, is a proven and effective way to change community behaviours. And, as I said, when community behaviours are changed, lives are changed. A good comparison would be to look at immunisation. Obviously, immunisation is actually about life and death, not just the sort of job you might have, so one would think that even a parent with the poorest parenting skills would still take their child off to be immunised. But, since the childcare benefit and the immunisation payment were linked to children completing a vaccination program, we have seen immunisation rates rise from around 50 per cent in the 1990s to more than 90 per cent today—and that is with something as important as a life or death thing like vaccination. Obviously, immunisation funds are not inconsequential but they are not that significant. But, by making that simple connection and simply tweaking, we were able to change the vaccination rates very significantly. Obviously, money talks.

The legislation before the House supports a program that is not being done in isolation. Instead, it is part of a range of Rudd government measures to improve education and health outcomes for Indigenous children. We have already committed 200 extra teachers for the Northern Territory. These additional teachers will help meet the increased enrolments that this bill will deliver. As a former teacher, I am especially proud of this commitment. It is a real calling to be a teacher. Not many people are in it to retire rich! Teachers’ wages are adequate; they obviously could be much more. But it is good to see the cultural shift that is occurring under the Rudd government through this education revolution.

Unfortunately, I am a little bit confused about the opposition’s position on this bill. We heard from the member for Herbert. As he said, he doubts the efficacy of the legislation but was able to support it. If we go back a bit further, in 2006, the then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, announced a similar plan, and he told Tony Jones on Lateline:

… new proposals to make welfare conditional on school attendance … is a real breakthrough.

Of course, despite announcing this plan, the coalition never actually introduced it. So now, in 2008, the opposition leader, Dr Brendan Nelson, described the plan as:

… some sort of media-driven stunt.

I stress to the House that this is not a stunt. This is legislation that will change lives. And, going on my experience in a country town with a very significant Indigenous population, it will also save lives.

Unfortunately, the opposition Indigenous affairs spokesman refused to support the plan. Old habits die hard for the member for Warringah who, on Radio National last week, blamed the states for not enforcing current truancy laws. I have not caught up with the member for Warringah, but he informed the House that he had spent a few weeks in the bush in a remote Indigenous community. I wonder what the parents of the Indigenous children not attending school told him. I wonder if their plea was the same as that of every parent—that they want their children to have a chance in life. Unfortunately, that blame game that we hear referred to still exists on the other side of the House. But, thankfully, one of the people who we often hear from in question time, the member for Canning, was much more open in his support of the plan before the House. What did he say? He said:

This is taxpayers’ money … and we want it to be used properly for the benefit of children.

I should point out that, I think, the member for Canning was a teacher, so he does understand the importance of education and he is obviously, on occasion, able to leave the politics out.

There is no confusion on this side of the House about the merits of this bill. The bill before the House balances appropriate support with financial incentives to encourage parents in the trial areas to get their kids enrolled and along to school. Labor understands how important this is. As I said, the Prime Minister, who was given a chance in life through education, values it, as does the Deputy Prime Minister, and as do so many other people on this side of the House who got here through education.

The Labor Party is committed to building a nation. That has been our history. We have made visionary programs and we have made visionary decisions that have been the bedrock for much of the nation. Unfortunately, those opposite, the Liberals, are happy merely to bill the nation that Labor built. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context