Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 and its effect on the people of my electorate of Swan. I rise not to oppose the bill but to speak about some of the areas that I have grave doubts about with this legislation. Today the member for Moreton spoke about his union time involved with schools and recognised the member for Canning for his time as a teacher. He seemed to intimate that their involvement with schools gave him and the member for Canning some exclusive rights to talk on this bill. I would let the member for Moreton know that, as a humble parent, I think I also have a right to speak on this bill. The member for Moreton spoke about his brother’s truancy record. I advise the House that I too have a truancy record. It is not something I am proud of but it gives me a life experience and an ability to comment on this bill.

Yesterday in the House the member for Parramatta made a speech about this bill, and I happen to agree with her—I do not favour punitive approaches except as a last resort. But the real issue, as also referred to by the member for Parramatta, is that this is a state issue and the states have sat on their hands and done nothing about this problem for years. In her speech the member for Parramatta said there is already a last resort at state level which is called prosecution. The member went on to state that historically this has not been used. Wouldn’t it be simple enough for the COAG to get their collective ‘no blame game’ hats on and solve the truancy problem at a state level, as it should be? My colleague the member for Cook remarked in his speech yesterday that this bill is a further measure in the Rudd government’s bid to cover the incompetence of the state governments.

As honourable members will know, the immediate effect of the bill is the implementation of the school attendance and enrolment pilot. The pilot, commencing from January 2009, will operate in six Northern Territory communities and two metropolitan locations, one of which will be Cannington in Western Australia, part of my electorate of Swan. Under the pilot, all parents who are also income support recipients will be required to notify Centrelink of their child’s enrolment at school. State education authorities will be able to notify Centrelink of a child’s nonattendance at school. Centrelink will then be able to advise the parent that taking steps to ensure school attendance is a condition of receiving income support.

Having not been consulted by the government on this important issue concerning my electorate, my electorate office contacted the Cannington branch of Centrelink for more details on the proposed measure. These hardworking Centrelink people, who as a result of Rudd’s razor gangs faced significant job cuts this year, helpfully informed my staff that the Cannington scheme will involve Centrelink customers of the Cannington, Victoria Park, Gosnells and Midland branches.

Among the schools that could be expected to administer this scheme is Bentley Primary School. Bentley Primary School opened on its current site in 1953. It was once a school of 900 students, with demountable classrooms dominating the landscape. In 1973 the current open area classrooms were built and the administration block established. It was the first school to participate in the school renewal program, and it was decided in 1991 to amalgamate the junior primary and senior primary schools. As a result, the resource centre was built to provide a state-of-the-art computerised library with accompanying art and music rooms. This resource centre, the Shelagh Shannon Resource Centre, acknowledges the outstanding services of Mrs Shannon, who was registrar from 1969 to her retirement in 1991. The original Bentley Junior School buildings were leased to the Islamic community in January 1994.

I provide the House with this information not to digress but to demonstrate the importance and the fragility of the services local schools provide. I had the pleasure recently of being invited to Carlisle Primary School to take part in their ‘Kick Around Australia’ celebrations. A diverse group of children took part in an extravaganza of kicking, handballing and banner-making fun. In my role as the Director of Junior Development for Perth Demons Football Club in the Western Australian Football League, I appreciate the efforts of the Carlisle Primary School and commend Sports Director Clint McNerny for his efforts in organising a great day.

When I read through Ms Gillard’s legislation, I asked myself one simple question: how will this affect the invaluable services that schools provide to the people in my electorate? In the case of Carlisle Primary School, how would the government’s legislation specifically affect their capacity to organise such events as I just spoke about? This is a question I shall come back to.

Before examining the bill before the House in detail it is important to consider the Western Australian state government’s response to truancy. The Carpenter government’s response to this issue extends to funds being provided to each district education office to develop a retention and participation plan. The plans must include processes for identifying and profiling the district’s alienated student population, prevention strategies for each phase of schooling, intervention strategies for those students identified as alienated, strategies to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for these students, and interagency collaboration.

SMS technology has been introduced to enable schools to alert parents about their children’s absence from school. However, there are reports that the technology is not working and that only a few schools are using it. I refer honourable members to an article by Y Phillips and J Strut ‘Schools wag SMS’ in the West Australian of 14 June 2008. There have not been any prosecutions for nonenrolment or nonattendance since the School Education Act 1999 came into effect in 2000.

This hands-off approach by the state Labor government is inexcusable. As always, when a state government fails—which is a frequent occurrence in Western Australia—it is up to the federal government to make up for the shortfall. In this context, it is appropriate to make my first point on the bill. I restate the fact that the states have always had responsibility for school attendance. The principle of compulsory education and the requirement that schoolchildren be enrolled in and attend school, registered for home schooling or eligible for exception is ensconced in state and territory education legislation.

What have the states been doing? I have recently made speeches in this House about the homelessness crisis in my electorate and about the growing violence around public transport nodes. These are both state issues looked after by HomesWest and the police department. Will the Rudd government step in and take over these state issues as well? When will the federal government in the new environment of supposed COAG cooperation ensure that the states are accountable for education and its integrity? How long must the people of Western Australia and Swan continue to suffer while we wait for some responsibility to be taken?

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this policy seems to ignore the recommendations of widely accepted research. According to US analysis of the research into effective truancy prevention and intervention, those approaches that have ‘solid research evidence for their effectiveness’ are intensive ongoing interventions involving well-defined attendance policies, parental engagement, family counselling, individualised plans, a team approach, trained school staff and ongoing evaluation. There is no mention here of extreme policies that take money away from vulnerable families. Indeed, the same analysis actually singles out financial sanctions against families and tying benefits to children’s school attendance programs as ‘not having an impact on truancy’. Evaluations of US school attendance programs found that case management, not sanctions, was the most important attribute of successful programs. Given the convincing nature of this research, I find it remarkable that this Rudd Labor government has chosen a big-stick option. Additionally, I am not convinced that in putting this legislation before the House the government has thought through the implications of the Privacy Act. To place such a burden on schools such as Carlisle Primary School would inevitably lead to resources being diverted away from events like Kick Around Australia Day and towards Rudd red tape.

I note the member for Warringah’s important contribution to this debate yesterday. The vital question he posed on privacy, which was summarily dismissed with carefree abandon by the member for Bennelong, has yet to be properly addressed. I repeat his question: will Centrelink have to provide all schools with details of those living on welfare? I also ask: will the principal of each school want to provide information on his students and their parents to Centrelink not only as a privacy issue but also as a social issue? Families have to be able to trust their teachers and principals and this legislation will drive a wedge into that trust. The feedback I get from teachers and principals in my electorate is that they do not want to be responsible for running a government stunt.

The government knows the legislation proposed is unworkable. The Tasmanian government has already indicated that. This boils down to another example of government grandstanding to catch media headlines. Given the points I have made, I object to the district of Cannington in my electorate being used as a trial site. Why does the minister not run this pilot program in her own electorate? That way she could keep a close eye on it.

Given all these problems and unanswered questions, it was not surprising to read a report in the Age on 26 August that federal Labor backbenchers were angry about the welfare policy announcement. Apparently most of the 18 members who spoke either opposed or expressed concern about the bill. The Deputy Prime Minister noted recently in her second reading speech on the bill that up to 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age may not be enrolled in school. Something should be done to address this issue, but the flawed nature of the bill as it currently stands means that it needs the closer scrutiny of a Senate committee.

I agree that all children have a right to an education and it is the prime responsibility of their parents to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the states and their education systems, no matter how run down they are. This is an on-ground issue which cannot be controlled from Canberra but which needs the lazy Labor states to ensure there is a cooperative attitude amongst parents of children and the education system in each state. In my role as the Director of Junior Development at the Perth Football Club I see what it takes for children in my district to improve their levels of competency in sport. There is no tricky scientific solution. The children who develop the quickest are the ones who have parents who are involved in their lives and who take seriously the responsibility of bringing up their children. It certainly is not punitive, last-resort stunts.

I will support this bill because its intent is honourable and correct, but I believe the process is wrong. When the lazy state governments pick the ball up and encourage people to take their children to school under any circumstances with programs that make it easy for the parents who struggle with the concept of educating their children, then we will see some real results. In my electorate a group of self-motivated volunteers have started a breakfast program at a primary school and, as a result, attendance at the school has increased. I applaud this simple and pragmatic program. Where was the state government when the program started? It was nowhere to be seen. It was done by the community and the champions of our society—volunteers. It was achieved by the efforts of people who really want to see the children of our communities at school where they should be with a non-punitive program. In closing, I urge the government to look closely at the effects and results of this pilot scheme and ensure it has the will and flexibility to implement necessary changes that will surely arise.

See this speech in context