Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to welfare payments and truancy.

I was very pleased that Senator Evans came back at the end of the session to tell me the suburbs that were included. It demonstrated that the government has been giving the community misleading information because the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—and I watched her media conference—stated very clearly on a number of occasions that it was the suburb of Cannington when, in fact, it was the suburbs of Beckenham, Cannington, East Cannington, Kenwick, Queens Park, Wattle Grove and Wilson. That is a much bigger area than the suburb of Cannington. What they are talking about is the Centrelink designated area of Cannington, I suspect. So this is affecting a much bigger area than was implied by the minister in the media.

I am also really looking forward to the answers I get back from the minister on the support services that are going to be given to families who have their welfare payments suspended. As I said in this place yesterday, the legislation also allows the payments to be cancelled. Under what circumstances those payments will be cancelled and what will happen to those people and those children is beyond me. At this stage the government cannot tell us what support services are available. I want to know what community based organisations and charities the government have consulted in these areas, because we know very well that the families that have their payments suspended will have to go somewhere for support.

I also want to know what the government are going to do about the future of the other children in families that have their payments suspended when one child in the family is truanting. Let us say it is an older child—14 or 15 years old. We all know how very difficult it is to get children of that age to obey their parents and go to school. Even when you drop them off at the front gate, they can go out the back gate. What happens when that family’s payment is suspended because that one child is truanting? What happens to the other kids, who are in school? How are those kids going to be supported? They are obviously going to need support from charities and community based organisations. Have those community based organisations been consulted? Have they got the resources? Are they prepared for the increase in demand? The answers to those questions, unfortunately, are unavailable. What I have heard is that for that suburb of Cannington, which we now know is in fact seven suburbs, at the moment there is one financial counsellor planned at a budgeted cost, as I understand it, of $90,000. I would absolutely love it if I have been given incorrect information and the resources are better than that for financial counselling.

But, of course, these families will need more than financial counselling. For a start, they will need a roof over their heads, they will need food and they will need their basic needs met. Then they will need counselling support to address the dysfunction, the crisis and the chaos that they are already facing but will be facing even more when their payments are cut off.

Anybody who understands violence and domestic violence will also be very worried about the impact this is going to have on these families. As families are put in these crisis situations and are having to confront their children about truancy, certainly a number of people who I have spoken to already about this issue are very concerned about the resultant chaos and potential for an increase in domestic violence that this mechanism may cause.

It is quite clear that the government do not have the answers to these questions and have not thought through the implications of this particular piece of legislation. I hope they come to their senses very soon because it is going to have a dramatic impact—and not the impact that they think. The minister in giving his answer said that the chances of success are much poorer if children do not go to school. I would say that the chances of success are nil if you take away people’s resources and their income support and that, in fact, this is not dealing with the causes of truancy.

I am yet to have explained to me where the evidence base is for this grand trial. How do they know that it is going to work? Why aren’t they dealing with the underlying causes? Why aren’t they dealing with the issues that cause children to truant in the first place? These include school programs that do not meet their needs and that are not culturally appropriate or the fact that there is bullying and harassment going on in school and that there is often racism at school. There are a whole range of issues that cause children not to go to school. When is the government going to address these issues? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.