Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to indicate that while I support the second reading of these bills, I will be monitoring the bill’s implementation and trial closely.

The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 will allow the suspension or cancellation of income support payments to a parent whose child is either not enrolled in school or has unsatisfactory attendance at school.

It also provides for a trial in a number of sites before its future implementation nationally.

From the outset, I want to make it unequivocally clear, I support any measure that will get and keep students in school.

The evidence is clear that the more and the longer a student is at school, the better it is for the lifelong employment, health and socio-economic prospects.

It results in better quality lives for the individual and ultimately less demand on the taxpayer.

However, my concern with these bills is that they do not go far enough.

It is my view that the Government could be doing much more than what is contained in these bills.

What concerns me further is that the Coalition, by indicating it will support these bills, may be taking an easier option with truancy.

Mr Acting Deputy President, truancy and student disengagement are serious issues in our schools.

According to the Minister, currently up to 20,000 children are not enrolled in school.

School attendance rates vary, but in my home state of South Australia, the latest official estimate of overall non-attendance was around 7% of students. Of these, over 17% were indigenous.

In a specific study in Term Two 2004, over 10% of students were absent for more than 20% of the term.

The highest rates of unexplained absences in my state are in Year 10 - when one in ten students give no reason for not being at school.

School retention rates are also a problem and while State Governments are loath to release this data, official estimates are that one in four students who start Year 8 do not complete Year 12.

The Government rightly points out that the challenges of enrolment, attendance and retention are greater in urban fringe schools and socially disadvantaged areas.

However, what is the Government’s solution?

To take away welfare payments to parents for up to 13 weeks if their child is not enrolled in or attending school.

I see a number of challenges with this strategy.

Firstly, there is the assumption that people receiving welfare are the problem. It is not just the unemployed or those in need of income support that may not ensure their children attend school regularly.

There are also the underemployed, the single parents, those with mental heath issues or parents with drug problems, all of whom may not receive pensions, but some of whom may condone truancy.

And what of those parents who are more affluent but still turn a blind eye to truancy, is their child’s lack of attendance any less important?

I would have liked the Government to have brought a more comprehensive approach using other incentives, perhaps tax penalties, for all parents who do not insist on their children attending school.

Truancy comes at a cost to the individual and the taxpayer, both now and in the future.

Yet some could interpret this bill to be less like an education revolution and more like an education devolution of responsibility.

Where is the evidence that parents on pensions value the education of their children less than other parents?

Why does support for one’s income imply less support for education?

Surely a case could be made that it is those without work who are most keenly aware of the value of education for work.

The risk with this bill is that it obscures the multiple and complex influences on truancy, which demand serious and sophisticated response.

Many other things can influence truancy beyond just the actions of the parent. For instance, there is lack of transport, bullying, having to care for family members, poor health and poverty, just to name a few.

And what about the responsibility of schools?

School culture, irrelevant curriculum, poor quality teaching and lack of time for individual attention can all contribute to truancy.

When one reads the research in relation to the middle years of schooling, it becomes quite clear that the transition between primary and secondary school can also be a major contributing factor to student disengagement and truancy.

Research on South Australian schools confirms that unexplained absence rates increase significantly as students enter the high school years.

As students shift from a form of schooling that focuses on the individual and the interdisciplinary, to a form that emphasises the competitive and the disciplinary, many students struggle to cope.

The longitudinal surveys of youth, conducted by the Australian Council of Educational Research, highlight that many of the students who are deciding to leave school early, in fact do so in the first years of high school.

This involves planning and funding, not just pension cuts.

More funding to attract better quality teachers.

More funding to develop innovative and relevant curriculum.

More funding for smaller class sizes and more attention to individual student needs.

Governments need to consider ways to invest, rather than ways to divest.

In the light of research that shows that punitive measures have little impact on serious cases of truancy, why focus solely on taking away parents’ pensions?

What are the possible negative consequences for cancelling payments to the child through things further social exclusion?

Will this provision act as a disincentive to foster carers or others who would otherwise seek to help children in need, but do not want to risk their welfare payments?

Amongst lower socio-economic areas and amongst consistent truants there are issues of students shifting between schools, due to shifting between parents, or school suspension, or behaviour issues. How will this issue of student churn be addressed so that those most likely not to be enrolled are not overlooked?

Different states have different policies and procedures, so potentially a parent could lose their pension in one state, while another parent keeps theirs. How is this fair?

This equally applies to schools. How will consistency be maintained to avoid the risk that some schools penalise certain parents, but respond less harshly to others?

Will this bill result in an even greater administrative load on teachers, who are already stretched to find enough time in the day to meet their teaching responsibilities?

Government and non-government schools have different methods of recording attendance, how will consistency be maintained?

How will the department really know what is going on with such diverse reporting methods?

In his submission to the Senate Inquiry into this bill, Mr Graham Carters, Deputy Secretary for Employment and Policy with the department admitted that the Government does not know if the approach will be effective.

I believe there is merit in the Government trialling this measure, to see if it makes a difference and to see if my concerns are validated in the real world.

And the case can be made that despite all these challenges, any measure to curb truancy is better than none.

That is why I support these bills.

But my most serious concern is not so much about the trial, but more about the nature of trial’s review.

In short, there is limited detail about how the trial will be handled.

No report to parliament.

No role for an Ombudsman or auditor.

Doubt about an independent review.

Not even clarity about if and how the department will release the results.

I have concerns about a bill that provides for a trial to be extended nationwide without independent review, parliamentary scrutiny or even the publication of its outcomes.

I wonder how representative this is?

It is a bit like asking three people with debt problems how much they owe on their credit card and without consultation setting a nationwide limit on credit.

I urge the Government, in coming weeks to clearly addresses this issue of proper, public and independent review of the trial, prior to its broader implementation.

Not because it will win my vote and not because it will change the Senate’s vote – but because it is the responsible thing to do.

That said, I indicate that I will support this bill and will be seeking information from the Minister in coming months to monitor the outcomes of this trial.