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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5656:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 26), after the heading to division 1, insert:

124AA Application

        (1)    This Part applies only in respect of attendance at a school in a declared community.

        (2)    The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a community is a declared community for the purposes of this section.

        (3)    For the purposes of this section, a community may be:

             (a)    a named rural or urban population centre with no more than 15 schools in the affected area; or

             (b)    a region defined by geographical boundaries with a population not exceeding 10 000 people.

        (4)    The Minister may determine no more than eight communities to be declared communities for the purposes of this section.

        (5)    A determination made under subsection (2) ceases to have effect 12 months after it commences, at which time this Part ceases to apply in respect of that community.

This amendment relates to the trials as part of this legislation. I also have some questions that I would like to ask the government. Firstly, could the minister tell me if the Social Inclusion Board was consulted about this legislation. If they were, what were their comments and recommendations and did they in fact support the bill?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Inclusion Board has been consulted about this measure and is not supportive.

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

So they agree with the opinion of the Greens that this is not part of delivering the government’s social inclusion agenda?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot expand on my answer any more than I have provided.

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

Although the minister said this was simple legislation to ensure that all Australian children go to school, and that these were trials—and I will get to the issue of the trials shortly—this is in fact only about children of families on income support. So it is incorrect to say that it is about all Australian children.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within the trial areas, this program applies to all citizens who are on income support.

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

Minister, what you said about this program applying to all Australian children was incorrect, because it only applies to the children of families on income support. I go to the issue of it being simple; in fact, it is very complex, and I need to ask a series of questions to try and work my way through some of the complex issues this legislation throws up. One of those many issues concerns families who have their income suspended. I understand from answers that DEWR have previously given during the committee inquiry that, in most cases when people are suspended, they will get their payments restored if they comply within days. Can the minister assure the Senate that, when families do have their income suspended and they then comply within days, they will have their payments reinstated by Centrelink and receive the moneys owed to them within days?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that assurance can be given.

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

If a parent who is grandfathered under DSP has their payments suspended or cancelled and they then comply, so they reconnect with Centrelink and their payments are restored, will they still be eligible for DSP or will they be moved onto Newstart?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

DSP, if it is within 13 weeks.

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

Thank you for the answer. If their payments are suspended and they do not reconnect, they will no longer be considered as part of the grandfathered group. Is that correct?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Centrelink will make repeated efforts within the 13-week period to ensure that people are actually attending school and that they are brought back into the system forthwith. If it is beyond the 13-week period, their payments will cease.

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

When you talk about Centrelink making efforts to address the truancy issue, my understanding from the committee inquiry is that Centrelink’s job is basically to comply with the information that is passed to them from the education department in either the NT or Western Australia. This is a tool to help the states implement a truancy program or a school re-engagement program. Do the state, the education department and the school continue the engagement with the family or is that passed over to Centrelink?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be both.

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

What requirements are there on the schools to ensure that they contact families and offer them help to tackle truancy problems?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the intention of the Commonwealth Department of Education to have bilateral arrangements with each of the school systems in Australia to ensure that these arrangements are understood and that the obligations of the system are actually understood in terms of the trial.

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

I am not trying to verbal you here, Minister, but you just said ‘all the states of Australia’. Do you mean the states in which this program is being applied or all the states of Australia?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I referred to the systems that are affected by the trial areas. That means the states of Western Australia and the Northern Territory and the independent Catholic systems that operate within those particular districts in which the trials are operating.

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

When is it intended to develop these bilaterals? Presumably, they will be in place before the trial starts.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that these bilaterals are already well developed and that the department is looking to finalise them in the near future.

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

I would like to look at the issues around the development of attendance strategies. Is the Commonwealth requiring the development of these attendance strategies before the trial starts? We know that the NT does not have an attendance strategy. I found that out during the committee inquiry. Is that the intention?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are probably already aware that Western Australia, in particular, has a highly developed attendance strategy. I am sure you would be aware of the details of that so I will not labour the point. The intention of the Commonwealth is to work cooperatively with the state and with the Northern Territory on similar terms and to be able to intercede at the appropriate points within their strategies as they are already in existence.

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

With all due respect, Minister, you did not answer all of my question. You answered part of it on Western Australia but you did not answer it in terms of the Northern Territory or the other state or territory in which the eighth trial is to take place.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The officials advise me that the other state that you referred to is yet to be determined. In the case of the  Northern Territory, there is advanced work on the development of their strategy, and the principles I outlined in my previous answer will also apply.

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

So will you be requiring that to be completed before the trial starts?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

If the eighth site is not in Western Australia or in the Northern Territory but in another state, will that be a requirement on that particular system as well?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Is assistance going to be offered to the schools that are affected by this program to engage in implementing the state attendance strategy?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The respective state authorities or territory authorities will be working with the schools to ensure the appropriate support is provided.

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

Does that mean that the schools will have in place their own attendance strategies before the trial starts?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be expected that that would be the case.

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

A lot of the evidence we received during the inquiry indicated that there was a lot of thought that the schools in fact had insufficient resources to adequately implement an attendance strategy. It was suggested that that is why they do not have adequate attendance strategies, because they do not have the resources. What is the government’s intended approach if in fact that is the case and schools do not have adequate resources to implement an attendance strategy?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice that I have is that it is primarily a matter of responsibility for the state, or the territory in this case. However, if it can be demonstrated that the parents and the school are doing all they can within the existing resources, there would be no penalty applied.

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

Once Centrelink is notified of nonattendance of a particular child, will Centrelink be obliged to determine if the school does have an appropriate attendance strategy before they take any further action?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those principles are already identified in the bilateral agreement.

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

The principles that they in fact do have to take that into account?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

How is Centrelink going to confirm with state and territory education authorities whether a particular notification of an individual complies with the actual state or territory attendance rules?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The normal provisions of truancy arrangements apply—that is, it is the obligation of parents to ensure that children are at school. If a student is reported not to be at school, investigation will be launched as to the reasons. If it can be demonstrated that there are justifiable reasons then no action, of course, would be taken. If it cannot be demonstrated that there are reasonable reasons then the processes would cut in.

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

I need to ask some questions about reasonable excuses in a minute. Where they are taking reasonable steps but there is a dispute between the school and a family and the school nominates the child anyway, what provisions will Centrelink use to deal with that? I am thinking particularly around, for example, a child missing school because of bullying and the school not acknowledging that as an issue. Believe me, that happens; I know from personal experience. What steps does Centrelink take then to deal with that issue?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The normal process that would apply would be that discussions would be held between Centrelink and the school authorities and the school itself. If there is an allegation of bullying, that may well in itself constitute a reasonable explanation for why children are not in attendance.

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

As I understand it, on the reasonableness of the reason for a child not attending, the school makes that decision. The school then tells Centrelink, and I will get to the steps it takes in a minute. But what opportunity does a parent then get to say, ‘This is the reason’? I understood it was the school doing the reasonableness steps, not Centrelink.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that once a notification has been made by the education authorities—that is the primary action that is required—Centrelink can make a determination as to whether or not there is a reasonable explanation for the child’s absence from school. If the parent is unhappy with that explanation, the normal appeal provisions of the Social Security Act apply.

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

If I have got this right, what happens is that if it is to address issues like bullying et cetera it will get to the point where their income is suspended before they get to appeal.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am advised that is not the case. The payment is not suspended pending an appeal. In fact, there is an opportunity to intervene prior to the suspension of payments.

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

I appreciate the answers. This is about trying to help make sure parents are exercising their responsibilities to try and get their kids to school. In an answer to a question of DEEWR during the committee inquiry about parents getting help to address some of these issues, because in many of these cases the parents will be aware that their kids are not getting to school and want to start dealing with that, DEEWR indicated that a person can seek support from Centrelink social workers at any time to help them with attendance issues. What is meant by ‘any time’? Does it have to apply to parents once notification has been made? Or, if parents are recognising it as an issue that they need help with, can they go to Centrelink at any time and not have to wait for notification?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that parents in the particular trial area will be provided with full information on the services that are available through Centrelink and the availability of such services within that trial area.

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

With all due respect, Minister, that did not quite answer my question. You said that there would be a leaflet sent out to people in the trial area, but can people then at any time, if they recognise that there is a pending problem, go into Centrelink and seek help?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is yes.

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

Thank you. DEEWR answered another question—No. 25—about individual learning plans. Will students be offered this as part of this process?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator referred to a previously answered question, No. 25, and the answer has not changed.

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

I thank the minister for the answer. I have asked this question before but we have not received a totally satisfactory answer. It is the issue about how the transfer of information from the school to Centrelink is going to be done. I have expressed concern previously that we are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation that has quite serious privacy issues that have not been resolved. We have not to date had an adequate answer about how this is going to happen. Is the school going to be given a list of the people on income support in the area or the students who are at the school whose parents are on income support, or do they provide to Centrelink the names of every child in their school who is playing truant?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try to answer your question. It is the decision of the education authority to notify that a student has not attended school. It is then the responsibility of Centrelink to determine whether or not that particular student’s parents receive income support. There should be no question of privacy involved because there is not actually a list provided to the school of students whose families are receiving income support through Centrelink.

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

I very much appreciate the clarification of the fact that the schools will not have a list of the children on income support. But that raises another issue: does that mean that the education authorities will then be providing the name of every student who plays truant to Centrelink, whether they are on income support or not?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decision to report a student as being absent will of course be in the hands of the education authority—the school. It is Centrelink that makes the decision as to whether or not that person’s family is actually in receipt of income support. I am advised that if the student’s parents do not receive income support the records on that matter will be destroyed. It is up to Centrelink to make a determination as to whether or not the explanation for the student’s absence is satisfactory.

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

That is presumably after the school has already engaged in the process with the parents about whether they have taken reasonable steps and there is a reasonable excuse for the absence.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is yes.

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

I promise that I am trying to make this as quick as possible. I understand that there will be policy guidelines developed that include examples of special circumstances and reasonable excuses and what count as reasonable efforts by parents and carers to encourage attendance at school. I am wondering if those guidelines are available.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the guidelines are still being finalised.

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

Is it safe to assume that these guidelines are going to go through a consultation process, and will they be in place before the trial starts?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These guidelines are being prepared as part of a consultation process. They will be published and they will be disallowable instruments.

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

Thank you. I appreciate your answer, Minister. I would like to ask a couple of specific questions about the trials and the nature of the trials. Have you determined the eighth community yet?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a decision of government and that has yet to be made.

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

Could you confirm how long the trial will continue?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is intended that the trials will continue for 12 months.

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

What evaluation process has been put in place for these trials?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The normal evaluation processes would apply and of course the particular details are still in the process of development.

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

Will there be a consultation process with academics with the relevant expertise around the trials? I understand that the concept of the trials was in fact not developed with academics with relevant expertise.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is anticipated that elements of the evaluation will be undertaken by expert academic opinion. The number of persons consulted and their involvement are yet to be determined, but it is expected that there will be an opportunity.

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

What will you define as a success?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the intention is to evaluate the trials against the attendance records—the baseline as it appears now and how it will appear in 12 months time. Attempts will also be made to evaluate attitudinal change and behavioural change within the trial area.

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

What will be considered a successful increase in attendance?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention here is to increase the level of attendance at school. That is how we will measure success.

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

What measures will be put in place to measure any negative impacts? What will be considered a negative impact? For example, you may get, say, a one per cent increase in attendance rates but there may also be a significant increase in domestic violence, in family conflict or in a number of other social issues I could mention. Are you measuring those issues? What degree will you consider acceptable?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention here is to ensure that a full range of evaluative measures are undertaken, including the take-up of service provision by other agencies within the trial area and the effect on behaviour within the family. I am advised to go to such questions as domestic violence and other antisocial activity that might occur within the trial areas, as much as that can be done

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

Will that include assessment and working with emergency relief providers, for example, to measure the increase in access to emergency relief? I know they are certainly expecting that in the Cannington area.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where Centrelink is aware of a referral, that will, of course, be part of the evaluation.

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

Does that mean you will not be going to those emergency relief organisations and asking them if there has been an increase in people seeking emergency relief?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I think you would appreciate that these social questions are quite complex. While it will be difficult to ascertain that this particular trial will be predominantly effective in measuring changes in that area, it is an intention of the program that there be discussions around these issues.

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

I promise I will finish very shortly. These are trials of a particular technique intending to encourage increased school attendance. It is a punitive approach, a sanctions-based approach. Where are you comparing this approach to a positive approach? Are you, in fact, carrying out the same sorts of trials to measure the positive impacts, which we know actually work? We already know from looking at overseas examples that the punitive approach does not work. Where are you comparing like against like to measure what works best?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This would be described, I am sure, as more of a carrot-and-stick approach than a punitive approach. The comparative data will be sought from schools across the trial areas. That means measuring schools that have poor attendance records against schools that have good attendance records and looking at the reasons why that is the case.

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

So you are not, in fact, carrying out trials of any of the more positive, incentive based approaches that have more carrots than sticks. You are not carrying out that form of assessment. You have chosen to trial and assess only one particular approach.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not see that the approaches are mutually exclusive.

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

Minister, this would go a lot more quickly if you answered my question. I asked: are you conducting trials of a similar nature, taking a carrot approach? Are you comparing like with like?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the government’s belief that it is.

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

Could you please point me towards the eight areas where you are, in fact, trialling an alternative, incentive based approach rather than the carrot-and-stick approach?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have been through this as best as I can. I do not know that I can add anything further to what I have already said.

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

You cannot tell me that, because you are not doing that. That is the answer. You are not actually comparing this approach to a positive, incentives based approach, which a lot of Australian and overseas evidence shows actually increases school attendance more effectively. I still have a lot of questions but I think I have taken up a great deal of the Senate’s time asking these questions. I note that there are still many unanswered questions around how this trial is going to operate and how it is going to be evaluated. You cannot possibly consider these trials adequate if you are not trialling them against something else, particularly something which we know, from overseas evidence, works better.

Greens amendment (1) seeks to actually do what the government says it is doing. The government said that this is a trial in eight communities—we are being asked to pass the legislation before we know the eighth community—and that it is a trial for 12 months. What this amendment seeks to do is ensure that that is in fact the case, because the legislation at the moment is not based around a trial. It is legislation that can be rolled out across Australia to any community. It could be coming to you anytime. So Greens amendment (1) seeks to actually do what the government says it is doing, which is making this a trial for 12 months.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will save the chamber’s time by saying that the government is not able to support any of the amendments being proposed by the Greens. This is for the reasons outlined in my summing up speech and in the answers to the questions that have been posed today.

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

I am wondering why the government is so insistent on saying these are trials for 12 months when the legislation is not based around a trial approach and can go across Australia. I find it hard to understand why the government is bringing in a piece of legislation that is so expansive when it says it is only really doing trials and that they will then be evaluating those trials.

Question negatived.

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5656:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 26), after the heading to division 1, insert:

124AB Review of operation of Part

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Part to be conducted as soon as possible after the first anniversary of the commencement of this Part and completed within 4 months of that anniversary.

        (2)    The review must report on:

             (a)    changes in truancy rates against baseline data and against comparable populations outside the trial areas;

             (b)    changes in truancy rates for families within affected communities based on income source and family type;

             (c)    comparison to outcomes of incentive-based initiatives;

             (d)    number of notifications given, how quickly families responded and number of families breached;

             (e)    impacts on the circumstances and well-being of those families involved including financial hardship, use of emergency support services, loss of housing or utilities, impacts on other children, family conflict;

              (f)    impacts on social services within the region including level of demand, level of services delivered, changes in the types of services delivered and level of unmet services;

             (g)    impacts on schools including concerns of teachers and principals, level of demand on school services, and changes in relationships between schools and families;

             (h)    impact on and level of service delivered by State or Territory education departments to support children at risk, teachers and families to tackle truancy;

              (i)    relative impacts on Indigenous and non-Indigenous families;

              (j)    relative impacts on migrant families, particularly humanitarian migrants within the Cannington region;

             (k)    the level of awareness and understanding of the measures of affected families;

              (l)    factors relating to the interaction with welfare quarantining and child protection measures;

            (m)    any other matters considered relevant.

        (3)    The review must be conducted by a panel which must comprise not less than 5 persons, including:

             (a)    a person with expertise in child development;

             (b)    a person with expertise in primary and secondary education;

             (c)    a person with expertise in child protection;

             (d)    a person with expertise in community services;

             (e)    a person with expertise in Indigenous communities;

              (f)    a person with expertise in humanitarian migrant communities.

        (4)    The panel must give the Minister a written report of the review, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the report.

This amendment seeks to put in place a review of the operation of this act. The Greens are not satisfied that the government will carry out an adequate evaluation of these so-called trials, and the information we have received—both today, through this process, and through the committee inquiry and answers to questions on notice—does not satisfy us that there will be an adequate and proper evaluation of these so-called trials. So this amendment is to put in place a review of the operation of this act to ensure that there is, in fact, a legislative base for a proper review so that we can be assured that any review will be effective.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5656:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 26), after the heading to division 1, insert:

124AB Interpretation of notice requirements

                 Despite any other provision in this Part:

             (a)    any notice given by the Secretary to a schooling requirement person in accordance with this Part must be in plain English or in the language of the person;

             (b)    where a period of time is determined under this Part by reference to the giving of a notice to a person, the period of time does not commence until:

                   (i)    the notice is received by the person; and

                  (ii)    the person has had an opportunity to meet with Centrelink staff.

This amendment is about notice requirements and interpretations of notice requirements. The amendment will ensure that a notice given by the secretary is in plain English or in the language of the person. Quite a lot of this legislation is based on ensuring that parents and the people involved know exactly what is going on. This amendment is about ensuring that notices are given in plain, easy to understand English or, where more appropriate, in the language of that particular person. When you consider that this legislation is largely targeted at Aboriginal communities—in particular, six communities in the Northern Territory as well as Aboriginal communities in Cannington, where there are also large culturally and linguistically diverse communities as a result of there being a lot of refugees living there—it is appropriate that the notices be given to people in a language that is appropriate.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.