SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SCHOOLING
REQUIREMENTS) BILL 2008
INQUIRY
1.1
On 3 September 2008, the Senate, on the recommendation of the
Selection of Bills Committee (Report No. 9 of 2008), referred the provisions of
the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling
Requirements) Bill 2008 to the Community Affairs Committee (the committee) for inquiry
and report. The bill was introduced into the Senate on 15 September 200 8.
1.2
The reasons given for the Selection of Bills Committee's referral of the
provisions of the bill to the committee were for it to examine the 'effectiveness
of the proposed measures and the impact on children and families'.
1.3
The committee received 31 submissions relating to the bill and these are
listed at Appendix 1. The committee considered the bill at public hearings in Perth
on 9 October 2008 and Canberra on 3 November 2008. Details of the
public hearings are referred to in Appendix 2. The submissions and Hansard
transcript of evidence may be accessed through the committee’s website at https://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca.
BILL
Provisions
1.4
The bill implements the Improving School Enrolment and Attendance
through Welfare Reform Measure (SEAM) announced in the 2008–09 Budget. It targets
'parental responsibilities in relation to the school enrolment and attendance
of their children'.[1]
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and the
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA) (the departments) explained that 'SEAM has been designed as a trial
to help build the currently limited evidence base on the impact of a welfare
conditionality approach to improving school enrolment and attendance amongst
the children of welfare recipients'.[2]
1.5
The purpose of the bill is to encourage parents in receipt of income
support payments to ensure that their children are enrolled and attend school
as required by state or territory laws. The proposed legislation allows for suspension
or cancellation of income support payments to parents who do not take
reasonable steps to that effect. The bill outlines circumstances where
suspension or cancellation of income support payments would occur, and notes
the need to consider individual circumstances.[3]
The departments noted:
The SEAM legislation and policies have been drafted to ensure
parents and families who do the right thing are not adversely affected and that
parents not meeting their responsibilities are offered support to do so.[4]
1.6
The bill refers to income support payments, not income supplement
payments.[5]
Thus, the provisions will not affect Family Tax Benefit (including any rent
assistance component)[6],
nor income supplement payments under A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) Act 1999, such as the child care benefit.[7]
Payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 affected by the
proposed legislation include age, partner and invalidity service pensions,
income support supplement and the Defence Force income support allowance.[8]
1.7
In relation to school enrolment, parents need to inform Centrelink of
the school at which their child is enrolled.[9]
Regarding attendance, schools are required to monitor children's attendance and
report irregularities to Centrelink.[10]
In both cases, if the parents do not take reasonable steps to that effect, and
they do not have a reasonable excuse or a special circumstance for
non-compliance, and have not engaged adequately with the school regarding their
children's attendance, the legislation allows for the provision of notices.[11]
The notice must provide details of how to comply with the notice, initial
compliance period (including that there is possibility of extension) and the
consequences for non-compliance.[12]
1.8
In order to avoid sanctions, the parent needs to comply with the notice
within the compliance period (at least 14 days for enrolment notices and 28
days for attendance notices) or extended compliance period. Should the parent
not comply, income support payments can be suspended for up to 13 weeks. The
decision to suspend payments is made by the Secretary.[13]
Full back payment is restored as soon as parents comply. Departments commented:
It is expected that in most cases this would occur within a very
short period, usually within the next fortnightly payment instalment period.
Provided that this occurs within a 13 week period, the parent's payment will be
fully back paid. Centrelink will have the ability to direct back payments to
specific expenses or to make back payments available to families by instalment.[14]
1.9
The legislation provides for payments to continue to parents who make an
effort to address their children's school attendance:
If the parent engages with the school (even if the child's
attendance does not improve), the parent will be considered to be fully meeting
their responsibilities and there will be no possibility of a payment suspension
under the measure...This recognises that parents may be constructively working
with schools but are unable to change the behaviour of (particularly older)
children.[15]
1.10
According to the departments, Centrelink social workers will assist parents
potentially facing suspension and assess whether the parent has a reasonable
excuse or special circumstance for non-compliance.[16]
1.11
Should the parent not have complied within the suspension period or had
a reasonable excuse or special circumstance or taken reasonable steps to engage
with the authorities to address the situation, their income support payments
may be cancelled by the Secretary:
...whether or not it is appropriate to cancel a person's payment
as opposed to continuing the suspension of a payment needs to be carefully
considered and it is appropriate that the Secretary take into account that the
purposes of the legislation should be fulfilled and that cancellation is
rational and proportionate in the circumstances.[17]
1.12
The Minister for Education explained that suspension and cancellation
will only be 'used as a last resort following repeated attempts to engage a
parent over a considerable period of time'.[18]
Departments explained that a 'decision to cancel payment would never be taken
lightly':
...there may be circumstances where it becomes apparent that, after
13 weeks of suspension, the parent has no intention of trying to meet their responsibilities
to get their children to school and no reasonable excuse or special circumstance
exists. Payment cancellation may be appropriate in such circumstances. It is
important to note that those people who cannot comply with the measure would have
previously been identified by social workers and so will not reach the cancellation
stage.[19]
1.13
Following a payment cancellation, affected persons would need to reapply
for the payment. The Secretary may also reconsider the decision at his or her
own initiative.[20]
1.14
The departmental submission made clear that state and territory
education authorities remain responsible for school attendance and for 'what
constitutes acceptable and unacceptable absences from school'. They have the
ability to prosecute parents 'who persistently and without good reason refuse
to meet their obligations'.[21]
The proposed legislation is aimed at complementing these existing strategies.[22]
Pilot
1.15
The bill allows for a school attendance and enrolment pilot in six
Northern Territory communities—Hermannsburg, Wallace Rockhole, Tiwi Islands,
Katherine, Kathrine town camps and Wadeye—and two metropolitan locations (including
Cannington, WA; the other location is yet to be determined), from January 2009
onwards.[23]
The trial sites were selected in consultation with the Northern Territory and
Western Australian Governments respectively.[24]
1.16
The pilot scheme will be evaluated in 2010. The Minister for Education noted
that 'if the trials are successful...the legislation will allow for the national
rollout of the policy'.[25]
Legislation to be amended
1.17
The bill amends the following acts: A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) Act 1999 (FAA), Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 (SSAA), Student Assistance Act 1973 (SAA),
and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA).
A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) Act 1999
1.18
The amendments to A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (FAA)
'ensure that a person continues to be considered as "receiving" a
payment during a schooling requirement suspension period' and is thus eligible
for the family tax benefit.[26]
It further provides that if the continuous suspension exceeds 13 weeks and
overlaps two income years, the person 'will be deemed to have been receiving
the payment' for the first income year and not the second, to 'avoid delaying
or revisiting a decision regarding the reconciliation of family tax benefit or
child care benefit for the first financial year'.[27]
Social Security (Administration)
Act 1999
1.19
The amendments are greatest in the Social Security (Administration)
Act 1999 (SSAA). Item 6 amends the legislation with a new part, Part 3C,
that contains 'substantive provisions relating to schooling requirements'.
These include definitions for who is affected by the amendments and what are considered
schooling requirements payments. They also provide for ministerial legislative
instrument determinations relating to school enrolment and attendance.[28]
1.20
Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 3C relate to school enrolment and school
attendance provisions respectively. They allow for provision of notices for
non-compliance and provide for an extension to the compliance period if personal
or external circumstances require. They also provide for the suspension and
cancellation of payments and their reinstatement.[29]
Division 4 allows for the exchange of information between schools, departments
and Centrelink.[30]
Student Assistance Act 1973
1.21
The bill also amends the Student Assistance Act 1973 (SAA).[31]
Under the bill, the information collected to administer the ABSTUDY scheme
'needs to be managed in accordance with' the SAA. It amends information about
access to enrolment and attendance records and disclosure and use of
information relating to the school enrolment or attendance of a student.[32]
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
1.22
Finally, the bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
(VEA). It outlines the payments under VEA that fall into the category of schooling
requirement payments, and allows for Centrelink to administer these payments on
behalf of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to 'facilitate the effective and
streamlined administration of the measure' and 'ensure consistency'. The
payment and administration of veterans' entitlement payments remain subject to
the VEA.[33]
Financial impact
1.23
The financial impact of the bill is $0.1 million in 2007–08 financial
year, $16.7 million in 2008–09 financial year and $0.8 million in 2009–10
financial year. In total, this budget measure amounts to $17.6 million. The
2008–09 figure includes funding for the school attendance and enrolment pilot commencing
in January 2009.[34]
BACKGROUND
1.24
In its election promises and the 2008–09 Budget, the Labor government's
agenda included several measures relating to families and education, including
the 'education revolution' initiative. A commitment to improve school enrolment
and attendance forms part of this initiative.[35]
1.25
The Minister for Education noted that nationally up to 20,000 children
of compulsory school age may not be registered or attending school.[36]
For example, in Northern Territory Indigenous communities:
There are an estimated 2,000 children, or 20 per cent of
compulsory school age Indigenous students in the NT, who are not enrolled in
school. A further 2,500 are not attending regularly. About 8,000 Indigenous
children attend school only 60 per cent of the time on average.[37]
1.26
It is widely understood that school attendance affects school
achievement and employment opportunities, outcomes for individuals, and, more
widely, communities and the society:
Analysis of international research indicates that poor
attendance is associated with lower academic outcomes and early school leaving.
Studies also demonstrate that children without regular attendance can
experience economic disadvantage for life, increased levels of unemployment,
increased likelihood of engagement in criminal activity, increased likelihood
of substance abuse, poorer physical and mental health in adulthood and
increased likelihood of having children who exhibit problem behaviour.[38]
1.27
In the following sections, the committee outlines some of the recent or
current initiatives that link welfare payments to school enrolment or
attendance.
Northern Territory Emergency
Response
1.28
The Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) was established in July
2007. The aims of the response were to 'protect children and make communities
safe', with the longer-term aim of creating 'a better future for Aboriginal
communities in the Northern Territory'.[39]
1.29
The program encompassed education enhancement initiatives that tie income
management measures to the school enrolment and attendance of children, allowing
for 'the quarantining of up to 100 per cent of welfare payments'. While
compulsory income management formed a key part of the NTER, the tie to school
enrolment and attendance was never implemented, seemingly due to 'complex legal
and administrative issues particularly relating to flow of data'.[40]
This, according to the NTER review board, led the Labor government to develop a
different approach, which is to be implemented through the Schooling Requirements
Bill.[41]
1.30
Some income support recipients in the communities affected by the NTER
compulsory income management might also come within the provisions of the Schooling
Requirements Bill.[42]
Cannington
1.31
A similar overlap is likely to occur in Cannington, WA. It has been
selected as a trial site under the proposed legislation but it is also part of the
joint effort of the Australian and WA Governments to implement income
management under the child protection initiative.[43]
The child protection initiative is linked to school enrolment and attendance
through the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment
Reform) Act 2007.[44]
1.32
During the inquiry, the committee noted that there was confusion between
the measures of the NTER, the child protection initiative and the proposed
legislation. It is important to note that income management—used in the NTER
and Cannington child protection trial—is not part of the proposed Schooling Requirements
Bill. This bill only introduces the possibility of income suspension and
cancellation.[45]
However, in communities where both regimes are trialled or in use, some overlap
between these measures is likely to occur. The department explained that in
addition to current school attendance rates, the Cannington site was selected
to examine 'the possible advantages, in terms of evaluation, of a partial
overlap with the Child Protection measure trial in the region'.[46]
Halls Creek
1.33
Many submissions to this inquiry referred to the Halls Creek, WA, trials
undertaken in 2005 and 2006 to address school enrolment and attendance. In the
first trial, which included a threat of sanctions for non-compliance, school attendance
rates increased. However, due to the low number of participants, submitters
indicated that the results 'should be interpreted cautiously'.[47]
1.34
The second trial, 'Engaging Families', took place in 2006. It aimed to
increase parents' work-related activities and encourage them to improve their
children's school attendance.[48]
The trial was conducted on a voluntary participation basis, without the threat
of sanctions, and was accompanied by 'highly intensive and continuous support
on the ground'. The departments noted that 'There was no evidence that the
approach trialled...resulted in an improvement in children's school attendance'.[49]
Overseas programs
1.35
A number of witnesses informed the committee of overseas programs
linking schooling requirements to welfare payments. In the US and the UK, programs
mainly focussed on school completion or teenage parents' education, and thus provide
limited evidence for this inquiry.[50]
ACOSS reported on the Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) program which in some
Latin American and Caribbean countries provides incentives and additional
payments to parents for compliance. Results showed that while enrolments had
increased, attendance had not.[51]
Evaluations of these programs emphasised 'the importance of ensuring the
availability of high quality education and health services'.[52]
1.36
ACOSS noted that the overseas incentive-based models have had some
success; however, the evidence base for sanctions approaches is much weaker.[53]
Sanctions combined with case management, support services and financial
incentives has had 'limited but positive results'.[54]
Mr Graham Carters, Deputy Secretary, Employment and Policy, DEEWR, acknowledged
the lack of evidence from overseas or domestic trials on the effectiveness of
the proposed approach but argued that 'that is all the more reason for the
trial rather than reason not to have one'.[55]
ISSUES
1.37
In this section, the committee discusses concerns and comments made by
witnesses during the inquiry about the effectiveness of the bill and its likely
impacts. Before turning to specific issues, the committee notes some of the general
concerns raised about the bill.
General comments
1.38
Most submitters expressed their support for the government's intention
with the bill, that is, the provision of education to children and the
reduction of truancy rates.[56]
However, all but two submissions noted their reservations or objected to provisions
of the bill on various grounds.[57]
1.39
Witnesses pointed to a lack of evidence supporting the measures in the
proposed legislation, that is, suspending or cancelling welfare payments for children's
non-attendance at school. They noted that a number of studies and research have
concluded that a punitive approach has no or little effect on school attendance
and that targeting parents does not necessarily improve the child's school
attendance rate.[58]
1.40
Regarding the overall legislation and pilot programs, ACOSS questioned
the tough measures proposed in the legislation:
There is no evidence to suggest that Australia has significantly
higher than average rates of non-enrolment or attendance, which raises
questions about the justifications for severe sanctions to address the issues
and for proposals to roll these measures out nationally if the trials are successful.[59]
1.41
It further pointed out that 'there are significant problems with the
data, which lacks national consistency, such that the scale of the problem is
difficult to determine'.[60]
It submitted that moves to improve school attendance data are underway through
the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
and through commissioned research by the Commonwealth to 'examine effective
strategies' and recommend initiatives.
1.42
Several submitters and witnesses argued that the proposed legislation will
have negative unintended consequences and may be 'disproportionate to the
intended aim of realising children's right to education'.[61]
Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (ALS) argued that the bill will 'further
alienate Aboriginal parents and children from the school community rather than
increase their participation'.[62]
Ms Kate Allingham, Policy Officer, ALS, summarised this sentiment in the
following way:
...with this legislation the negative I think will far outweigh
the positive. It will not just affect the children, it is going to affect
entire families and entire communities, and increase the problems that already
exist in those communities.[63]
1.43
At the committee's public hearing Mr Carters acknowledged that the
government does not yet know whether the proposed approach will be effective,
which is why the pilot program is being introduced in the proposed legislation and
used to test whether the suspension of payments is a workable approach.[64]
1.44
ACOSS commented that trials can be useful if they are well designed and
based on 'best available' evidence; and when the evaluation methodology is well
constructed. However, it considered that in this case, 'on each of these fronts
the measures...fall short'.[65]
Ms Helen Wodak, Advocacy Manager, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
(NAAJA), noted that one of their major concerns is that 'everyone knows and has
acknowledged that NT remote education is in crisis and yet we are still seeing
the bill being implemented at this particular time'.[66]
1.45
Ms Leanne Strommen, Executive Manager, Centrecare, suggested that the
government should be 'trialling a combination of supports and services that we
know do work'.[67]
Mr Ian Carter, Chief Executive Officer, Anglicare, agreed noting that trialling
only one model was inadequate. He provided an example:
We were involved in the one in Mirrabooka...We could adopt a
similar model and actually allow organisations and communities to come
together, using something like a results based accountability model. You would
be surprised at what you get. If you put in a good evaluation, and research
methodology, it will be evaluating success from around the country from a range
of methodologies.[68]
Suspension and cancellation of
welfare payments
1.46
The provisions for suspending or cancelling income support payments were
the primary concern of submitters and witnesses.
1.47
ACOSS observed that the 13-week suspension period proposed in the
legislation is 'unprecedented in Australian social security legislation'. It
was concerned about the tough penalty regime, particularly when 'the evidence
about the effectiveness of income support withdrawal and legal sanctions...is
mixed'. ACOSS was of the opinion that the suspension of payments is likely to
increase rather than decrease the risks of social exclusion.[69]
It argued:
...payment suspension will be directly counter to the objective of
the policy by making it impossible for families to meet the costs involved in
getting children to school, for example, transportation.[70]
1.48
The departments noted that the proposed legislation 'contains a number
of protections prior to the potential application of a payment suspension',
including 'consideration of whether the parent has a reasonable excuse or
special circumstance'.[71]
National Welfare Rights Network submitted that 'it may only
be after a suspension has been imposed that the family's circumstances become
known'.[72]
1.49
Mr Carters stated:
...there is absolutely no intention to suspend anybody's payment
until they...have been given significant opportunities to undertake whatever
action may be necessary to enrol their children and to ensure that their
attendance is there...
1.50
He further noted that attendance is state and territory governments'
responsibility:
...it is their call on what 'satisfactory attendance' means, and
it will be up to them to decide who they do report to Centrelink, if anybody. At
that stage it will be a matter of undertaking discussions with Centrelink
social workers.'[73]
1.51
Mr Carters explained that the suspension of payments has been 'quite
successful in the past in getting people re-engaged' and that 'there would be
very, very few people' who would be suspended for the full 13 weeks.[74]
A review of the bill noted that 'in most cases full arrears will be made'.[75]
Responding to concerns about the timeliness of processing applications and
payments,[76]
Mr Robert Hall, Business Manager, Centrelink, assured that monies will be 'reinstated
to the customer as quickly as possible'.[77]
Affected payment categories
1.52
The committee noted that there was considerable confusion about which
welfare payments come within the scope of the proposed legislation.
1.53
According to DEEWR, even during suspension of their income support
payments, families will have access to the Family Tax Benefit (FTB), including
any rent assistance.[78]
They also retain income supplement payments under the FAA, such as the child
care benefit.[79]
This is in contrast with existing income management arrangements where both
income support pension and benefits and income supplement payments like Family
Tax Benefit Part A are affected.[80]
The committee notes that the provisions of this bill only affect income support
payments, not income supplement payments. A review of the bill noted
that had the provisions included the latter, 'they would have applied to a
greater number of families'.[81]
Other suspension and cancellation concerns
1.54
Submitters and witnesses expressed concern about the need for parents to
reapply for a welfare payment if the payment has been cancelled under the
proposed legislation. This differs to a suspension, in which case the payment will
be reinstated once evidence of compliance has been provided.[82]
Concerns were raised that in some cases a person's eligibility for a particular
payment category might change following a cancellation.[83]
The departments advised the committee that as long as other eligibility
requirements apply and the parent reapplies for benefits within 12 weeks of
cancellation, the parent's entitlements remain the same.[84]
1.55
Other concerns related to the effect of the proposed legislation on vulnerable
parents or guardians, such as those with a disability or those living in drug
or alcohol abuse or domestic violence conditions. National Welfare Rights
Network noted that currently those with limited capacity and receiving income
support payments could be 'exempted either fully or partially from certain
participation requirements' to receive their payments. It was unclear whether
similar exemptions would be permitted under this legislation.[85]
1.56
Australian Human Rights Commission and National Welfare Rights Network
reviewed the proposed legislation from a human rights perspective. The
Australian Human Rights Commission argued that suspension or cancellation of
payments 'contravenes the principle of acting in the best interests of the
child as required under the [Convention on the Rights of the Child]', and
undermines 'a child's right to benefit from social security'.[86]
National Welfare Rights Network observed that 'the Convention on the Rights of
the Child does not require school attendance as a precursor for these rights,
and Australia may fail 'to observe our obligations'.[87]
1.57
Concerns were also raised about the capacity of Centrelink officers to
make informed suspension assessments. Mr David Zarb, Chief Executive Officer,
Playgroup WA, argued that rather than Centrelink officers, child protection
officials should be involved in assessing each family's circumstances;
otherwise, 'there is the potential in this system for people who may not have
the skills, training or capacity to properly assess family functioning making
judgments about how families are functioning'.[88]
Implementation in complex
situations
1.58
Many organisations questioned how the provisions of the bill will be
implemented in situations where a family has several schooling requirement
children but where only one truants;[89]
where both parents receive income support but only one parent is seen to be
encouraging the child to attend school;[90]
or when a child is cared for by two different families, whether both families lose
the benefits or only one.[91]
For example, National Welfare Rights Network asked how much influence does a
welfare recipient, who has at least 14 per cent care of a child, as indicated
in the provisions, have on the child's school attendance if their contact is
only one day per week.[92]
1.59
National Welfare Rights Network also observed that the proposed
legislation might 'create a disincentive' for people to care for their own or
another person's children if that may jeopardise their welfare payments, or
increase welfare payment claims from young people if parents ask their
truanting child to leave home to maintain their own welfare payments.[93]
1.60
Mr Carters addressed some of these concerns, noting that one child's
truanting would not necessarily cause suspension or cancellation of the
family's welfare payments:
It is based on what the family as a whole does...It is a matter of
the parent making their best efforts to get children to enrol at school. If you
have a family of four and three are attending, that is, again, pretty clearly a
pretty strong effort on behalf of the parents to have the children attend. It
would not be necessarily the case that because one of the four does not attend
that the payments would be suspended.[94]
1.61
The Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (CAALAS) and NAAJA
observed, as noted before in relation to NTER and Cannington trials, that some
families could be subject to several welfare payment regimes or compliance
penalties,[95]
or 'caught up in overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities' between states
and the Commonwealth.[96]
National Welfare Rights Network noted that where a family may already have
involvement with an authority, it may not provide information or challenge a
decision 'for fear of further action from child protection authorities—a
particularly sensitive issue for Indigenous communities'.[97]
Targeting particular groups
1.62
A number of witnesses considered the proposed legislation to be discriminatory.
The proposed legislation only affects parents receiving welfare payments and
'differentiates between parents on the basis of income' rather than their
conduct.[98]
ACOSS explained:
...there is no evidence indicating that children in families who
receive income support are more likely to have poor school attendance records
than children in families who are not in receipt of income support payments.[99]
1.63
WACOSS argued that the legislation will thus 'be ineffective in dealing
with truancy in 75% of families around Australia that are not reliant on
welfare payments'.[100]
1.64
Many witnesses commented that the legislation specifically targets
Indigenous Australians, with six of the eight trial sites being predominantly
Indigenous communities.[101]
Answering a question on notice in relation to Cannington, the departments noted
that the selection was not based on the number of Indigenous students in the
location.[102]
Witnesses raised concerns about the application of the proposed legislation
among Indigenous families, some of which are highly mobile and where the responsibilities
for getting children to attend school may be borne by a number of people.[103]
1.65
Witnesses also observed that the proposed legislation is 'likely to
disproportionately affect women, who comprise the majority of parents on income
support'.[104]
1.66
Mr Carters noted that the legislation is not intended to 'unfairly
target people on low incomes'. People receiving income support payments have
been selected for the trials because the 'Australian government has direct
policy leverage to encourage behavioural change'.[105]
He further noted that the trial sites were selected after a consideration of a
'mixture of factors', including different types of schools; existing problems
with enrolment and attendance; and Centrelink presence.[106]
Ambiguity of terminology and lack
of detail
1.67
Witnesses expressed concern over what they perceived as ambiguous terminology
in the legislation and considered it left the legislation open for
interpretation. For example, witnesses argued that it is unclear what
constitutes a 'reasonable excuse' or a 'special circumstance' to be taken into
account in considering non-compliance. Mrs Amanda Hill, Western Australian
Council of State School Organisations, observed:
To date there appears to be no finite list of what is considered
to be reasonable or to be the best efforts of the parents. This cannot be
discretionary for the person responsible for suspending or cancelling payments.[107]
1.68
The Explanatory Memorandum to the bill stated that terminology and
definitions 'will be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders' and
incorporated into accompanying guidelines.[108]
Further, that guidance will be provided to authorities in 'a legislative
instrument determination (if any) made by the Minister under section 124C':
These discretions ensure that a range of circumstances will be
available for consideration by the Secretary or to bind the Secretary (or
delegate) to ensure that decision-making takes into account the individual
circumstances of a person before deciding to suspend or cancel their income
support payment.[109]
1.69
The departments explained that reasonable excuses or special
circumstances could range from a parent's mental illness to issues beyond the
parent's control, such as natural disasters.[110]
'General exemptions' could include 'major personal crisis, major disruption to
the person's home, cultural business and sorry business' [mourning]. Additional
circumstances could include unavailability of appropriate school places in the
area or the school not being a safe environment; health issues with either the
child or the parent; mobility restrictions; and caring responsibilities.[111]
Mr Carters further explained that, in the first instance, the school
principal needs to decide what is reasonable. Should they refer a parent to
Centrelink, it becomes Centrelink's responsibility.[112]
1.70
In Associate Professor Brian Simpson's view, ministerial regulations 'further
[confuse] the relationship between the Federal and State laws, as it is not
clear here whether such reasonable excuses will be consistent with State and
Territory laws'. He questioned whether the excuses outlined in a determination
'can differ logically or sensibly from what is already present in State and
Territory law'.[113]
1.71
Further, National Welfare Rights Network submitted that by including
'important aspects of these provisions' in legislative instruments and
guidelines, they will not be scrutinised before Parliament.[114]
1.72
Witnesses were also uncertain how compliance with the bill's provisions would
be assessed by authorities or 'demonstrated and evidenced by parents'.[115]
For example, as ACOSS noted, 'It is also not clear how many days a child would
need to be attending school again for a parent to be considered compliant with
their obligations'.[116]
According to witnesses, this could result in authorities making decisions on
the basis of subjective views rather than uniform criteria.[117]
Evaluation
1.73
Witnesses, including WACOSS, observed that 'there is very little
information about how the trials will be monitored and evaluated, other than
school attendance levels'; at what stage the trial will be deemed successful;
and how the negative impacts on families will be monitored.[118]
1.74
Mr Carters advised that DEEWR has the overarching responsibility for the
evaluation, with $0.3 million allocated towards undertaking it. He indicated
that while the details of the evaluation are yet to be determined, an
evaluation framework has been developed and the department would conduct the
preparation phase of the trial. The engagement of independent academic bodies in
the evaluation process has not been decided. Mr Carters doubted whether the
evaluation would be independently reviewed but maintained that the department
will be 'careful' in how it undertakes the evaluations.[119]
1.75
Mr Carters explained that the evaluation will look at the effect of the
pilot on the school enrolment and attendance levels and how the parents met
their obligations in this regard. He indicated that the departments have 'a
significant amount of baseline information' regarding attendance rates, number
of students in schools, etc. The evaluation will examine data from relevant
schools in trial sites and undertake focus group studies to seek the views of
people involved, from parents to government officials, in order to assess the
effect of the trial.[120]
Underlying causes of truancy
1.76
A common theme in evidence to the inquiry was the reasons for truancy. A
great number of underlying factors can cause truancy: a lack or shortage of
educational services or infrastructure; poor or lack of transport, particularly
in remote communities; school culture; standard of teaching and teachers;
bullying; health issues; malnutrition; poverty; and a lack of role models to
encourage studying.[121]
Lack of parenting skills was also identified as a problem.[122]
1.77
In relation to the quality of educational infrastructure and teaching
services, ACOSS noted that in some areas:
[it] is so poor that students have little to gain from attending
school. In this context, a sanctions-based policy response that seeks to
increase demand without substantially addressing supply issues is likely to
have little impact.[123]
1.78
According to a US study, 'the geographic location was a stronger
predictor of non-attendance than welfare status and that illness rather than
truancy was the major cause of absence'.[124]
Witnesses noted that seasonal changes in weather, particularly in northern Australia,
should be taken into consideration.[125]
1.79
Mr Carters noted the importance of taking into account the reasons for
non-attendance and stated that there would be a 'fairly rigorous analysis' of
the underlying causes of truancy by both Centrelink and state and territory
governments.[126]
Indigenous issues
1.80
In addition to general underlying causes, Indigenous students often face
further challenges. The evaluation of the Halls Creek Engaging Families
trial found that from an early age, children are encouraged to be independent
and make their own decisions, including whether to go to school or not. This
often limits the parents' influence on their children's school attendance.[127]
1.81
Other challenges include illiteracy, overcrowded housing and factors
such as a lack of infrastructure and services due to the remoteness of the
location.[128]
ALS explained:
Approximately 1 in 5 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples living in remote areas have difficulty understanding or being
understood by service providers...many Aboriginal people cannot read and write.
The process of getting to the local Centrelink office, which can be located
hundreds of kilometres away, speaking to Centrelink staff, filling out the
correct forms and having the correct documents to attach is a very intimidating
and difficult process for many Aboriginal people.[129]
1.82
The review of the NTER went further, stating that 'there is an education
system failure in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities'.[130]
Addressing underlying causes
1.83
Generally, witnesses noted that measures addressing underlying causes
have contributed to an increase in school attendance, and thus, the focus
should be on what is causing the problem of truancy.[131]
1.84
UnitingCare Burnside observed the effect of positive measures:
Measures that build family awareness of the importance of education;
foster parental engagement with children’s learning early in a child’s life;
create relevant and responsive education programs in schools; and address
underlying causes of disengagement from school such as poverty, social
exclusion and locational disadvantage are more likely to have long-term success.[132]
1.85
Witnesses were concerned that the proposed legislation does not address these
factors and may even make some families worse off. WACOSS commented:
Penalising families by cutting welfare payments will not help improve
parenting skills, provide much needed support or make school a more attractive
place. In fact, cutting a family's income may well exacerbate existing poverty
related issues...[133]
1.86
Witnesses outlined several positive measures to improve enrolment and
attendance at schools, such as engaging children through sports and other
activities, including during school holidays,[134] providing skilled teachers and using
culturally appropriate teaching methods and school environment.[135]
A number of witnesses also noted the importance of partnerships between
families, schools, support services and the wider community, including home
visits, community liaison and consistent follow-up.[136]
In addition, witnesses suggested that parents should be taught the importance
of parenting and made aware of their responsibilities in regard to school
enrolment and attendance.[137]
1.87
In particular in relation to Indigenous communities, witnesses pointed
out that attendance rates could improve if schools were more culturally aware
and sensitive to Aboriginal cultures and if teachers were trained to teach
children who have English as their second or third language.[138]
According to ALS, the improvement of the relationship between Aboriginal
parents and schools 'is paramount to increasing the attendance rate of
Aboriginal children'.[139]
Support services
1.88
There was an overall consensus in the evidence to the inquiry that the objectives
of the proposed legislation cannot be reached without proper support mechanisms
for families. Issues ranged from the type and extent of support to provision of
information to those affected by the proposed legislation.
Provision of services
1.89
A number of submitters commented that it is not clear what support
services or programs will be provided to help parents comply with the schooling
requirements and who would provide the services.[140]
1.90
ACOSS was unclear about schools' resources to monitor attendance and to
support families. It noted the potential for 'enormous discrepancies in the
amount of school support that families are provided before being reported to
Centrelink.'[141]
Ms Sue Ash, Chief Executive, WACOSS, proposed that civilian families be
provided with similar supports as those that are provided for Australian
Defence Force (ADF) families who are required to move around the country at
regular intervals.[142]
1.91
The departments acknowledged the importance of support mechanisms and
explained that they have been incorporated into the proposed legislation 'to help
[parents] meet their requirements before any suspension is considered':
Support will be provided, with Centrelink social workers working
with parents to identify any reasonable excuse or special circumstances that
may impact on their ability to comply, as well as liaising with schools and
support agencies to help parents meet their requirements.[143]
1.92
Mr Carters advised that Centrelink will routinely contact any person in
a suspension period to 'see if any support can be offered...to help the parents
meet their requirements. There is a safety net factored in there in attempts to
engage parents'.[144]
Further, he advised that decisions would be made over a period of time:
...the Centrelink social worker [would meet] with the school and
[form] an attendance plan that looked at reasonable steps that could be taken
to be confident that the parent was attempting to have the child attend. Only
if there was no reasonable attempt by the parent would Centrelink then make the
call to do something different.[145]
1.93
Ms Wodak noted the improvement of Centrelink services in remote NT
communities as a result of NTER:
We now have very regular visits by quite large Centrelink
teams...I think Centrelink has learnt a great deal through the experience of
income management and through the confusion that has been existing for a lot of
people with respect to income management, and so it has changed the way it
delivers its services. It does not rely so much on free call numbers and the
like.[146]
1.94
However, Miss Walker noted that in some Central Australian
communities—such as Hermannsburg and Wallace Rockhole—Centrelink social workers
are not currently permanently in those communities; rather, they visit on a
three-weekly basis.[147]
She added:
There need to be increased resources put into Centrelink social
workers actually being in the communities, not just coming every couple of
weeks, because school attendance is a day-to-day problem and it needs
day-to-day solutions. The reliance on Indigenous call centres is also
problematic when we are talking about communities with limited access to
telephones and also no Central Australian languages speakers within those call
centres.[148]
1.95
Ms Wodak observed that Centrelink staff are 'extremely busy' and 'under
quite considerable pressure' micro-managing family budgets, and questioned
whether they will be able to handle another complex scheme.[149]
In an answer to a question on notice, the departments explained that provision
has been made for three additional social workers in Centrelink's Remote
Servicing teams in the Northern Territory and one additional social worker in
both Cannington and the second metropolitan location.[150]
1.96
Many witnesses referred to the conclusion of a US study that programs
without case management services 'did nothing to improve school attendance' and
that case management was 'the most critical variable in determining
attendance'.[151]
ACOSS argued that case management has not been provided for in the bill even
though it had been identified as 'a critical factor in determining the success
of school enrolment and attendance schemes' and ensuring 'that Centrelink and
schools have the capacity to provide these additional support services'.[152]
1.97
Witnesses noted that case management support services, both government
and non-government, are under-resourced and expressed their concerns that the non-government
(NGO) sector was expected to provide the services outlined in the proposed
legislation. NGOs themselves indicated they are stretched to the limit and
without additional funding cannot provide further services.[153]
For example, Mr Carter observed:
One of the interesting things that is going on generally at the
moment is that the non-government sector is under so much pressure and the
non-government sector is getting a lot better in terms of understanding its
core value base. The state government has had a couple of experiences of recent
times...where they have put out the tender, expecting us to be joyous about it
and putting money at it and everyone is going, ‘Not interested'.[154]
1.98
Mr Wayne Stevenson, General Manager, Communicare, noted that over the
last year, support services provided by his organisation had increased by 16
per cent and the year before by 12 per cent.[155]
Miss Walker noted that the uptake of government services has been lower than
that of community services, attributing this to 'better engagement' by
non-government sector with the community.[156]
Cost of services
1.99
While UnitingCare Burnside acknowledged the need for 'significant
resources' to administer the proposed legislation, it considered that 'resources
would be better directed to supporting families by increasing the access to
services that support engagement with education and learning'. It was concerned
about how much of the allocated $17.6 million would be spent on support
services as opposed to the administration of compliance and monitoring
activities.[157]
1.100
Mrs Amanda Hill, Policy and Research Officer, Western Australian Council
of State School Organisations, questioned whether the amount of money required
to implement the legislation is justifiable when the legislation affects only
'a very small minority of parents who are being irresponsible'.[158]
1.101
Centrelink informed the committee that 'As part of the overall funding
package, there are provisions for social workers as an additional resource in
the remote areas'.[159]
The committee was advised that $12.6 million has been allocated for Centrelink
staffing, however, 80 per cent of this is for IT staff.[160]
The committee sought to ascertain how much funding had been allocated for the
provision of additional social workers. According to NGOs, the cost for a
three-month case support can range from $10,000 to $16,000 per family,
depending on the complexity of the case.[161]
Provision of information
1.102
Many witnesses indicated that families are becoming confused as a result
of frequently changing programs and various schemes.[162]
There is a need for clear information about the requirements of the new
measure. Ms Allingham provided an account of the likely situation in Indigenous
communities:
What will happen in practice is that, rather than it acting as a
deterrent, their Centrelink payment will get cut off, and it will get cut off
for the full 13 weeks, because people will not know how to deal with what is happening
to them. They will not understand the processes, and the administrative
process, that you have to go through to reapply for that Centrelink payment.
You have got to fill in these really thick forms; you have to have all the
attached documents; you have got to have everything photocopied. It is a very
difficult and confusing process for a lot of Aboriginal people, especially
people who live in regional areas who do not speak English as a first language
and who have very minimal education, and who find walking into a room full of white
people in suits is a very intimidating and scary experience as well.[163]
1.103
Mrs Hill recommended that Centrelink, education departments and schools
undertake an information campaign to ensure that parents and carers 'are aware of
and fully comprehend their responsibilities in relation to their child’s
education...[and] to enable them to comply with the proposed legislation'.[164]
1.104
The Australian Human Rights Commission noted that it is important to
provide 'comprehensive, accurate, timely and accessible information and
community education' to avoid the 'barriers and uncertainty lack of information
can create when new measures are introduced'. It pointed out that this is
'particularly important for people for whom English is not a first language' or
who have literacy problems. It also noted information should be available 'in
forms that are accessible for people with disabilities'.[165]
1.105
Many witnesses noted the need for culturally sensitive and appropriate
services not only for Indigenous people but also for migrants. Mrs Rae Walter, Chief
Executive Officer, Ngala, observed that:
We cannot just have ‘one approach fits all’ either. It does not
work that way. We need to be culturally sensitive across the whole spectrum of
families in our work within our community.[166]
1.106
CAALAS and NAAJA recommended that all notices regarding non-enrolment or
attendance should be in writing and in plain English or in the recipient's first
language.[167]
Mr Robert Hall, Business Manager, Centrelink, advised the committee that
Centrelink staff will be trained to be culturally aware and sensitive in their
interaction with clients.[168]
Confidentiality of information and
information exchange
1.107
The proposed legislation provides for the exchange of information
between authorities, including schools and Centrelink, regarding students'
enrolment and attendance at school. According to witnesses, the bill does not outline
how the information exchange will take place. Ms Ash stated:
...it certainly is a growing concern for us about how that
information is going to be transmitted from the schools to Centrelink and then what
is actually going to happen with that information at Centrelink, because we
understand that Centrelink databases really are not set up to hold this sort of
confidential information.[169]
1.108
CAALAS and NAAJA argued that 'it would appear that the normal
protections that would generally apply to personal information [Privacy Act
1988 and Information Act NT] would not apply to children or their families who
come under the Bill'.[170]
1.109
Ms Irina Cattalini, Director Social Policy, WACOSS, raised the matter of
third-party access to personal information. She noted that there may be a need
for NGOs or child protection authorities to have access to information in order
to be able to provide support service to families.[171]
1.110
Addressing this matter, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs indicated that '[s]chools will not be given a list
of families on income support. The details of how the data exchange will
operate are being negotiated with the states, but there certainly will not be a
wholesale release of data by Centrelink.'[172]
This was also confirmed by the departments.[173]
However, certain data could be released. The Explanatory Memorandum to the bill
noted that 'Such information could be disclosed and used, for example...to
determine infrastructure or resourcing requirements at a school'.[174]
1.111
According to Mrs Amanda Hill, Western Australian Council of State School
Organisations, people's rights to privacy can be maintained. She noted that if
schools provided Centrelink with data on all students, schools would not need
information on each family's welfare status. She argued that 'from a technology
point of view', it would be possible for Centrelink to filter through those
receiving welfare payments.[175]
However, the departments explained that education authorities would only be
able to refer individual cases to Centrelink.[176]
1.112
Mrs Hill expressed concerns about the time lag in processing data
between schools and Centrelink:
We see that Centrelink have interfaces with datamatching with
universities to gain information around enrolment, and we often see quite
substantial lags between someone not being enrolled...and Centrelink being
notified, or that Centrelink get the information and it is sitting there for
five or six months before they do anything with it, so someone accrues an
overpayment in that period. We are concerned about how this is actually going
to be operationalised...[177]
1.113
At the committee's public hearing, departments advised that authorities were
still working on the details regarding information exchange. Mr Carters noted
that privacy issues are not 'new to Centrelink or the school authorities' and
assured that 'the relevant authorities will meet the privacy provisions'. Mr Geoff
Kimber, Principal Government Lawyer, DEEWR, added that information exchange
between state and territory education authorities, DEEWR and Centrelink will be
'subject to some fairly stringent controls over its use and disclosure to third
parties'.[178]
Federal versus state and territory
legislation
1.114
Some witnesses were also concerned about how the proposed legislation
would interact with state and territory legislation.[179]
ACOSS noted that this 'lack of planning and clarity creates risks of both
service duplication...as well as program inconsistency' as legislation regarding
non-attendance varies across jurisdictions.[180]
1.115
Mr Carters noted that 'the provision of schooling and school support
services is and will remain the province of state and territory governments'.
He emphasised that issues to do with truancy remain the responsibility of the
states and territories.[181]
The departments explained that the proposed legislation 'will provide an
additional policy lever to assist states and territories in their efforts to
combat non-enrolment and poor attendance'. Parents not receiving welfare
payments would remain subject to only state and territory legislation.[182]
Lack of consultation
1.116
Most witnesses made clear that there had been a lack of consultation with
the NGO sector and affected communities about the bill. They explained that
they had 'relied on anecdotal conversations' or had not been engaged at all.
Some had had more formal discussions but had not been provided detailed
information.[183]
1.117
When questioned about the departmental consultation with stakeholders,
Mr Carters advised that the federal departments had consulted relevant Northern
Territory and Western Australian state departments but that it did not 'go to
the communities' to discuss the issues. This was because:
...the NT education department has had very good information and
advice on the situations in the specific communities and the schools that were
involved. They had the data and they have the enrolment and attendance type
information as well.[184]
1.118
The committee was informed that Centrelink had had discussions with Tiwi
Island communities but not with Central Australian communities such as
Hermannsburg or Wallace Rockhole.[185]
Mr Carters noted that consultation in these communities 'will occur at the
time of the implementation' and that the government 'will certainly provide
significant information to the affected people' at that time.[186]
Conclusion
1.119
Submitters and witnesses to the committee's inquiry raised a number of
concerns about the proposed legislation. While many witnesses were
fundamentally opposed to the provisions of the bill, they also raised other
concerns related to ensuring that sound arrangements exist for the
implementation of the measure. Concerns raised included the lack of an evidence
base supporting the bill, the perceived discriminatory nature of the bill,
absence of detail with regard to important elements of the measure, inadequate
measures to address the underlying causes of truancy, lack of detail regarding
information exchange and adherence to privacy laws, lack of consultation in the
development of the bill, and the possible effects of suspension and
cancellation of income support payments on families.
1.120
The committee supports the intention of the bill to increase school
enrolment and attendance. It notes the concerns raised throughout the inquiry
but considers it appropriate that provisions for the suspension or cancellation
of income support payments be trialled in selected communities. The committee
supports the measure's focus on parents' engagement with schools regarding
their children's attendance. It emphasises that provisions allowing for
suspension or cancellation of income support payments are intended not as a first
response, but as a possible mechanism to be used only after significant effort
has been made by schools, state and territory authorities and Centrelink. The
committee considers that the 13-week suspension period, with full backpay upon
compliance, is a long enough period to avoid the cancellation of income support
payments.
1.121
The committee notes that states and territories are and remain
responsible for monitoring and addressing school attendance and truancy and
that the provisions of the bill reinforce that responsibility.
1.122
The committee emphasises that the outcomes of the pilot and subsequent
evaluation must provide the basis for any further roll-out of the measures
proposed in the bill.
Recommendation 1
1.123
The committee recommends that the evaluation of the pilot in selected
communities be made publicly available before the provisions of the bill are
implemented in any further sites.
1.124
The committee notes concerns raised regarding the privacy of people
affected by the proposed legislation. The committee considers it imperative
that adequate mechanisms be put in place to ensure that the processing and
exchange of the personal information required to implement the measure remains
consistent with privacy laws. As noted in submissions, Centrelink, schools and
education authorities are not new to handling information covered by privacy
laws.
1.125
The committee heard strong concerns about the adequacy of support
services for families to assist them in meeting their obligations under the
proposed legislation. The committee notes that many non-government agencies'
resources are already stretched and considers that there is a need for
additional resources for case management.
Recommendation 2
1.126
The committee recommends that the government allocate sufficient
resources to enable Centrelink social workers to be easily accessible within
each of the communities participating in the pilot established by the bill.
1.127
The committee agrees with the evidence that services need to be
culturally appropriate. The committee considers that the government must ensure
that cultural differences are taken into account in the provision of support
services to assist families to meet their schooling requirements and in the administration
of the measures contained in the bill.
Recommendation 3
1.128
The committee recommends that compliance notices issued under the
proposed legislation be in plain English or in the language of the welfare
recipient. The committee further recommends that compliance periods take into
account the additional time to deliver notices in remote areas.
1.129
The committee heard strong concerns regarding the consultation process
undertaken prior to the introduction of the bill. The committee is disappointed
that stakeholders that will be integral to the implementation of the measure
were not consulted or meaningfully engaged in the planning process. The
committee considers that the consultation process in preparation of this bill
was inadequate and notes its disappointment with the government departments in
this regard.
Recommendation 4
1.130
The Committee recommends that the government improve its consultation
processes for future legislation, including engaging with the non-government
organisations and people in communities affected by proposed legislation.
1.131
In summary, despite concerns about the consultation process and that
implementation details are yet to be finalised, overall, the committee is
confident that the provisions of the bill are reasonable.
Recommendation 5
1.132
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Claire
Moore
Chair
November 2008
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page