|
senate vote 2012-06-28#10
Edited by
Henare Degan
on
2014-11-22 10:53:23
|
Title
Bills — Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011- Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Agree to Australian Greens amendments reducing sunset clauses
Description
<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>While senators are moving to their seats, can we say happy birthday to Senator Bishop—the clock has just ticked over midnight. Senator Ludlam, do you wish to move Australian Greens amendments on sheet 7229?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>- Senators voted against reducing sunset clauses from 10 to 5 years, as proposed in [Australian Greens amendments 4, 17 and 20](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4736_amend_85a44094-c70f-4aa0-982e-2a62b39f48bb%22).
<p>I am getting requests that I do not do so but I am going to. I move amendment (7) on sheet 7229 without delay and commend this wonderful amendment to the chamber:</p><p class="italic">(7)   Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (after line 5), after paragraph (aa), insert:</p><p class="italic">(ab)   a person who is a member of the school's Council, Board or other governing body;</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (8) to (10) and (22) on sheet 7229:</p><p class="italic">(8)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (line 18), before "This Division", insert "(1)".</p><p class="italic">(9)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (line 24), at the end of paragraph 124NA(b), add "having regard to guidelines made under subsection (2)".</p><p class="italic">(10)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (after line 24), at the end of section 124NA, add:</p><p class="italic">(2)   The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine guidelines for the purposes of subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">(3)   The guidelines:</p><p class="italic">  (a)   may make different provision in relation to schools in different areas; and</p><p class="italic">  (b)   must provide for relevant cultural practices and obligations to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection</p><p class="italic">(22)   Schedule 2, item 18, page 23 (line 14), omit "124NA(b)", substitute "124NA(1)(b)".</p><p>As with the first batch of amendments, Senator Siewert proposed an amendment which would simply remove the income management, or the withdrawal of welfare payment provisions, from the bill. I think Senator Siewert probably figured that that amendment would fail. I will briefly describe the amendments. These amendments basically relate to whether or not attendance is satisfactory. In the event that the scheme goes ahead, some important measures are needed to improve the operation of the measures, which, as I have indicated, we do not support, such as creating the requirement for guidelines for determining when attendance is satisfactory, including the consideration of relevant cultural practices and obligations. So these amendments reflect evidence given during the Senate committee inquiry, which heard that cultural practices and obligations were often not taken into account when considering school absences. To not consider cultural practices alienates Aboriginal children and their families and refuses recognition of Aboriginal culture, which is contrary to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Evans</p><p>We do not support the amendments. We are a bit old-fashioned on the Labor side of politics. We think kids should go to school and they should go to school every day. These measures are designed to make sure that that happens to give those kids the best opportunity to make their way in life. So we do not think setting a lower threshold is appropriate. We support the scheme to try and change that sort of culture to make sure the culture is one which says kids ought to go to school and they ought to be supported to go to school every day.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>Thank you, Minister, for that response in saying that your view is an old-fashioned view that children should go to school every day. But we are also talking about cultural appropriateness here. The government has cut funding for maintenance of Indigenous languages and cultural context in schools. So, if it is not taught in the schools that they attend, how are Aboriginal students able to enhance their cultural experience in the absence of language teaching in their own language?</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p>I think we need to be really clear about what happens in the Northern Territory in schools. The concern about school attendance kicks in if there have been five days of nonattendance without any notable absence. But let me be really clear about this: a notable absence can include, and does include, cultural reasons, either for initiation purposes or for funeral purposes, and it is quite well accepted that children will and must attend those ceremonies because of their culture and that some children will be more involved than others. Cultural reasons are acceptable for not attending school, so let us be really clear about that.</p><p>The second thing I know applies in most schools. There may well be a funeral ceremony happening and, as we know—well, as we ought to know—with Indigenous people a funeral ceremony can take six to eight weeks to occur and it is pretty common for schools to say, where kids are involved in ceremony for the first couple of weeks when it is not the important end of the funeral process: 'Get them to come to school for the morning at least. Let's try getting them to come to school for half a day.' I know there are schools in Arnhem Land that are trying that strategy. Then the kids can be away for the whole day in the last couple of weeks in the important part of the funeral ceremony. So in the Northern Territory there are many different things happening and many different trials and different variations happening that absolutely capture the child's cultural requirements, and being away for cultural purposes is one reason. In fact, I think such a reason is even on the attendance sheets that are notified weekly and monthly to the head office in Darwin, so you can actually be away for ceremonial purposes and you get the big tick.</p><p>The other thing that I want to say, while I am standing on my feet, is to get this absolutely and perfectly clear—and I see that Senator Milne is not here but I hope she is listening: the federal government had absolutely nothing to do with the abolition and the change to bilingual education in the Northern Territory. It was not driven by this government. It was a policy decision of the Northern Territory government, and implemented by the Northern Territory government, that schools should have at least four hours of English a day and they should be in the morning. We have talk about concerned Australians and people being against the intervention and about people lobbying us. People talk about Stronger Futures seeing the end of bilingual education, so the intervention saw the end of bilingual education. It did not. Neither federal government had anything to do with the abolition or the change to bilingual education in the Northern Territory, and I want to get that absolutely clear and absolutely on the record. That was absolutely a decision of the Northern Territory government implemented by the Northern Territory government. From memory, I think when Minister Gillard was the minister for education she was at Batchelor college one day and she was asked whether or not she supported that policy decision. This was her response: 'What we want to see is children finish year 12 competent in English literacy and numeracy. The path they take is up to the state and territory governments to determine.' So let us be really clear about this: Stronger Futures and this legislation have nothing to do with the change in bilingual education in the Northern Territory.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (11) to (18) on sheet 7229 revised:</p><p class="italic">(11)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 15 (line 26), before "The Secretary", insert "(1)".</p><p class="italic">(12)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 3), omit "is required", substitute "may be required".</p><p class="italic">(13)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 7), at the end of section 124NB, add:</p><p class="italic">  ; (e)   the consequences under this Division of not complying with a requirement to enter into such a school attendance plan.</p><p class="italic">(14)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (after line 7), at the end of section 124NB, add:</p><p class="italic">(2)   The schooling requirement person may be accompanied at the conference by no more than 2 other persons chosen by the person, and those persons are entitled to be heard at the conference.</p><p class="italic">(15)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 12), at the end of subsection 124NC(1), add "at the conference".</p><p class="italic">(16)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 16), after "plan", insert "at the conference,".</p><p class="italic">(17)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 21), omit paragraph 124NC(3)(b).</p><p class="italic">(18)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (lines 24 and 25), omit subsection 124NC(4).</p><p>These amendments are very simple. They are designed to improve the conference process to make families aware of the consequences of not following attendance plans and to ensure that they are supported throughout the process. I spoke earlier in my contribution—about the first amendment, in which we opposed schedule 2—about the ways in which this is likely to work better if parents are fully aware, if they are consulted and if they are brought into the picture as to what will happen if attendance plans are not followed. Doing that with them, so sitting down with them and taking the time to make sure that that conference process is properly consultative, is likely, in our view, to bring out the other factors, the confounding factors, that are likely to be preventing kids from getting to school. So the amendments are fairly simple and I commend them to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Evans</p><p>The government does not support the amendments. As I indicated to the chamber earlier, there is a range of measures associated with this legislation to provide more support for parents and a capacity to work with them to identify with them their particular issues that might be impacting on a child's attendance at school and liaison with various people who can assist. But we do not believe this overall amendment is useful. It is already the case that people can bring support people to the conference. The reality is there will be some cases when a parent does not attend the conference and suspension of payments may be the only way to ensure that parents are engaging with the school about their kid's attendance. We do not think the amendment is necessary and it may in fact prevent us taking the measures that will be required to ensure we get a more responsive approach to the need for children to attend school.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>I wonder whether or not the minister might be aware that these particular recommendations were proposed after a great deal of consideration by the committee that inquired into this bill. Obviously recommendations of a parliamentary legislation committee are not mandatory but they do tend to be pretty well thought through by the senators who attended the hearings and took the evidence. I wonder whether the minister might like to confirm why in this instance the government has a different view.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Evans</p><p>My briefing from one of the members of the committee is that they did not go to this level of detail. I am not saying you are wrong but the advice given to me by a very reliable source is that the claim you made may not be totally accurate. It certainly was not reflected, as I understand it, in the majority report. Be that as it may, the government's attitude is that the overall amendment ought not be supported. We can probably sort out by reference to the records and the memory of the senators who said what to whom and what was recommended. My advice is that it was not recommended necessarily with that sort of detail from the committee. In any event, we do not think it improves the bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>To correct the record, my understanding, as you have indicated, was faulty. I am not someone who served on the committee although I am in intimate contact with someone who was. This evidence was in fact tended to the committee and it came through strongly in the work of the committee. But the minister is quite correct. It did not end up making its way into majority recommendation.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Evans</p><p>So you verballed the committee!</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>I was not verballing. I am correcting the record now. In our view, it should have made its way into a recommendation, but it clearly did not. I commend the amendments to the chamber nonetheless.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>By leave—I move Greens amendments (19) to (21) on sheet 7229 revised together:</p><p class="italic">(19)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 16 (line 27), after "be", insert "in writing and".</p><p class="italic">(20)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 17 (after line 5), at the end of section 124NC, add:</p><p class="italic">Notifier to consider individual circumstances</p><p class="italic">(8)   In determining requirements for the purposes of subsection (7), the notifier must consider the individual circumstances of the schooling requirement person and the one or more children covered by the plan.</p><p class="italic">Requirements of plan to be explained</p><p class="italic">(9)   The notifier must not require a schooling requirement person to enter into a school attendance plan unless the notifier is satisfied that:</p><p class="italic">  (a)   the requirements of the plan have been explained to the person in the person's first language; and</p><p class="italic">  (b)   the person understands the requirements of the plan.</p><p class="italic">(21)   Schedule 2, item 11, page 17 (line 14), omit "124NB(a)", substitute "124NB(1)(a)".</p><p>We are, by way of these amendments, seeking to create requirements for an attendance plan that does three essential things: firstly, that the individual circumstances of the family be considered; secondly, that the attendance plan be created with parents or the guardians responsible for the child at the conference, not beforehand; and thirdly, that the plan be explained properly in the first language of the parents. These are reasonably basic considerations that should be required in the making of attendance plans given that breaching these plans can have such extraordinarily serious consequences for the families concerned.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|