SCAM ALERT: We will never contact you requesting money. Learn more.

Complaints

Submission -Social Security and Veteran’s Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) 2008 Bill

Legal

Social Security and Veteran’s Entitlements Legislation Amendment
(Schooling Requirements) 2008 Bill



Australian Human Rights Commission
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee

13 October 2008

 

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Level 8, 133 Castlereagh St

GPO Box 5218

Sydney NSW 2001

Ph. (02) 9284 9600

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Summary
  3. Recommendations
  4. Scope and Intent of the Bill
  5. Reasons for under-enrolment and under-attendance in schools
  6. Impact on children and families
  7. Impact on Indigenous children and families
  8. Information and community education


1. Introduction

  1. The Australian Human Rights and Commission (the Commission) makes this
    submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee in its Inquiry into the
    Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment
    (Schooling Requirements) 2008 Bill (‘the Bill’).

2. Summary

  1. The Commission commends the Government for recognising the importance of
    addressing the need to improve school enrolments and attendance as a critical
    step towards realising the right to education for all children. The Commission
    supports the Government’s aims to promote and protect children’s
    right to education.

  2. The Commission notes that Indigenous children are particularly
    dis-advantaged in the field of education, as evidenced by their comparatively
    lower enrolment and attendance rates than for non-Indigenous children, and
    require targeted assistance to close the education gap.

  3. However, the Commission is concerned that the measures for increasing school
    attendance enrolments and attendance proposed in the Bill constitute an
    unbalanced approach that favours punitive measures over holistic (and proven)
    measures.

  4. The main limitations of the proposed Bill are:

    - an evidenced
    based approach demonstrates that punitive measures such as those proposed in the
    Bill are not as effective in addressing low school enrolment and attendance
    rates because they do not directly address the underlying causes of low school
    enrolments and attendance;

    - there are significant unintended negative consequences that would occur for
    families whose payments are suspended or cancelled, which are disproportionate
    to the intended aim of realising children’s rights to education. Such
    consequences could include children and families not having the means to access
    necessary food, clothing, housing, and medical care. This raises concerns about
    complying with the international human rights principle of acting in the best
    interests of the child as well as concerns about the possible restriction of the
    rights of children and their families to food, adequate standard of living and
    health care;

    - focusing on limited and potentially detrimental strategies such as those
    outlined in the Bill, unnecessarily draw resources and energy away from more
    effective holistic strategies, that evidence based research has demonstrated are
    effective in increasing school enrolments and attendance, and realising the
    right to education.

  5. Having considered the compliance of the Bill with Australia’s
    international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the
    Child (CRC), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
    (ICESCR) and International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial
    Discrimination (CERD), the Commission concludes with concern that the Bill does
    not adequately protect the rights of children necessary for their development
    and education.

3. Recommendations

  1. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends that:

    1. The amendments providing for the suspension or cancellation of welfare
      payments subject to non-enrolment/ non-attendance of school children not be
      introduced under the Bill;

    2. The government adopt a rights based approach to realise the rights of
      children to education which should include:

      1. Increasing the provision of education infrastructure and resources,
        particularly for Indigenous communities in rural and remote areas;

      2. Improving the quality of education, placing an emphasis on providing
        children with incentives to learn and developing methods of teaching that
        resonate with Indigenous students;

      3. Supporting education programs that have proven to increase school
        attendance.

    1. The government recognise a child’s right to benefit from social
      security including welfare payments.

    1. The government address the issue of school enrolment and attendance through
      a rights based and non-discriminatory approach.

    2. The government provide comprehensive, accurate, timely and accessible
      information and education to communities on the introduction of any new
      measures.

4. Scope and Intent of the Bill

  1. The Bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, the Student
    Assistance Act 1973     and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act
    1986    .

  2. The Bill gives effect to the School Attendance and Enrolment Pilot measures
    announced in the 2008-09
    Budget.[1]

  3. The Commission notes that the Bill provides for the suspension or
    cancellation of ‘schooling requirement income support payments’,
    where a ‘schooling requirement person’ in receipt of a
    ‘schooling requirement payment’ does not comply with a notice
    relating to school enrolment or attendance of their ‘schooling requirement
    child’ (sections124F-H, 124 K-M of the
    Bill).[2]

  4. The Bill provides for the measures to be implemented nationally across
    Australia.

  5. However, the government has announced that initially the Bill will be
    applied as the School Attendance and Enrolment Pilot to only six Northern
    Territory communities (Hermannsburg, Katherine, Katherine town camps, Wallace
    Rockhole, Wadeye and Tiwi Islands), and two metropolitan locations (Cannington
    in Western Australia and one other site yet to be announced), commencing in
    January 2009.[3] The government has
    indicated that this will initially affect around 3300 children in the identified
    sites.[4]

  6. The Government has said the trials will be evaluated in 2010 and if
    successful in increasing enrolments and attendance, there will be a national
    roll out of the policy.[5]

  7. As identified in the second reading speech for the Bill by the Deputy Prime
    Minister Julia Gillard, the purpose of the Bill is to improve school enrolment
    and attendance:

    Australia needs an Education Revolution, and to
    ensure that every Australian child is able to be a part of that revolution, we
    need to ensure they are enrolled at and regularly attending
    school.[6]

  8. The primary means by which the Bill seeks to address the issue of low
    enrolments and attendance is to ‘engender behavioural change in those
    parents who are reluctant to encourage their children to participate in school;
    by making the receipt of income support payments conditional on parents taking
    reasonable action to ensure their children are enrolled in school and attending
    regularly’.[7] 

5. Reasons for under-enrolment and under-attendance in schools

  1. The Government notes that according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data
    nationally up to 20,000 children of compulsory school age are currently not
    enrolled in school or registered for home-schooling according to state/territory
    law.[8]

  2. The Commission notes that although there is limited reliable public data
    about Indigenous school participation rates mapped against ABS population data,
    indications are that Indigenous children are over-represented in these rates.
    For instance, completion and retention rates such as those provided below are
    indicative of the comparative under-participation of children in the education
    system:

    • 49.9 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians had no non-school
      qualification compared with 71 per cent of Indigenous Australians;

    • 26.9% of Indigenous people reach year 10 or 11 compared to 18.8% of other
      Australians;

    • In 2003, the retention rate for Indigenous students fell from nearly 90%
      in year 10 to 67% in year 11. By comparison, the rate for non-Indigenous
      students falls less dramatically from 99%in year 10 to 87% in year 11. As at
      2002, the apparent retention rate for Indigenous year 12 students was 38 per
      cent compared to 76.3 per cent for their non-Indigenous
      counter-parts.[9]

  3. In 2005, the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its concluding
    Observations on Australia noted its continued concern ‘at the serious
    difficulties that indigenous children and children living in remote areas face
    with regard to education, and in particular their lower level of achievement and
    high dropout rate’ and recommended that the government ‘take all
    necessary measures to ensure that articles 28 and 29 of the Convention are fully
    implemented, in particular with regard to ...indigenous
    children’.[10]

  4. As evidenced in the government’s parliamentary reading speeches for
    the Bill, the underlying premise of the Bill is that the reason for the low
    rates of enrolment and attendance is “parents who are reluctant to
    encourage their children to participate in
    school”.[11]

  5. The Commission notes that there is no evidence provided that demonstrates
    ‘reluctant parents’ are the reason for under-enrolment and
    under-attendance.

  6. To the contrary, the Commission notes that research shows the underlying
    causes for truancy, under-enrolment and under attendance include:

    • shortages of educational services, particularly for Indigenous
      communities[12]: 94% of Indigenous
      communities in the Northern Territory have no preschool; 56% have no secondary
      school; and 27% have a local primary school that is more that 50kms
      away.[13]

    • poor quality teachers and teaching resources in
      schools[14],

    • bullying and teasing experienced by children in school,

    • poverty,

    • ill health,

    • overcrowded housing resulting in a lack of sleep, security and privacy,

    • poor health from broken
      facilities.[15]

  7. The Commission notes that the socio-economic disadvantage experienced among
    Indigenous peoples contributes to Indigenous children having greater exposure to
    these causes of non-enrolment and non-attendance.

  8. Research has shown that over and above the influence of parents,
    factors that can improve school enrolment, attendance and retention include
    having skilled teachers who create a stimulating learning environment in the
    classroom and a supportive ‘culture’ in the school that actively
    addresses bullying and harassment of Indigenous
    students.[16]

  9. Further, evidence from evaluations of similar programs in Australia and
    overseas demonstrate that making welfare payments conditional upon school
    enrolment and attendance have not generated any significant level of success
    that would warrant initiating the scheme proposed by this
    Bill.[17]

  10. Most recently, the Central Land Council reported on the ineffectiveness of
    similar income management regimes introduced under the Northern Territory
    Emergency Response (NTER):

    ‘after the introduction of the NTER
    attendance numbers were down in five survey communities, from May 2007 compared
    to May 2008...The figures suggest that the NTER has not had an impact on school
    enrolment and attendance figures in survey
    communities.’[18]

  11. The Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations Inc.,
    based on its surveys, also reported that the NTER has not resulted in better
    educational outcomes.[19]

  12. The lessons learnt show that linking attendance to welfare payments is not
    as effective in increasing school enrolment or attendance as other measures that
    directly address the underlying causes such as health inequality and poverty.

  13. A number of innovative educational programs in the Northern Territory have
    achieved success in increasing school enrolments and attendance. For example,
    the Clontarf program in Alice Springs has increased attendance rates up to 92%
    by using sport and motivational techniques to motivate students to stay at
    school. Other success stories include Cherbourg in Queensland, as well as
    Yirkala, Yipirinya and Barunga in the Northern
    Territory.[20]

  14. Ongoing, long-term funding to close the gap on education and health
    inequalities for Indigenous children and their families could generate more
    positive outcomes for school attendance and for fulfilling children’s
    rights to education and health, than the proposed measure of making welfare
    income conditional upon school enrolment/
    attendance.[21]

6. Impact on children and families

  1. The Commission notes with the concern that the punitive approach adopted in
    the Bill that allows for the suspension or cancellation of welfare payments
    diminishes the rights of children and their families, and contravenes the
    principle of acting in the best interests of the child as required under the
    CRC. It also undermines a child’s right to benefit from social security
    under Article 26 of the CRC.

  2. In situations where the welfare payments are suspended or cancelled, there
    is likely to be no income available for the period of the suspension, or in the
    case of the cancellation, for the period until a new application is completed.

  3. During this period children and families will not have the means to access
    necessary food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Denying the means to access
    these goods and services does not promote the best interests of the child nor
    protect the rights of the child, necessary for their
    development.

    Article 3, Convention on the Rights of the
    Child    :

    1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or
    private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
    or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
    consideration.

    2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as
    is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and
    duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally
    responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate
    legislative and administrative
    measures.[22]

    Article 26, Convention on the Rights of the Child:

    1. States parties shall recognize for every child the rights to benefit from
    social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary
    measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their
    national law.

    2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account
    the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having
    responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other
    consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of
    the child.[23]

  4. Lack of access to such goods and services can further entrench problems of
    poverty, ill health and overcrowded housing in the family, which as research
    shows are factors that contribute to school absence. The effect of the
    Bill’s punitive approach is, in the most difficult cases, to further
    entrench the causes of low school enrolment and attendance.

  5. The Bill may also have the unintended consequence of having a
    disproportionate negative impact on women. This may arise in the context of
    women still predominantly fulfilling the role of carer in many Australian
    families. Consideration should be given to investigating and preventing any
    potential disproportionate negative impact of the Bill on women welfare
    recipients with school aged children.

  6. Further, the Bill could also have an unintended consequence of targeting
    'responsible' carers in communities, many of whom are women.
    The suspension or cancellation of Centrelink
    payments will affect people who have taken responsibility for
    parenting school-aged children in cases where the biological parents have
    abrogated parenting responsibilities. The threat of
    income sanctions may become a disincentive to nominating as a
    carer. 

  7. The Bill’s negative impacts raise concerns about its compliance with
    the international human rights principle of the best interests of the child as
    well as concerns about the possible restriction of the rights of children and
    their families to food, adequate standard of living and health care.

  8. The Commission notes that the government has contended that the suspension
    or cancellation of welfare payments would be a measure of last resort under the
    Act.[24] However, the extent of the
    discretion provided to the schools, Departments and the Minister are not
    clarified in the Act, and in their absence, the Act does not confirm on what
    basis the notices regarding school enrolment or attendance will be administered
    as a last resort. Once the notice is given, the Act only allows recipients 14
    days to comply with the notice, before the penalty of suspension or cancellation
    of payments is applied.

  9. Given the serious negative consequences the penalty can have on children and
    their family, the Act does not provide sufficient checks and balances for
    ensuring the penalties are applied only as a measure of last resort.

  10. The Commission notes the importance of considering alternative non-punitive
    measures, before implementing policies whose penalties have such a detrimental
    impact.

7. Impact on Indigenous children and families

  1. While the Bill makes no mention of specifically applying to Indigenous
    children, the selected trial sites indicate the Bill’s initial application
    at least will primarily affect Indigenous children and families.

  2. Of the six identified trial sites in the Northern Territory, five of them
    are Indigenous communities. In the sixth site, Katherine, 23% of the population
    is Indigenous, of which 44% are under the age of 18
    years.[25]

  3. Cannington, the only metropolitan site identified to date, is the exception,
    which has an Indigenous population of only 2.3%, but has a higher proportion of
    people born overseas (35%) and people who speak a language other than English
    (25%).[26]

  4. Even when the Bill is implemented nationally, beyond the selected trial
    sites, it is likely to have a greater impact upon Indigenous peoples because
    school enrolment and attendance is a more significant issue in Indigenous
    communities.

  5. In the context of the high level of impact of the Bill on Indigenous
    children, in addition to the impacts identified above, the Commission notes some
    of the negative unintended consequences of the Bill that could undermine the
    realisation of Indigenous children’s rights to education and development.

  6. The effect of the Bill undermines one of Australia's key Indigenous
    policy platforms - the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
    Training and Youth Affair’s (MCEETYA) Australian Directions in
    Indigenous Education 2005 –
    2008.    [27] This policy
    contains five policy domains. The second domain is ‘School and
    community educational partnerships’. A
    recommendation aimed 

    at giving effect to this policy is:
    ‘establish agreement on school goals and policies relating to matters
    such as attendance and academic
    achievement’.[28]

  7. The effect of this Bill is to position schools as the monitoring
    body for student non-attendance and ultimately place them as the responsible
    party if parents have their welfare payments suspended or cancelled. This
    has the potential to erode relationships between school staff and community
    members, especially in small communities.

  8. This Bill could prevent schools and communities from developing their own
    attendance agreements and policies. Ultimately all parents and schools want good
    school attendance. However, taking a punitive approach to student
    non-attendance has the effect of diminishing trust between schools and community
    members and undermines the potential for School and community
    educational partnerships    . In effect, this Bill is at cross purposes with
    existing Indigenous education policy.

  9. The Commission notes that the Bill may also have the unintended consequence
    of undermining the achievement of child protection principles such as the
    Indigenous Child Placement
    Principle.[29] 

  10. Indigenous non-biological carers may be deterred from volunteering to become
    carers due to the risk associated with potential suspension or cancellation of
    their welfare payments. This could heighten the existing shortages of available
    Indigenous carers.[30]

  11. The Commission also notes its concern that the Bill in its national
    application may be racially discriminatory in its impact upon Indigenous
    peoples. This is because Indigenous peoples are more likely to be subject to it
    and have their rights limited as a result.

  12. Measures that disproportionately impact upon the ability of a particular
    racial group to enjoy their rights (such as the right to social security) will
    be discriminatory unless the impact is necessary and proportionate to a
    legitimate aim.[31]

  13. While the Commission strongly supports measures to increase school
    attendance and educational outcomes, it is not clear that taking a punitive
    approach that may disproportionately impact upon Indigenous peoples is an
    appropriate means of achieving that goal. Careful consideration must therefore
    be given to the evidentiary basis for these measures in order to properly assess
    whether they are necessary and proportionate.

8. Information and community education

  1. The Commission notes the importance of providing comprehensive, accurate,
    timely and accessible information and community education to communities on the
    introduction of any new measures.

  2. The lack of sufficient information made available to communities on measures
    introduced under the Northern Territory Emergency Response highlighted the
    barriers and uncertainty lack of information can create when new measures are
    introduced.

  3. This is particularly important for people for whom English is not a first
    language or who may face literacy problems, to make sure they are kept well
    informed. Information should also be made available in forms that are accessible
    for people with disabilities.

  4. The Commission recommends [Recommendation1]:

    1. The provisions for the suspension or cancellation of welfare payments
      subject to non-enrolment/ non-attendance of school children not be introduced
      under the Bill;

    2. The government adopt a rights based approach to realise the right of
      education which should include:

      1. Increasing the provision of education infrastructure and resources,
        particularly for Indigenous communities in rural and remote areas.

      2. Improving the quality of education, placing an emphasis on providing
        children with incentives to learn and developing methods of teaching that
        resonate with Indigenous students;

      3. Supporting education programs that have proven to increase school
        attendance.

    1. The government recognise a child’s right to benefit from social
      security including welfare payments.

    1. The government address the issue of school enrolment and attendance through
      a rights based and non-discriminatory approach.

    2. The government provide comprehensive, accurate, timely and accessible
      information and education to communities on the introduction of any new
      measures.

[1] Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, Budget 2008-09 (available at: http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp2/html/expense-11.htm)

[2] Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment
(Schooling Requirements) 2008 Bill (available at:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r3054_fi…)

[3] Macklin release on Cannington
trial, 17 July 2008 (available at: http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/print/cannington_17jul08.htm)

[4] Joint Macklin/Gillard media
release, 25 August (available at: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/schoolenrolmentandattendancelegislationtobeintroduced.htm)

[5] Julia Gillard, 2nd Reading Speech (House of Reps), available at: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/secondreadingspeechsocialsecurityandveteransentitlementslegislationamendmentschoolingrequirementsbil.htm

[6] Julia Gillard, 2nd Reading Speech (House of Reps), available at: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/secondreadingspeechsocialsecurityandveteransentitlementslegislationamendmentschoolingrequirementsbil.htm

[7] Senator McLucas, 2nd Reading Speech (Senate) (available at: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Title%3Aschooling%20Title%3Arequirements%20Database%3Achamber%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%3F%20%20Context_Phrase%3Abill%3F%20Speaker%3A%3F;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=Default)

[8] Senator McLucas, 2nd Reading Speech (Senate) (available at: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Title%3Aschooling%20Title%3Arequirements%20Database%3Achamber%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%3F%20%20Context_Phrase%3Abill%3F%20Speaker%3A%3F;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=Default)

[9] Cited in Larissa Behrendt and
Ruth McCausland, ‘Welfare Payments and School Attendance’ Jumbunna
Indigenous House of Learning, University of technology, Sydney, 2008, available
at: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2008/LBehrendtpaper.pdf


[10] Committee on the Rights of
the Child, Concluding Observations Australia, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.268, 20
October 2005, paras 59 and 61a (available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/6f6879be758d0e8ec12570d9003340ba/$FILE/G0544374.DOC).
Similarly the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights in its Concluding
Observations on Australia in 2000, noted the comparative disadvantage of
indigenous people, including in the area of education, and recommended that the
government pursue efforts to address the disadvantage (Committee on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on Australia, UN Doc
E/C.12/1/Add.50, 1 September 2000, (available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/693c56f3d2694130c12569580…)).

[11] Senator McLucas, 2nd Reading Speech (Senate) (available at: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Title%3Aschooling%20Title%3Arequirements%20Database%3Achamber%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%3F%20%20Context_Phrase%3Abill%3F%20Speaker%3A%3F;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=Default)

[12] The Social Justice report 2007, noted: “It is difficult to assess the
exact numbers of students without access to primary and secondary education in
the Northern Territory. However, the Northern Territory’s Minister for
Education, Mr Paul Henderson, has conceded that the number of school-aged
children without access to primary and secondary education is
'significant'.” Cited in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2007, HREOC, Sydney, 2007, p279.

[13] Combined
Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory, A proposed emergency
response and development plan to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern
Territory: A preliminary response to the Australian Government’s
proposals, 10 July 2007, p18, available online at: http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/files/campaigns/extras/CAO-report-10%20july.pdf,
accessed 2 November 2007. The Australian Education Union, in its 2007 report
discusses the problem of the lack of education facilities in the Northern
Territory and calls for ‘the Federal and Northern Territory governments to
work in partnership to ensure that all children in the Northern

Territory
have access to and participate fully in high quality education. The estimated
cost of this provision is an additional $1.7 billion over five years. Michaela
Kronemann, Education is the key: An education future for Indigenous
communities in the Northern Territory, Australian Education Union,
Southbank, Victoria, 2007,p5.

[14] One aspect of the quality of
teaching, is the importance of having culturally relevant education. The
Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that states have a responsibility
to accommodate cultural needs when delivering education (Committee on the Rights
of the Child, General Comment No. 1: The Aims of Education, UN Doc
CRC/GC/2001/1, 17 April 2001 (available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CRC.GC.2001.1.En?OpenDocument).

[15] Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Halls Creek Engaging
Families Trial, February–July 2006: Evaluation Report, September 2006, http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/2B10D46E-592B-4531-B149-A5B…,
p12 (also citing Australian Council of Educational Research, 1998); David Fein,
Wang Lee and Christina Schofield, The ABC Evaluation: Do Welfare
Recipients’ Children Have a School Attendance Problem? Delware Health
and Social services, Delware, August
1999.

[16] Department of
Employment and Workplace Relations, Halls Creek Engaging Families Trial,
February–July 2006, Evaluation Report, September 2006.

[17] See Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations, Halls Creek Engaging Families Trial,
February–July 2006, Evaluation Report, September 2006; David Fein,
Wang Lee and Christina Schofield, The ABC Evaluation: Do Welfare
Recipients’ Children Have a School Attendance Problem? Delware Health
and Social services, Delware, August 1999, and Larissa Behrendt and Ruth
McCausland, ‘Welfare Payments and School Attendance’, Jumbunna
Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney, 2008, available
at: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2008/LBehrendtpaper.pdf.

[18] Central Land Council, Reviewing the Northern Territory Emergency Response: Perspectives from Six
Communities, Central Land Council, Alice Springs, July 2008, p77-78

[19] Northern Territory Council
of Government School Organisations Inc., “Submission to the Senate Select
Committee – Inquiry into Regional and Remote Indigenous
Communities”, 30 May 2008 (available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/indig_ctte/submissions/sub10.pdf).
They noted that due to alcohol bans some children are being taken out of home
communities to areas where parents can drink and often are not returning to
school until several months
later.

[20] Combined Aboriginal
Organisations of the Northern Territory, A proposed emergency response and
development plan to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory: A
preliminary response to the Australian Government’s proposals, 10 July
2007, p18, available online at: http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/files/campaigns/extras/CAO-report-10%20july.pdf,
accessed 2 November 2007.

[21] For suggestions from the community for alternative ideas such as increased focus
on education, youth programs, stopping underage drinking and increased
recreational and after school activities, see Central Land Council, Reviewing
the Northern Territory Emergency Response: Perspectives from Six
Communities, Central Land Council, Alice Springs, July 2008,
p78.

[22] UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child,
1989

[23] UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, 1989

[24] Julia Gillard,
2nd Reading Speech (House of Reps), (available at: http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/secondreadingspeechsocialsecurityandveteransentitlementslegislationamendmentschoolingrequirementsbil.htm).

[25] Australian Bureau of
Statistics, ‘Basic Community Profile – Katherine (UCL 703600), 15.8
sq. Kms’, 2001 Census of Population and Housing, available at:
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?&action=….

[26] Australian Bureau of
Statistics, ‘Basic Community Profile – Cannington (SSC 51231), 4.1
sq. Kms’, 2001 Census of Population and Housing, available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?&action=404&documentproductno=SSC51231&documenttype=Details&tabname=Details&areacode=SSC51231&issue=2001&producttype=Community%20Profiles&&producttype=Community%20Profiles&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=LPD&#Basic%20Community%20Profile

[27] Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005 – 2008,
Available online at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Directions_in_Indigenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf accessed 1 October 2008.

[28] Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005 – 2008,
Available online at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Directions_in_Indigenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf accessed 1 October 2008.

[29] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing them home: National
Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children
from Their Families, HREOC, Sydney, 1997,
p516-517.

[30] SNAICC, Achieving Stable and Culturally Strong Out of Home Care for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Children, Policy Paper, SNAICC, Victoria, 2005,
p1

[31] This may also be a
concern in areas such as Cannington, one of the selected trial sites, where
there is a high proportion of cultural and linguistically diverse communities.
The Commission notes care must similarly be given to ensuring the Bill does not
have a disproportionate impact on culturally and linguistically diverse
communities.