Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is right to be seeking an answer to the problem of truancy that plagues some families.

But threatening to take welfare payments from parents whose children do not attend school on a regular basis will not provide an effective solution to this problem.

Proposed laws to be introduced to parliament this week would see welfare payments cut for up to 13 weeks as a last-resort attempt to get parents to comply.

The program will be trialled in eight communities in the Northern Territory and Western Australia before the government decides whether to roll it out across the rest of the country.

As yet, we have seen little evidence from the government to support its contention that such a measure would make a difference to truancy problems.

On the contrary, there are widely-held concerns that the move would unnecessarily hurt the families concerned - and in particular, the children - and put additional pressure on charitable agencies who often find themselves bridging

the gap between welfare payments and survival.

Generally, truancy is a symptom of deeper problems within a family unit, problems that most likely will be exacerbated if access to welfare is cut off, even if only for a short time.

While the government has given assurances that other measures, including working with teachers and Centrelink to get children to school, would be exhausted before financial penalties were imposed, cutting welfare would seem

excessive even so.

And this plan doesn't address the issue of how to enforce school attendance in families that aren't on welfare. Truancy is not a problem exclusive to welfare recipients.

As a nation, we have created in some sectors an addiction to welfare which will be hard to break. Many of those who will come under the watch of this trial program will have known no other way of living. Most likely, the addiction

to welfare will have had its roots in past generations.

Dealing with the deeper issues that manifest themselves as truancy will have far more impact on the problem that cutting payments to those who can least afford to have them cut.