Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note very much the points that have been made by the shadow minister for human services in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. I also note that the minister responsible for this bill has chosen not to come into the House and speak on the bill. Nor are there any speakers on the government side for their own bill. I find this absolutely remarkable. In fact, I find it almost impossible to understand. Why would the minister responsible for this bill not come into the House, particularly understanding that there is bipartisan support for this bill? It is absolutely remarkable. I am not sure whether it means that the government is so busy that they cannot speak on their own bill, or whether the minister does not think it is important enough, or whether in fact they are just too lazy to come and do it. You would have thought that there would be National Party people, since this is going to be completely advantageous for those regions that in many cases are represented by the Nationals, who would come and speak on a bill that is going to be very helpful for young people in their areas.

Given that, certainly this side of the House has speakers prepared to put forward our views on this bill. As the shadow minister has said, Labor is going to support these amendments, which aim to make it simpler and easier for students in regional and rural areas to qualify as independent to access the youth allowance. This is a very good thing, but I will come to some of the issues that the shadow minister raised towards the end of my speech on these particular amendments.

The bill will adjust the criteria for qualifying as independent. It will allow those from regional areas to qualify as independent after 14 months of paid employment. Previously, as the shadow minister pointed out, it was 18 months, so that is a great step forward for young people living in rural and remote communities. Currently students from regional and remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if—these were the criteria—since leaving secondary school they have over an 18-month period earned 75 per cent or more of wage level A of the National Training Wage Schedule included in a modern award—in the 2016-17 financial year this was equal to $24,000 or thereabouts—or worked at least 15 hours each week for at least two years. Of course those things are often very difficult in rural and remote communities. Also, their parents must have earned less than $150,000 in the previous tax year. As a result, 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent.

This will make a real difference for young people living outside our cities, who often have to relocate to attend university or to find employment. I am sure that is the experience of many members of this House and their families in a personal way; but also, more importantly, it is the experience of the constituents they represent. For those who now live in cities, to attend a university that is not too far from home is not challenging; but of course for young people living in regional and remote communities it is impossible if they do not leave home to do so. This applies to much of our country. These amendments will make a real difference for young people living outside our cities, as I have said, who need to relocate to attend university or to find employment and other training. Like the previous speaker, the shadow minister, as a young girl I also grew up in regional Australia, and I understand acutely how difficult it can feel to leave in order to get an education or to find work. So on that basis, and on the basis that this is a good amendment to the legislation, we will be supporting this change, and I also will certainly be supporting it.

But it must be noted that this is ultimately a token effort from the Prime Minister and the government, who want to force young people to live on nothing for five weeks if they are under the age of 25 and need assistance. It is absolute hypocrisy that on one hand the government is taking away from young people and on the other hand is offering these amendments in relation to student assistance. This is the same government which also wants to see the incomes of jobseekers between the ages of 22 and 24 reduced by $2,500 a year by shifting them off Newstart and onto Youth Allowance. I think those two measures are absolutely reprehensible. I see a theme that has well and truly established itself with this government, and that theme is that we are going to fill our budget black hole by ripping the money out of the most vulnerable and the most needy in our community. I do not understand how that can be government thinking. It can only be, to me, a cynical move to attack the most vulnerable, hoping that in attacking the most vulnerable there will not be repercussions for the government.

But I say this to the government: one thing that Australians truly understand is fairness. They understand, and make judgements of, governments that are not fair. They understand very much that the measures are in the main about reducing the income of students, and that expecting young people to live on nothing for over a month is fundamentally unfair and, as I said, hypocritical. This is the same government that does not understand that young people need to be supported while they finish their studies. That is a basic matter of fairness, but it is also a basic application of good economic management. If you want an economy, if you want a community, if you want a country that is innovative and that is able to challenge the economic and employment issues that are coming down the track towards Australia then you want a workforce that are well qualified, you want a workforce that are numerous and you want a workforce that are able to complete their studies. It seems to me that there are warped priorities from this government. Understand that taking money out of students' pockets, ripping off young people and expecting them to get by with less is not good economic management—and I make that point very strongly.

This bill does nothing to fix the other problems experienced by young people at Centrelink—hours on the phone or in service centres and months of waiting for processing. I know that last year many students who had applied for Youth Allowance and student allowance had waited up to six months for their applications to be processed. That is not the fault of Centrelink staff; it is the fault of a government that is starving Centrelink of the resources that are needed. The problems with Centrelink are not just about eligibility; they are about ease of access. I speak to Centrelink staff on a regular basis, and they will tell you that they want to help the people who contact them. They want to do their jobs. But in many instances it is almost impossible. They are totally overstretched and unsupported by the government, and I hope that overstretched and unsupported staff are not going to find it more difficult with the measures that we are talking about today. There have been over 5,000 job cuts in the past five years, 35 million unanswered calls, robo-debt, a pay freeze, and month-long waits for age pension applications—not to mention a minister who is intent on attacking staff and misrepresenting Centrelink clients at every turn and cannot even be bothered turning up for a speech on his own piece of legislation. In fact, as I said, no-one from the government—

See this speech in context