Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

To carry on with Senator Nash’s comments, Senator Nash referred to, I think, the Principal of Loxton High, Mr Kent—I apologise; I cannot remember his surname. Senator Nash said that he had personally raised it with her—I think these were her words—‘years ago’, and then she repeated ‘years ago’. That tells me all of a sudden that this is not a problem that has been confronting rural and regional students in the last year or so; it has been around for a long, long time, and that is why this government is doing its best to change some of those dinosaur pieces of legislation that were there under the Howard government.

On that, over the 11 years of John Howard’s coalition government we saw the continual erosion of federal government support for Australia’s higher education system—no argument; it was there. The coalition parties were a lead weight on the future of young people for the 11 years that they were in office and they are still a lead weight, unfortunately, on the backs of a lot of young Australians. They talked a lot about higher education but basically did very little. In fact, they actually reduced opportunities for young people in this country to gain a university education. They mucked up the higher education sector when they were in office and now, in regard to this bill, they want to put more obstacles in the way of young Australians who are seeking to better themselves through higher education.

At last, however, Australia has a Minister for Education that has a very clear vision for the future of higher education and has the determination and courage to make it happen. The opposition has been making a lot of noise in regard to this bill in an effort to dupe young people and their parents into believing that opposition members of this parliament are concerned about young people and their ability to afford to participate in higher education. The cruel fact is that the opposition’s proposed amendments will do the opposite.

It is not just the government saying this; it is also the heads of universities across the country and the national student body. On Friday of last week, 13 November, the Group of Eight, which is the coalition of Australia’s leading universities, called upon the Senate to pass this bill. The Chair of the Group of Eight, Professor Alan Robson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, had this to say:

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 will realise important changes to student income support announced in the 2009 Budget

Professor Robson went on to say:

“Under the proposed new parental income test, a family in which two students are living away from home will be able to earn up to $140,729 before those students lose their Youth Allowance payments. Currently Youth Allowance for such a family would cut out completely at an income of just under $80,000.

“At the same time loopholes in the current legislation allow students from high-income families to access the full rate of Youth Allowance.

               …            …            …

“New start-up and relocation scholarships for all students on Youth Allowance will make a big difference for 150,000 students who have not been eligible for such support before, especially—

I emphasise ‘especially’—

for families in rural and regional areas.

               …            …            …

“The Go8 recognises that the Opposition has tried to listen to students and its rural and regional MPs. However, the Opposition’s amendments are funded by permanently cutting the new Start-Up scholarships which will leave 150,000 students worse off.

“Permanently cutting scholarship funds for a large number of students in need in order to fund a Gap Year for a small number of wealthier students should not be an acceptable solution to the Senate.”

They are pretty strong words. Again on 13 November 2009, the Australian Technology Network of Universities, the ATN, stated in a media statement:

Successful passage of the Government’s student income support package (Social Security and Other Legislation (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009) … is a crucial element in redressing university access and participation and must be passed—

I repeat ‘must be passed’—

if income support is to reach those students who need it most.

The chair of the ATN, Professor Ross Milbourne, said:

“What seems to be forgotten in this debate is that more low-income students are going to get access to Youth Allowance without having to do a gap year at all, and that the thresholds for at-home are much lower than the thresholds for away-from-home.

           …         …         …

Professor Milbourne said the ATN was also strongly opposed to Opposition amendments to slash the value of the Start-up scholarship from $2,254 to $1000 as a means of funding their proposed amendments.

On 19 October 2009, Professor Peter Coaldrake, the Chair of Universities Australia, which is the peak industry body representing Australia’s universities, had this to say in a media release:

The passage of the Social Security and Other Legislations Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 will give effect to substantial and welcome reforms—

I will repeat that: ‘substantial and welcome reforms’—

to student income support as announced in the May Budget in response to the recommendations of the Bradley Review.

Peter Coaldrake indicated that the changes contained in the bill will mean that more students will be eligible for youth allowance and at a higher rate than previously. He concluded by saying:

… Universities Australia calls upon all members of Parliament to support the amendments proposed in this Bill.

The position being taken by the leaders of Australia’s university sector in support of the bill as it stands is backed by the findings of the recent review of Australian higher education conducted by an independent expert panel, led by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley AC. The Bradley review found that:

… current student financial support arrangements are complex and poorly targeted.

The report went on to say:

The entire framework for provision of financial support for students needs urgent reform.

What we also found out from this review is that the Howard government in 1998 created a loophole in the eligibility criteria for student financial support. This loophole has enabled a large number of students to get around the means testing of household income in respect to eligibility for Youth Allowance. Students can become eligible for independent status so far as the payment of the relevant youth allowance is concerned by earning $18,850 in a recent 18-month period or by working a given number of hours in paid work over a specified period of time. This can be achieved by taking a gap year and working in casual employment for that period or by being—and this is really interesting—employed by their families.

The Bradley review of higher education found that as a result of this loophole 36 per cent of the students receiving youth allowance are from households with total income above $100,000 and—this is an interesting point—10 per cent are from households with total income in excess of $200,000. In other words, taxpayer funding of youth allowance payments has gone off the rails. A substantial proportion of funding that was originally supposed to support higher education opportunities for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds has been captured by high-income households and very well off families—46 per cent, in fact. It is no wonder therefore there is strong support from the broader community and from the higher education sector for the Senate to pass this bill without amendment.

The fact is that Australia’s universities have been concerned for a number of years about the persistent underrepresentation of people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous people undertaking university studies. For this reason in 2007 Universities Australia commissioned the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at Melbourne university to undertake a review of the participation in higher education of people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous people. The review’s steering committee was chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of WA and included several vice-chancellors from other Australian universities. This gives a measure of the level of concern that Australian universities have about this matter.

The Universities Australia review found that, firstly, in the six years from 2001 to 2006 under the Youth Allowance policy of the Howard government, access to university by people living in regional and rural areas declined while the access to university by people living in urban areas increased. So much for the Howard government’s concern about people living in regional and rural areas gaining access to higher education. Secondly, the review found that the level of access to university by people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds living in regional areas was much worse than for people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds who lived in urban areas. In other words, under the Howard government, if you were poor and lived in regional areas you were in a much worse position than someone from a similar background living in or near the city wishing to go to university. It is all there. It is all in black and white.

Thirdly, the review found that the likelihood of someone from a medium-socioeconomic background attending a university was only 56 per cent of that of persons from high-socioeconomic backgrounds. The same comparison between low- and high-socioeconomic backgrounds was, unfortunately, much worse. So you can see that, during the period of the Howard government, if you lived in an urban area and were well-off, your chances of gaining access to higher education were vastly better than if you lived in a regional area or came from a lower socioeconomic background.

Opposition senators have got absolutely no credibility when trying to lecture the government on the matter of rural student access to university. What we are seeing and hearing is overwhelming endorsement by the higher education sector of the measures contained in this bill to provide better and far more appropriately targeted income support for students undertaking higher education. We owe it to the large number of students for whom the Youth Allowance and other income support measures contained in this bill are vital to pass this legislation without delay.

I also have a current media release from the National Union of Students and its national president, Mr David Barrow. I would like to quote two lines from Mr Barrow’s media release so that, hopefully, we can hammer home to senators opposite and the Independent senators the importance of passing this legislation without amendment. Mr Barrow says:

This package is part of the regional solution. To block it makes it that much harder for regional students in 2010. This package is a step toward addressing regional disadvantage, not a step back.