Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today as I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 I feel a sense of deja vu, as this Senate meets again to vote on legislation affecting our higher education sector that will actually put rural students at a huge disadvantage compared to their city cousins. This bill has sold out rural and regional Australians because the Rudd government has taken a sledgehammer to the Youth Allowance scheme. Just over a month ago the Senate passed the Higher Education Support Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill. I said at the time that it was ridiculous to be debating that bill, the support amendment bill, while we did not at the same time start to cover this current bill, the social security bill. The bills are completely linked and they address similar issues. I said that to have them debated separately was the wrong way of going about it.

The support amendment bill abolished the existing Commonwealth scholarships, while the current bill provides for their replacement. But, importantly, the current bill also does something else. It makes a number of changes to the youth allowance system that will make it even harder for kids in the country to go to university and harder for all those kids who need to relocate to go to university. A clever country would make it easier for our kids to get to uni, not harder. The government did not have the guts to put all of their changes to the parliament at once, rather putting them separately. They knew that if they put them together, they would end up having the debate that we are probably going to have today which would have been tied up with the other bill. What the government are now trying to do is hold this Senate to ransom and to say that the measures of their Commonwealth scholarships will not be in there next year if this bill does not proceed. I am hoping that tonight we will make changes to the bill. It may even be rejected in order to force the government back to the negotiating table to fix the current bill.

The government have gone out, ripped out all of the scholarships that used to be available to students who depend on government funding and said, ‘If you want them back, you had better pass this bill, even though its youth allowance cutbacks will hurt 26,000 Australian kids who are trying to get to university.’ The government’s actions are reckless and have put the welfare of students, particularly those from rural and regional areas, in jeopardy. They have sold out the bush; they have sold out regional and rural kids wanting to get university. For all the government spin and polish on its education revolution, there is nothing more than education wreckage. The Rudd government know they got it wrong, and that is why they did an embarrassing backflip. But the Rudd government did not fix the problem; they just deferred it by exempting this year’s gap students. The government have stuffed up with their changes to youth allowance, and for months on end they have refused to listen to anyone on the issue. In the end, the government have been left with egg on their face.

If the government had not been so arrogant and had not insisted for months on pressing ahead with its changes to the youth allowance and not listening to anyone on changes, just allowing a quick change at the end to exempt this year’s gap year students, it would not have suffered such an embarrassment as it has so far on this issue. It did not need to come at this issue with a sledgehammer, but that is what is has done. In the end, it took a roundtable discussion that was organised by Family First and where the Deputy Prime Minister got a chance to meet with a group of interested adults and students from rural and regional Victoria to set the record straight on some of these changes to the youth allowance. I want to acknowledge and thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making herself available to hear this group and for taking the time to actually listen to their concerns. But it is a shame that this type of roundtable discussion did not happen early enough. In the end, it was left for others to step in to try to get some real discussions happening with real people to enable them to share with the government first hand how these changes would affect them greatly.

In less than an hour at this meeting the students and parents whose lives were going to be detrimentally affected by the proposed changes to youth allowance were able to at least allow the Deputy Prime Minister to see that there was an enormous mistake being made. These parents and students highlighted how the changes to the youth allowance eligibility criteria would see rural and regional kids left two years behind their city counterparts. That is because the government wants to force school leavers to work 30 hours per week for 18 months to prove their independence to qualify for youth allowance. But instead of coming up with a proper solution, the government came up with a quick fix bandaid solution that only deferred the problem but did not fix it—that is, the government just delayed the introduction of these youth allowance changes by six months but left the whole system in a mess. The government gave a reprieve to those students currently on a gap year but condemned all future students from rural and regional Australia to a youth allowance system in need of urgent repair. The government has sold out rural and regional Australians in this bill. The changes to the youth allowance eligibility criteria are blatantly unfair and will see fewer people from country Australia heading to university instead of promoting university education for more Australians.

We already have a situation in which there is a huge discrepancy between the number of people from the city who go to university and the number of people from the country who go to university. Twenty-nine per cent of the population aged between 25 and 34 hold a university degree, but out in the rural and regional areas this figure is much lower: only 17 per cent. What is the reason for this difference? People who live in rural and regional Australia are no less intelligent, no less capable and no less ambitious than the people living in major cities, so why is there such a big gap between the number of people living in the metro areas who go to university and the number of people living in the bush who go to university?

A lot of it is because of a huge financial burden for students who are forced to relocate to other areas or to the city to try to get by while studying full time. It is also because the government is not doing enough to make it easier for these rural and regional students. Instead of making it easier for our kids in the country to go to uni, the government wants to do the exact opposite: to make it even harder for rural and regional students to get to uni. The government’s changes to youth allowance are absolutely ridiculous, and it ought to be embarrassed with itself. A clever country would be making it easier, not harder, for our kids to go to university, but the Rudd government’s proposed youth allowance changes are citycentric and force rural students to abandon their university dreams.

The government’s changes to youth allowance would disadvantage rural and regional students and put them two years behind people living in the city. They will force school leavers from rural and regional areas to delay their study plans by two years in order to go to university. Many of them may well decide not to bother going to a university if it means having to wait so long. It is already hard enough for rural and regional students to get into university with the extra costs of having to live away from home, and now the government wants to put them two years behind their city counterparts. Sometimes it seems the government is more interested in making it easier for kids from overseas to come study in Australia than doing all it can to help our own rural and regional students get to university.

In just a few short months we have had both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade visit India to try to encourage Indian students to keep coming to Australia. That is well and good, but what about making it easier for our own kids from rural and regional areas to get to university? A decade ago, Australia was ranked seventh in the OECD for the proportion of the population aged 25 to 34 with a university degree. Since then, we have slipped to ninth. The government’s changes to youth allowance will push us even further down these rankings. It remains a fact that Australian university students receive among the lowest levels of income support in the OECD.

The government has claimed that there are some students who are rorting the current youth allowance eligibility requirements to get government assistance when they do not really deserve it, but instead of tackling that concern sensibly and responsibly the government has taken a sledgehammer approach and overturned the youth allowance eligibility criteria without properly considering all of the consequences. The government’s proposed changes to youth allowance are not real solutions; they are not solutions at all. Family First will be moving an amendment for a 100-kilometre relocation clause which would keep the current eligibility requirements for youth allowance if a student were forced to move more than 100 kilometres away from home. This will mean that students who are forced to relocate from home to go to university will still qualify for youth allowance under the old criteria. The 100-kilometre relocation clause amendment will make sure that those students who really need government assistance will continue to be eligible for youth allowance. It will ensure that rural and regional students are not forced to defer their studies by two years, so they are not left behind their city neighbours.

The government needs to understand that we are talking about real people and real kids’ university futures here. We are not just talking about names and numbers on a piece of paper. Take, for example, one letter I received from a concerned mother called Lisa, who wrote:

Financially, I have grave concerns for how we are going to be able to support the girls at university. My husband is a teacher and I work two days a week as an early intervention teacher. We are a middle income earning family with a home mortgage. I also have another daughter who will be attending university before Claire and Hayley will gain independence under the new scheme.

Before the changes to Youth Allowance were made this year, Claire and Hayley were initially going to take a gap year (to claim independence) as they knew we could not solely financially support both going to university. Under the new scheme this is not an option as they would be unable to get a guaranteed 30 hours a week of work, as we live in a high unemployment area.

What about another letter, this from a mother from rural Australia called Jacky, who wrote:

I have a very stressed 17 year old, about to commence his year 12 and his whole future has been thrown into turmoil. It is a difficult time for him and thousands of other students in the same situation, he doesn't know what his next move will be because of the youth allowance situation.

These are real lives that the government is messing about with here. The government needs to get these changes right; otherwise, it will put education of our kids at risk.

I was listening to the debate before, and one of the other senators referred to the youth allowance as a ‘loophole’. I would like that senator to go out to the rural and regional parts of Australia and call it a loophole. Look in the eyes of those kids who actually need the income support from youth allowance to get to university. How dare this government label it as a loophole that they can claim? I think the senator would regret saying that to rural and regional Australia, treating them with such contempt. A loophole! These people are struggling to get their kids to uni, and you are calling it a loophole for those people out there? That is outrageous, to say the least. The same senator would then say, ‘In these times, it may be tough to go and get the $19,500.’ How tough will it be to get 30 hours a week for 18 months? That is even tougher. I do not think you realise what you are doing to the next generation. I do not think you really have gone out to the rural and regional areas and spoken to people, looked people in the eye and said, ‘These changes will make it worse; they will make it harder.’ A clever country does not make it harder for its kids to get to university; it makes it easier. You are pinching pennies in the wrong area.

Most of us got our education for free, and you are making these kids sound like they are being greedy. It is just wrong. It remains a fact that Australian university students receive among the lowest levels of income support across the OECD countries; they are not greedy. Do not be so stingy. Education is important. You could have made some changes and not taken a sledgehammer approach to youth allowance. You could have made some changes. You are being so stingy; I just cannot believe it. You have to come to your senses and make some changes, and I am hoping that tonight or when we get to vote on this particular bill that we stand up for rural and regional kids and we force the government back to the negotiation table.

If this bill does not get up, you will make a claim that we are being reckless because the Commonwealth scholarships will not be provided next year. You folks took them away in a previous bill. I said at the time that you should have brought this bill in at the same time and had them both debated on. But no, you waited until the last two weeks of the sitting year to try and force it through, hide it late at night. What a joke. You should have had the guts to bring these two bills in together, have them debated together and let us see then where they fell. But to try and hold us to ransom and say: ‘If you don’t pass this bill, you’re being reckless. If this bill doesn’t pass, there’ll be no Commonwealth scholarships’, that is your fault—no-one else’s except your own.

You should be making it easier for our kids to get to university. Yes, the changes do allow some others to get some support. But 26,000 kids will be worse off. It is wrong. Many of the people who rely on youth allowance are from rural and regional areas where we need the doctors, we need the nurses, we need the accountants and we need the professional services. They are short in those areas because they need people from the area to get their degrees and then go back to where they have come from. As I was saying, a clever country would make it easier for our kids to get to university, and you turn your back on the rural and regional areas at your own peril. You have a chance now to fix it; you have a chance not to be so stingy. You say you are happy to look at changes as long as they are within budget parameters. But when you wake up one day you are quite happy to spend 43 billion bucks. You are happy to have lots of money going out the door but when it comes to our kids’ university education or making it easier for kids from rural and regional areas, you say ‘Let’s cut back here.’

You should not have taken a sledgehammer approach to it. We have been saying this for a little while now. A lot of these issues were raised back when the first bill came through. You have yourselves in a mess here, so you can try and go out to rural and regional areas and the Australian public and say that we are holding back Commonwealth scholarships, but you are. You have a chance to change what you are putting forward here tonight—and you really should. Let us do the right thing by the next generation and make it easier for our kids to get to uni not harder. Stop penny pinching.