Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition in principle supports efforts to improve the ways in which government assistance to students is targeted. There have been concerns raised about this issue over many years—indeed, dating back to when I was at university. The government’s objective of better targeting assistance is to be very much welcomed. The opposition supports that. The Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, has made much in response to the Bradley review of higher education of the government’s intention to both increase the overall participation in higher education by young Australians and secondly to increase the access to and participation in higher education by young Australians from groups in our society that are currently underrepresented at our universities. Again, the opposition certainly acknowledges that these are noble goals. The coalition supports them in principle. The devil will always be in the detail and in the implementation of those principles. There are many ways in which increased participation can be encouraged and it will take some wisdom and some foresight to choose the right ones and then implement them properly.

I am not, sadly, a great believer in Labor’s ability to implement educational programs properly. I have been disappointed, sadly, far too many times, including yet again a few weeks ago during the Senate’s additional estimate hearings. Tales of woe, appalling administration and appalling implementation were the stories of the day. But, as I am generous, I will leave those stories for another day.

One thing is certain: we are all trying to encourage young Australians from underrepresented groups—such as those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous backgrounds and rural backgrounds—to enter university. We are trying to do that. It is important that kids from rural backgrounds, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students want to and are able to go universities. As we try to do that, at the very least we should be aware of the first principle: do no harm to their prospects; do no harm to the prospects of disadvantaged kids, Indigenous kids and kids from rural and regional backgrounds.

In this instance, while the coalition do support restructuring student support measures in broad terms, we are alarmed that one of the consequences of the reforms contained in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 will be to make it even harder for students from rural, regional and remote communities to attend universities. I will refer briefly to an article from the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 October, by Heath Gilmore. He wrote:

POOR students and those from regional and remote areas are finding the dream of going to university more elusive than ever and entry to elite Sydney institutions virtually impossible.

The number of first year students from low socio-economic areas flatlined in the eight years to last year.

At the same time, enrolments from regional areas fell by more than 6 per cent and from remote areas by 23 per cent in a sign that tougher economic times and the drought are curtailing the educational dreams of young Australians.

So young Australians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, are suffering in their capacity to attend Australian higher education institutions.

I commend to the Senate the recent report of the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and its investigation into this bill—ably chaired, I might add, by my friend and colleague Senator Nash. Much evidence was given with respect to what would happen if the government’s bill were passed unamended. I will briefly refer to a couple of aspects of the report. Paragraph 3.13 states:

Submissions and evidence to the inquiry expressed significant concern and anxiety about the impact of the tightening of workforce participation criteria on the participation of rural and regional students in higher education. The committee was informed that many rural and regional students, because they need to move away from home to pursue a tertiary course, take a ‘gap’ year following secondary school in order to earn the required money to access Independent Youth Allowance.

That is what these young Australians do. The paragraph continues:

The committee received much evidence that without access to the Independent Youth Allowance many rural and regional students would no longer be able to afford to move away from home to participate in higher education.

That is what the committee found. Paragraph 3.15 states:

As the Department—

the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations itself—

noted in its submission to the Rural Education inquiry, it is accepted that students living away from home for tertiary education face higher costs than students living at home with their families.

Finally, paragraph 3.17 states:

Evidence to the committee was that it is a well known, almost accepted fact, in regional areas that taking a gap year and qualifying for Independent Youth Allowance is the way in which students will finance their university studies.

In particular, the abolition of the workforce participation route for Youth Allowance eligibility, to qualify as independent, will make it harder for thousands of young people from regional and rural Australia. Young people in rural and regional Australia generally have to move to the city if they are going to pursue further study—that is just a geographic fact—and are not necessarily able to rely on financial support from their parents, even if their parents’ income or assets mean that they are ineligible to qualify for Youth Allowance under the parental means test. As honourable senators will be aware, it is not uncommon in farming and grazing communities for assets to be high and incomes quite low. Because a significant cohort of students from the country are ineligible to receive dependent Youth Allowance, thousands every year currently gain eligibility for independent Youth Allowance under the workforce participation criteria. That is how they qualify. This means that they have to earn $19,532 within an 18-month period, which most do during what is commonly called a ‘gap year’. This government is seeking to abolish this pathway because it was being exploited by a small cohort of wealthy city families. Can I say for a start: I think that in many cases that is a fact; it did happen.  But I think it is also another example of the government’s overkill—trying to kill a mosquito with an A-bomb. It is just not necessary. Sure, the problem of occasional abuse of the system might be solved, but only at the cost of seriously disadvantaging many more innocent students and innocent rural families. Even the Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee, chaired by Labor member Geoff Howard, and with an effective Labor majority, unanimously agreed, saying:

… the Committee believes the removal of the main workforce participation route will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas …

I know the Rudd government seems to believe in magic as a tool of public policy—magic pudding, for example, seems to be the major economic doctrine of the government formerly known as economic conservatives. But in the real world you cannot increase access to higher education by under-represented groups, such as rural students, by putting obstacles in the way of these students accessing higher education. That just does not make sense, and it does not work.

The opposition believe that the tightening of the workforce participation criteria by the government leaves post-2008 school leavers with only one workforce participation option if they want to be eligible for the independent Youth Allowance—just one. The opposition do not believe it is sound policy, being overly restrictive and going against the government’s stated aim of encouraging participation by students from underrepresented groups—including, in this particular case, rural students. This is why I will be moving an amendment that Mr Pyne, the shadow minister, has just announced, which will extend the workforce participation criteria in proposed section 1067A(10C) beyond a transition measure and retain it for students who are required to leave home to pursue their chosen course. This in effect will offer a continuing special rural pathway for Youth Allowance, eligibility being based upon criteria to be established by guidelines by the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The coalition believe that this is the right thing to do by students from rural areas. It will ensure that such students are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis their peers from metropolitan areas and that they will be encouraged to pursue higher education as an achievable option.

Unfortunately, because of the government’s design of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, many students around Australia are finding themselves caught in the government’s intransigence. The law is being changed midstream and thousands of students are left to flounder by the government. This is an issue of equity. This is an issue of equity because, in making their decisions about their studies, many students around Australia relied on the information provided to them by teachers, counsellors and Centrelink officials. They have, in good faith, made the decisions about their future appropriately based on the official advice received. Now what is the government doing? Changing the rules halfway through the game. Basic principles of the rule of law demand that legislation be not made retrospective and thus disadvantage people who did nothing wrong but merely followed the law as it was originally stated and who took advice from people to ensure that they were not breaking any laws. Basic principles of decency demand that the people currently in the system are allowed to proceed and that any changes are introduced only with the future in mind and do not affect any current students.

A few months ago, under intense pressure from the thousands of students affected and their families and passionate coalition advocacy, particularly from members representing rural electorates, Minister Gillard announced a backflip to enable current gap year students to continue to access the workforce participation route to youth allowance as long as they lived more than 90 minutes from their university by public transport. But this will allow only some 5,000 of the 30,000 students affected back into the youth allowance system. The coalition believes this is not good enough and will seek to do the right thing by the whole of the 30,000 affected, not just the small fraction of the total.

This is why the coalition will propose four amendments to this bill to address the issue of retrospectivity and the financing of that measure. The purpose of our amendments is twofold. The first three amendments fulfil the coalition’s promise to remove the retrospectivity for current gap year students. We want to make things fair for the 30,000 students affected by Labor’s ill-designed attempt at reform. Students did the right thing by the law—they acted in accordance with the law—but the government has changed the rules midstream. The fourth amendment is our suggested savings measure that will pay for the first three amendments, in essence financing the restoration of the gap year rules for the students affected. This will be achieved through reducing the rate of the new student start-up scholarship from $2,254 per year to $1,000 per year. In addition, the proposed change will provide an ongoing saving that will fund the maintenance of the most important workforce participation test for rural students who must leave home to pursue higher education. That, to us, is exceedingly important.

As I stated at the outset, the coalition broadly supports the bill—I think better targeting welfare is a great idea and it is sensible—but with major reservations which we are seeking to address through our amendments. We believe our amendments will achieve this, firstly, by removing the retrospective elements of the bill and, secondly, by addressing the issue of rural and regional disadvantage in a serious manner. When governments start talking about access, as this government has, particularly in relation to higher education, they must not see disadvantage too narrowly. Sure, you can do a means test—and people see someone whose income is low as being disadvantaged, and that is true, or often children who are Indigenous are seen as similarly disadvantaged—but often those in rural and regional areas face particular difficulties, sometimes financial, sometimes not, related to geography, demography, distance and time, all the things that are not taken into account in this bill. That is why any government that talks about access must honestly address issues related to rural and regional students in relation to higher education. Without that, the idea of so-called access is just a fraud. When I went to university I used to go on a bus and three stops down the road I got off at the university.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I should have walked, but it was very easy for me to go, and I was privileged to go; however, many young Australians do not have that access at all. Why? Simply because they live in rural and regional areas. The coalition’s argument is that, if you honestly believe in equal access to Australia’s great higher education system, you must make this available to Indigenous students, disadvantaged students and those students living in regional and rural areas. Access is a noble aim, but let us be serious. With our amendments it is a commitment that this parliament can make to rural and regional Australians.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed a very rare pleasure to be able to stand up and follow on from one of my colleagues. In particular, I thank Senator Mason most sincerely for his very fine remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. There is one thing the Australian Labor Party does not understand, and that is regional and rural Australia. It has never understood regional and rural Australia and it will never, ever understand regional and rural Australia. It is very interesting when you speak to country parents, as I have been doing for many years now—some would say too many years but I do not agree with them—to learn that they have had to make a choice about which of their children is to receive higher education. In a country like Australia where country parents have got to make a decision about which of their children is going to get—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, it is very interesting. Again the loudmouth who knows nothing about regional and rural Australia is making comments. The closest you have ever been is as a duty senator, Senator Carr, on very, very rare excursions into country Victoria or country Australia. I will continue my remarks shortly, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I am looking forward to addressing some of the comments made by Senator Carr, who again shows his extraordinary ignorance of a portfolio of which he professes to have some understanding.

Debate interrupted.