Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to raise my concerns about the absolute mess that has been created by this government’s attempt to change the system of student income support. It is really with a sense of sorrow, frustration and disappointment rather than anger that I raise my concerns here today. I honestly believe that this House can do better on behalf of students right across regional Australia. This issue dates back to May last year when the minister announced, without any warning, retrospective changes to the way students on their gap year would be treated by the government in the future consideration of student income support. The great concern at that time was that the students themselves had done nothing wrong; they had taken the advice of their careers counsellors, Centrelink officers, principals and teachers. Really they were the meat in the sandwich in the proposal put forward by the minister at the time.

What followed was a great outpouring of concern from students, with many petitions tabled here in the parliament and letters of concern raised by parents, teachers and the students themselves. Eventually the minister relented to some extent and made some accommodation for the gap year students. But the bill before the chamber last year still kept those elements of retrospectivity which were of great concern to the opposition and also unacceptable to the minor parties in the Senate. We ended the parliamentary year with uncertainty and great confusion. The minister has not taken the opportunity over the summer break or in this first week of parliament to fix the mess. What has been done is that the government has taken out advertisements in daily newspapers warning students that the legislation may change and that there is no certainty whatsoever as they begin their university year. They really cannot start planning for the rest of their lives until they know what this minister is prepared to do in terms of student income support.

Without wishing to get ahead of ourselves, I would like to encourage the minister to look at splitting the bill. There is strong support amongst the opposition and the minor parties for many of the non-controversial aspects of this bill. I have always acknowledged that there was room for improvement in the previous system and have spoken positively in this place, in my electorate and in letters to students in my electorate about the new income thresholds. There is support for these because they will widen the opportunity for students to attend university. There are also additional scholarships that have been proposed by the minister. So there is support for those aspects of the bill. Those non-controversial aspects of the bill, dare I say it, would probably get a red-carpet ride through the parliament if the minister was fair dinkum about looking to support students and end the uncertainty which currently exists.

There is really no reason whatsoever for the minister to continue with these delays causing this uncertainty in our community. I believe she is continuing to play politics with the lives of young Australians when she could split this bill and put these non-controversial aspects in place as early as this month. Students really do need certainty as they begin planning for the rest of their lives. We are talking about 17- and 18-year-old kids moving 200 kilometres, 300 kilometres, 400 kilometres or more away from their homes to establish themselves in cities and right now they have no idea what level of support they are going to be provided with by the government.

Looking to the future, there is no doubt that we need to do more to provide extra assistance for regional students. Last month we had a Senate committee inquiry which found, amongst its eight recommendations, that there should be a tertiary access allowance of $10,000 per year for students forced to move away from home to attend university. We really can do better and it really is incumbent upon the minister to end the uncertainty as soon as possible and to bring the legislation back to the House. (Time expired)