Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am keen to speak to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures for Students) Bill 2007 because it has been a long time coming. It is a bill that the Democrats support and commend the government for, albeit belatedly. This bill implements some of the student income support measures contained in the last budget, including—and most importantly, as far as the Democrats are concerned—extending rent assistance to Austudy recipients and allowing certain postgraduate students to access Austudy and youth allowance. We welcome the changes, particularly the extension of rent assistance to Austudy recipients. It is something that I, along with some others in this place, have campaigned for for many, many years. Combined with other student income measures in the budget, these measures constitute a $222 million increase for student income support over the next four years. This is well overdue.

As has been highlighted on page 5 of today’s edition of the Australian, a number of backbench members of the coalition pointed out that debt levels for Australian students are high. We also have to recognise that the affordability of education has plummeted in some ways. HECS fees have increased substantially and the introduction of full-fee degrees has further entrenched a user-pays system in this country. Across the country, students and graduates owe a grand total of $12.9 billion to the government. More than 2,000 Australians have individual debts of $40,000 or more. In 1997, the Howard government raised the age of independence for income support to 25, after the Keating government had implemented a gradual reduction in that age, lowering it to 22. In 1999, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no $100,000 degrees under his watch. Now we have more than 100 degrees that cost more than that amount and some that cost around $240,000. That is massive. In 2006, 30,200 domestic students paid full fees for their undergraduate degrees, more than double the amount in 2005. The practice is expanding. This year the government brought in legislation that theoretically allows universities to establish full-fee only courses.

All of these skyrocketing costs for students occur against a background of the rising price of essentials in the broader community, such as petrol, food, rent et cetera, leading to a rise in financial stress among the student population. If anyone doubts that, you only have to look at the recent report of the survey by Universities Australia: Australian university student finances survey 2006. According to this report, one in eight students regularly goes without food or other essentials because they cannot afford them. The average number of hours worked by full-time undergraduate students is now 14.8 hours per week. There has been a suspicious decline in the proportion of full-time undergraduates receiving youth allowance or Austudy, from 42.4 per cent in 2000 to 35.2 per cent last year. I cannot believe it is due to a lack of demand. Other studies have shown that the cost of tertiary education is a significant barrier to rural students, with 47 per cent indicating that it would be difficult for them to support themselves at university.

This state of affairs is clearly not in the interests of individual students. If students are worrying about their finances and not being able to afford food or other essentials, or they are working significant hours each week, their studies are highly likely to suffer. That is not in the national interest. Our country is going to depend on highly skilled workers to remain internationally competitive into the future. How can you be focused on the economy on the one hand but allow a system to develop where the employees of tomorrow reject tertiary study due to cost or have education distracted by their financial considerations? What does it say about the future workforce if entry into university is going to be increasingly determined by your wealth rather than your merit?

I am sad that this is an area where the government has not been more active. While the two key measures in this bill today are an improvement, they represent government outlays of $86.9 million and $43.3 million respectively spread over four years, so it is a relatively small amount in the context of the higher education budget, and these two issues alone will not significantly address this pressing issue of affordability.

In 2004, as senators here would know, I initiated an inquiry into student income support through the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education. Its report was tabled in June 2005, albeit with the interruption of a federal election in the middle. It had 15 recommendations tailored to relieve student financial stress. The government still has not responded to this inquiry, so maybe this is a question to the acting minister today: when is the government going to respond? If the convention is three months, then we have well and truly passed that stage. It was due in 2005 and it is now September 2007—years later. It was the first inquiry to look solely at the issue of student income support. I think it is a clear breach of Senate protocol but, more importantly, it suggests to the sector and to the community—not just to students, aspiring students and graduates, but to Universities Australia and to other peak organisations—that the government does not care about this pressing issue.

I said repeatedly in this Senate this week, when we were discussing the Higher Education Endowment Fund, we know that this is a key indicator in ensuring that people can participate or enter into education at all levels, and higher education in particular. Student income support has to be adequate and it has to be accessible. We are familiar with what I perceive as a disregard shown by the government in this particular area of policy. But this is really a blatant example of disrespect for the particular issues. By the way, there were 140 submissions to that Senate inquiry.

There is much more the government could do to address some of these issues and obviously we do not have time today to address those. All scholarships could be tax-free. I know that Universities Australia and other groups would acknowledge that. There could be a reduction in the age of independence, ideally to 18, or 21 or even 22, which is where the Keating government was at. It is still quite arbitrary in how we define eligibility for adult versus other benefits. There is plenty of legislation, social security legislation, where you are defined as an adult at the age of 16 if it saves money for government, but it does not seem to work the other way when it comes to being eligible for payments, particularly payments that would actually assist you. We should be considering education as an investment in the future, not a cost. The rate of Austudy and youth allowance could be pegged to a level equivalent to the Henderson poverty line. There are a range of measures and of course I do refer to and recommend that Senate inquiry report.

The Democrats have long argued for and believed in an equitable and well-funded higher education system, and we certainly oppose—and have for a long time—this increasing shift towards deregulation of the sector and an additional reliance upon private funding. I hope that the government does not think that these measures are enough in themselves. This is not an attempt to fob off students and others before an election. I do not just mean students; I mean the broader community. I think that there are serious issues out there that have to be addressed by the government in relation to university study.

Judging by the remarks that I saw in the paper today, I think from Dr Mal Washer and others, these are concerns that are held across the political spectrum. To paraphrase one of the comments I read this morning, that was something along the lines of, ‘Why do we have this booming economy and yet we have so much debt?’ It is not right that our future students, graduates, the skill set of tomorrow, are being burdened with such massive individual debt—the size of a mortgage is needed in order to access education—especially when theoretically through a progressive taxation system people should be repaying their money into government coffers and contributing to the community.

This bill is important and these measures are essential, but there are a broad range of other measures, a suite of reforms, that have to be introduced to address this issue and, once again, I appeal to both sides of parliament to consider these issues. It is not just the government; there is also an aspiring government here and I would not mind hearing a bit more detail from them about what they propose when it comes to student income support as well.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.