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

The government will not be supporting these amendments. They would have massive budgetary implications. This is not just a question of being stingy. This would have a very dramatic effect on the budget. It would probably cost more than the coalition’s proposal to push back the new workforce criteria for one year. The government cannot accept these amendments because of the enormous implications for the budget.

Family First have no offsetting savings in their proposal. This measure is completely out of step with the direction in which the bill is seeking to go in regard to the better targeting of support for families in need. If there was ever a case of strong advocacy for middle-class welfare, this is an example. This is the sort of sloppy thinking one has come to expect from those who want to appeal to parts of the electorate that believe someone else can always pay for these arrangements.

These amendments seek to provide assistance to families who earn over $200,000 or even $300,000 if it is determined that the students need to move. This is wide open to abuse. The primary beneficiaries of this measure would be students from families above the parental income test. For two children living away from home, it is currently set at $140,729; for one child at home, it is set at $92,447. Under these amendments, it is likely that students would change their course preferences to universities away from their home in order to meet the new criteria, resulting in substantial increases in budgetary liabilities.

The government believe that students who need to move deserve additional support. We acknowledge that. That is why our reforms put in place relocation scholarships and more generous parental income cut-out points for students who need to move to study—that is, $140,729 for two students living away from home or $107,709 for two children at home. The government do not believe in providing support to everybody regardless of how well off they are. We do not believe that that is an appropriate investment of public moneys for people who are very wealthy. Our reforms target the most resources to students from low- and middle-income families. We cannot support amendments that do not target support to those most in need of it.