Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s mishandling of the independent youth allowance and its treatment of students in regional Australia.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The Acting Deputy President:

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is without doubt one of the saddest days I have seen in this place since I came here. We have just witnessed the Labor Party, the Greens and the Independent Nick Xenophon refuse to debate the bill that would have given fairness and equity to regional students, and I think everybody living in a regional area across this country right now would be unbelievably disappointed, shattered and completely at a loss as to what this government is doing when it comes to regional Australia. What on earth did we just see? We had nothing except an hour set aside to debate this bill, utilising time that was already allocated for the coalition. All of the rubbish that Senator Bob Brown went on with about queue jumping so that he would not be able to debate whaling was complete rubbish. We were not queue jumping one little bit. We were using our own time for debate in this place, which would have been entirely appropriate. I also have to say, colleagues, that for Sarah Hanson-Young to sit here and refuse to debate a bill that is going to provide fairness and equity for regional students is nothing short of appalling. As for the Independent Nick Xenophon from South Australia, I would say to all of those people in Mount Gambier and everywhere else across South Australia who are listening and who have contacted me, saying, ‘I want changes made because this is not fair,’—you let him know in no uncertain terms what you think about what he just did. Not only did he not support those people who wanted changes; he would not even let it be debated. And that is on his own head, and on those of Sarah Hanson-Young and the rest of the Greens.

What are we doing in this place if we are not going to provide fairness and equity for young people across the country? The fact that the government did not support it does not surprise me at all, because they simply do not understand regional Australia. They have not got a clue. The bill and the motion that were before this Senate, while it might have been my private senators’ bill, reflected coalition policy and we were absolutely as one on the importance of this to rural and regional students. I acknowledge the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne; Senator Brett Mason; the member for Forrest, Nola Marino; the member for Gippsland, Darren Chester; and every single one of my other colleagues, including my good colleague here Senator Julian McGauran and every single other one of my other colleagues who have fought for these changes to come about for regional students. My good colleague sitting in front, Senator Barnaby Joyce, put it brilliantly with his words earlier. What we are about is trying to get fairness and equity for regional students, and what this government have done is divided regional Australia into four zones. They have divided it into inner regional, regional, remote and very remote. For those last three groups, students living in those areas can use a gap year. They can take 12 months and earn the under $19½ thousand to qualify for the independent youth allowance which they so desperately need.

What did this government do? It said, ‘All of you thousands of students living in inner regional areas: you can’t do that. You can’t use that gap year. You can’t get that financial assistance you so desperately need to go on to university or to further tertiary education.’ Why not, government? The answer in Senate estimates was that they simply do not want to spend the money. That is not good enough. For all of those thousands of regional students out there who simply have no choice whatsoever but to relocate, to leave home, to attend university, that is just simply appalling. To leave them completely out in the cold, to not support them, when what we should be doing—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young said, ‘Make it easier for regional students to get to university, not harder.’ That was interesting. If you actually go back and read Sarah Hanson-Young’s speech, everything she said leads to: ‘Gosh! That would have meant supporting Senator Nash’s bill.’ But, oh no, we have this diatribe about the bigger picture. This is about addressing the current issue of unfairness for regional students. Why should one regional student be treated differently from another? I agree with Senator Hanson-Young; there is much bigger picture here. We need to delve more deeply into the issues facing regional students. But this issue can be dealt with separately and Senator Hanson-Young knows that.

The reason we know it is that she was continually telling people throughout the course of the last year how much she fought for regional students. Let me tell you what Senator Hanson-Young said on 12 August this year during the election campaign. She said:

“We know many students in regional areas have missed out on access to the full rate of Youth Allowance under the new scheme,’’ Senator Hanson-Young said.

               …            …            …

… our policy would use a simple test—if students have to travel more than 90 minutes each way to access their course, and have to move out of home to do so, they will be eligible for the full rate of Youth Allowance.

I would say to Senator Hanson-Young, ‘Why did you not just support my bill, which would have done exactly that?’ Because it would have done exactly that—provide fairness and equity for regional students across the country.

What is extraordinary is watching this government mouth words about how they support regional Australia. Indeed, we had the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when she had her new government underway saying:

Clearly, the new Parliament will also have a focus on the needs of regional Australia.

And:

I will work tirelessly to do what we said we would do ... to deliver for regional Australia, recognising that in our nation that one size does not fit all; to redeem the hope you have placed in me and Labor; and to be faithful to the trust that has been extended to us.

If this government were at all serious about delivering for regional Australia, they would be making sure that every single regional student who lived in Australia had fair access to independent youth allowance and not cutting out thousands of them simply because they do not want to spend the money. I do have to say that it has been costed at around $90 million a year. Apparently, the government does not want to spend that, as they said in Senate estimates, but they are prepared to spend—get this—$81.9 million on employees to administer the ETS that never happened. They are very happy to spend nearly $90 million on some employees that actually did absolutely nothing, but they are not prepared to find a way to fund regional students. That is not fair, it is not right and it is not on. I have to say that Senator Xenophon has not even allowed debate on this when in the past he has said:

The issue of assistance for regional students is one of the utmost importance to me.

And:

To me the key issue here is ensuring that we have a greater degree of equity and access to territory education for our regional students.

If Senator Xenophon actually believed in what he said—if there were any truth in those words—he would have supported the bill going forward for debate and he would have supported the bill as it came to debate. I cannot believe the unfairness that has been placed on students living out in regional areas. It is simply not fair. They understand what this means to them. They understand that they are being left out and they understand that the words of Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens, the words of the Independent Nick Xenophon and the words of the Labor government under Julia Gillard mean absolutely nothing. I want to read for you an email which was sent to, I believe, all of those other senators in the chamber that I have just mentioned and which sums it up completely. This constituent said:

I have heard that you may not be voting in support of Fiona Nash’s bill on making independent youth allowance available to ‘inner regional zone’ youth under the same criteria as other regional youth.

I am shocked and surprised, as I thought you were a progressive senator on the issue of education for youth.

My son is 19 and working his guts out at Big W doing a gap year and desperate to go to Uni next year in Brisbane. We live in Ballina, New South Wales, in an area designated as ‘inner regional’. It is a 3 hour drive to Brisbane on a good day. He will have to move and live in Brisbane to study. This is beyond our family’s ability to afford to support him—have you seen the costs of staying in cities like Brisbane? We are a ‘middle income’ family with 4 kids and a mortgage on a small house. We pay tax—hell, our son Rob pays tax in his Big W job—why should we be arbitrarily cut off from youth allowance?

This is profoundly and ridiculously unfair. I urge you—I beg you—on behalf on my boy and all the other good young men and women like him, to get and Senator Nash and support these changes.

That is one of hundreds of thousands of emails like it from people who know that their children are being treated unfairly. We had the opportunity today to fix this and the Labor government, the Independents and the Greens should hang their heads in shame because they chose not to and they chose to let the current situation go on. It is simply not fair and I will not stop fighting every single day in this chamber for as long as I am here to get this fixed and to get fairness for regional students.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually quite like Senator Nash. I think she is a very dedicated hardworking senator, but on this issue she is actually dead wrong and she has seriously gilded the lily in many aspects of this independent youth allowance issue. It was part of a sweep of reforms that the government made to this whole system occurring out of the Bradley review. It was a contentious issue. It was the subject of a public campaign, which I think the Nationals promoted to their political advantage very well. It has been the subject of a comprehensive Senate inquiry, which looked at it and which resulted in intense negotiations between the Liberal spokesperson for education at the time and the Labor Party. Last March in the build up to an election an agreement was reached to overcome these issues. An agreed bill was put before the parliament and voted for.

Of course, at that time it was during the build up to an election and the Liberal-National coalition had an eye to victory and thought that they may well win this particular election, so they were probably very conscious of the costs of what Senator Nash is now proposing—some $300 million. They already suspected that they were going to have an $11 billion black hole with the promises they were making in the build up to the election and they certainly did not want to add another $300 million to it because they thought they were going to be in government and they were not going to want to spend the money.

But now, back in the luxury of opposition, why not come back and have a second bite of the cherry? ‘Now, when we don’t have to be responsible, when we don’t have to worry about our $11 billion black hole, when we don’t have to worry about where we are going to get the $300 million from, let’s go back and welsh on the deal. Let’s rat on the deal.’ This is the deal they happily agreed to and voted for last March. ‘Let’s rat on that. Let’s come back and ask for more. Doesn’t matter if it costs another $300 million, because we’re in opposition now. It doesn’t matter. The $11 billion shortfall in funding our promises doesn’t matter, an extra $300 million doesn’t matter, because the government will have to find it.’

We have done a lot in the education system, and the reforms that we have put in place will make it fairer and more equitable for all students across the country. Those reforms were well overdue, and I think that, in saner moments, you will even find some in the opposition who are aware of some of the rorts that were going on in the independent youth allowance system and who will actually acknowledge some of those rorts. They were undesirable.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were some rorts.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Mason, for acknowledging that. The government instituted the Bradley review and we have instigated significant reforms in this sector to make it fairer. We have also put in an enormous increase in funding.

I remember when I came into this place as a senator in 2002 I was shocked that in the so-called clever country there could be degrees that cost $100,000. It made a mockery of our merit based system and led to our top universities chasing dollars by charging as much as they thought they could get away with, in a system where they were encouraged to do this by the conservative, Howard government of the time. We have put an end to that. Over their 11 years, the Howard government undermined the higher education sector. In their first budget, in 1996, they slashed university operating grants by a cumulative six per cent over the forward estimates from 1997 to 2000, resulting in an $850 million cut to the sector. When we came to office, the participation of rural, regional and low-SES students in higher education had fallen and showed no signs of improvement. Who was in government at the time? The Nationals, in a coalition with the Liberals. Did we hear about this sort of thing from the Nationals then? No—not a squeak while they were in government undermining higher education and making it more expensive for regional students. That is what they were doing.

Youth allowance arrangements were poorly targeted, and assistance was not going to those students most in need, as was found by the Bradley review of education. The student-staff ratio was 20.4, compared with 14.6 in 1995, just as the Howard government came to office. That is the damage they did in their 11 years. The average amount of Commonwealth funding per student in real terms declined by nearly $1,500, and fees and charges had increased by over $3,000. That is the record of the coalition government in the Howard years. HECS had increased dramatically, by tens of thousands of dollars for most students.

The wording of this MPI criticises the Labor government for its treatment of students in regional Australia, so I take it that the Nationals are criticising this government for introducing comprehensive reforms to ensure that more university students have fairer access to student income support, benefiting students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and students who move away from home to study, particularly those from rural and regional areas. More students—that is what we are doing with our reforms: more students will have access.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not enough.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion says, ‘Not enough.’ I have just gone through your appalling record when you were in government. We are actually improving the system now and you say it is not enough. Well, why didn’t you do something in government? You would not do it in the lead-up to the election because it was going to cost you $300 million. Now, from the safety of opposition, it is, ‘Doesn’t matter what it is; doesn’t matter what it costs. Let’s just do it.’ It is so irresponsible and it is why you will be over on that side for a long, long time.

I also take it that the Nationals are criticising us for fixing the previous student support regime, which saw the participation of young people from low-SES backgrounds, including those from regional and rural communities, languish at around 15 per cent, against the population share of 25 per cent. Is that what you are criticising us for? Are you criticising us for properly targeting assistance to those who need it, for changing the previous youth allowance arrangements so that assistance is going to those students most in need? That is what the reforms do.

We are reforming youth allowance, including the creation of new scholarship payments, lowering the age of independence, an increased threshold for the parental income test and a tighter workforce participation test to target students who are genuinely in need of assistance. They are all good reforms. I do not hear anyone criticising them. Is that what the Nationals are actually criticising us for doing? Are you criticising us for directly benefiting over 100,000 students on student support, including students from inner regional areas, as more young people will be eligible for youth allowance as dependants? Most people who previously had to prove independence will now be able to access support automatically. The proportion of students from regional, rural and remote areas receiving student income support has increased under the new arrangements. Regional and rural students have had their support increased under these reforms—increased—all because we got rid of the rorts.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Sit down; you’re embarrassing yourself.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash says I have got to sit down, because the one thing they do not like to hear over there are the facts being presented to them. From a holistic look at the reforms, they know they are actually good for rural and regional students. They do not want to hear that. They focus on a single issue and say, ‘Oh, we don’t like the look of that. Some people are going to miss out or they’re not going to be able to do it the way they did it before, so we’ll ignore the fact that these reforms vastly increase access for rural and regional students.’

I also take it that the Nationals are criticising us for making available a $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund to young people from rural and regional areas who need financial help to get a university education.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you’re not. You just set up a task force that’s supposed to start in January.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash criticises that. Well, why don’t you, in your bill, take away that $20 million?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s hilarious! Nice try.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you are not criticising us for that—again, something you never did, something you never thought of, but we have actually put in place. I take it you are also criticising us for committing to lifting caps on undergraduate university places for domestic students, at an estimated additional cost of $2.1 billion. Are you criticising us for adopting a new indexation approach which will mean that universities will have an additional $2.6 billion over five years from 2011 to provide top-quality education? Is that what they are criticising us for?

Are you criticising us for making substantial investments in higher education infrastructure? Already, more than $4.1 billion has been committed from the Education Investment Fund for strategic infrastructure in the tertiary education sector. Are you criticising us for making—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, Gavin, we paid for that. That was our savings, not yours—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now Senator Mason says that was their policy! This motion criticises us. Are you criticising us for making up to $550 million in higher education additional performance funding available to universities, increasing participation, including the enrolment of more students of low-socioeconomic status, as well as increasing the quality of the student experience and learning outcomes? (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in this discussion on this matter of public importance, because it is an important discussion, about how we move forward in offering students the support that they desperately need. Only 12 months ago we were right here in this exact same place discussing and debating this issue. It was 12 months ago that the Senate was deliberating the changes that were being put forward by the government, some of which were really good and some of which needed to happen. Other changes undercut and undermined the ability of students particularly from rural and regional areas to access the support they need to go to university. There was lots of toing and froing. We had country students coming to parliament and speaking with their parliamentarians. We had Julia Gillard acknowledging that you could not pull the rug out from underneath current gap-year students and that it was a mistake. We finally had an agreement that accepted that scholarships not just for those students from rural and regional areas but for a whole range of students that were eligible for youth allowance were needed to start the university year.

The debate dragged on right up until March this year. In March we saw a deal cut between the Labor government and the coalition to put in place the system that we are debating today. There are now lines on a map, which unfortunately means that no longer are there two classes of students who can get access to youth allowance to put themselves through university but there are now three categories: those who are in outer or inner regional areas, those who are not able to apply through either of those areas and those who are in the city.

Really what we need to be doing is acknowledging that youth allowance is there to support our young people to go to university to get the qualifications and skills they need to then go into the workforce and contribute to the productivity of our nation. It is not meant to be a 12-month, three-year or election-cycle vision. This is meant to be about a vision for investing in the future productivity of our country. There is not going to be a quick fix to deal with this. We need to be realistic. If we want to invest in the productivity of our country, then we need to invest in our young people and that means true investment. That means not thinking that a patch-up piece of legislation is simply going to deliver what is needed. It does not mean constant backflipping either from government or from opposition—if those parties have changed sides in the interim. It means an actual vision for investing in the education of our young people, not for the next three years but for the future.

We know that young people who have to move from home in order to go to university overwhelmingly come from country areas. They have to move. They do not have a university in the next suburb, the next couple of suburbs or a few tram stops away. They have to move out of home in order to go to university. Often, in order to get the support that they need, they are forced to try to squeeze into the criteria that are set down by youth allowance. That means we are forcing young people to defer their studies, despite the fact that they have worked really hard in year 12 to get into the course of their dreams. To get that spot at university they have to defer it. They go off and they work, and they have to prove that they are worthy of that support. That is what country students are doing daily. That is what the old system was and that is what the current system is for some of them.

Simply revisiting and reinstating the old rules does not deal with the inequities faced by students from country and regional areas. We know that, out of the students who defer their studies, 30 per cent will never go back. That is quite a big chunk of students who have fought really hard, got into university and then deferred that spot. Thirty per cent of those students will never go back. A young woman who worked so hard to get into teaching, into nursing, into engineering or into a field that was desperately needed in her local country community could not get the support to get to university and so deferred her studies as a way to try and get through the criteria. Thirty per cent of students in her cohort will never go on to study at university. We cannot afford to let that happen. Students who need to be supported should be supported.

We need a new criterion that says that, if you have to move out of home in order to go to university—Senator Nash read out the exact quote that I had used and I stand by it—because there is no university in your country town, you should be recognised as being independent and you should get support. That is what the government should be looking at rather than fiddling at the edges trying to make a system that clearly is not working—it was not working in the past and it is not working now—and rather than trying to come up with some convoluted solution that is just patchwork over patchwork, bandaid solution over bandaid solution. The simplest solution would be to have one criterion: if you have to move out of home in order to go to university and you have to travel that far then you should get the support you need. That would be the simplest solution. The government should cost that. The Greens have asked Treasury to cost that proposal, and I look forward to the government’s response to that.

I think it is good that Senator Nash has brought this on, because we have to have a discussion about the current inequities in the system. The minister has committed to examining whether the current Australian standard geographical classification, the lines on the map that are currently drawn, is appropriate. I say they are not appropriate. No lines on a map, in that sense, are going to be appropriate. We should not be forcing people to defer their studies, making them jump through hoops and over hurdles simply to get the support they need to go to university. City students do not have to do that. City students do not have to defer their studies, put their entire academic career at risk and be part of the higher statistics for students who will never go on to study, will never finish their degree because they do not get support. City students do not have to face that. Why should we settle for less for those country kids, who are ultimately going to be the best people to bring those skills back to their communities? Let us encourage and support our young people from country and rural areas to go to university. If they have got that spot, let us support them in doing it. Let us not put their families through the stress of having to defer studies and then not go to university simply because the government does not acknowledge that this is a problem.

Of course it is going to cost money, and the government is going to need to consider that. That is why the Greens have submitted their proposal to Treasury to look at that. I encourage the government and I look forward to the government’s response on that. But simply putting in place a bandaid solution for the issue that is not going to be dealt with is not a solution. We should not be forcing students to defer their studies just to get the support they need. City kids do not have to deal with that. If the National Party honestly believed that country students are no less important than city students, they would not continue to put a bar above them that their city cousins do not have. If the Nationals honestly support the idea that country students should have equal access to education, they should stop putting barriers in front of them and let us move forward to putting them on an equal footing.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just briefly touch on some of the procedural aspects that were touched on earlier this afternoon.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were mugged!

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. There was a deal—that is quite right. The deal was to overcome a legislative impasse between the government in the House of Representatives and the coalition and, indeed, the Independent senators here in the Senate. A deal was done to overcome that impasse. The so-called deal was never, ever intended to last forever, certainly not beyond a federal election. Is this deal supposed to hold until the end of time? It is ludicrous and ridiculous, and as much as I respect Senator Evans, I think that he was totally on the wrong track this afternoon.

Let me get to the substantive debate, Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth. This is a really important debate for our country. Universities and higher education providers are in the business of knowledge and there is no more important business in the world than knowledge. That is what this debate is all about.

Professor Bradley, in her landmark review of Australian higher education, nominated a target of 40 per cent of young Australians to have a bachelor’s degree by 2020. In order to achieve that she knew that there had to be a distinct increase in the number of young Australians from three particular disadvantaged groups: Indigenous kids, kids from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and, finally—and this is the one that pertains to Senator Nash’s concern this afternoon—young Australians living in regional and rural areas of our great country. Why? Because they are particularly disadvantaged. There is an argument of equity and there is also, as Senator Nash reminded us all, an argument in the public interest, in the nation’s interest, that we should assist all these kids from disadvantaged communities to attend university. Why? Because we want as many smart young Australians from whatever background to attend university if they are able to. We are a poorer country when young Australians who are able and qualified cannot attend university. We are in fact a worse-off and poorer nation.

We know that while there are more Indigenous kids now going to university—not enough, that is true, but there are more—and there are more students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds going to university—again, not enough, but there are more—what we have discovered, in fact, is that there are fewer young Australians from rural areas attending university. In fact, we are going backwards, and all I need to do is refer to the Bradley review itself. Professor Bradley reported:

People from regional and remote parts of Australia remain seriously under-represented in higher education and the participation rates for both have worsened in the last five years.

That is on page 31 of the review. In other words, it is getting worse for rural kids, not better. For rural students the bar to university study is more likely to be logistical and financial than cultural. The bar is logistical and financial, not cultural. Even with modern technology it is impossible to take universities to every small town in Australia—I think we all concede that. No, we have to somehow get rural students to university, and that cost is not part of HECS. It is not a cost you can claim under HECS. Rural students frequently must leave home to study and they do not receive HECS to cover living away from home expenses.

If this parliament fails to attend to the matters Senator Nash has so eloquently described, as our country moves towards 40 per cent of young Australians graduating with a bachelor’s degree—and that is our country’s aim, and it is a bipartisan aim, I should add—we will simply end up with more students who live in relatively affluent suburbs in the big cities who can catch public transport to university. In other words, there will be no change in social composition. We will simply get more people like me going to university, and we do not want that, do we? What we want are more people like Senator Joyce and Senator Nash going to university. We want kids from all parts of Australia to go, particularly, as I say, because there has been a decline in young Australians from rural and regional areas going to university. It is a big challenge for our country to attend to that.

What really worries me is this. The government is quite right to talk about equity and access. I do not contest that at all. But, unless something is done about rural and regional students, the social composition of young Australians attending university will not change. We have seen this before. We saw it in the Whitlam era with the abolition of tertiary fees. Everyone thought that that would change the social composition of Australian universities. Did it? No. We abolished fees and what happened? Simply more middle-class kids went to university. That is what happened. There will be the same problem here.

I accept what the government has done by in a sense deregulating student demand. I and the opposition accept that. I accept that major reform in the Bradley review. What worries me is that there will be a deregulation of student demand and student demand will force universities to offer courses that students deem appropriate, but the social composition will not change. That worries me, and I suspect it worries the government and Senator Chris Evans too. Unless we do something positive, nothing will change.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which we are.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not enough perhaps in the context of rural students, Senator Collins. That is what worries me, Senator Nash and Senator Joyce. The bottom line is this: when there are greater opportunities for our rural students—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Mason has the floor.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is okay, Madam Acting Deputy President; no-one in the Senate has a louder voice than I do, as you know. Who knows whether a 12-year-old boy from Cunnamulla will be the fellow who in 20 years time discovers a cure for cancer or whether a young girl from Broome will be the new Manning Clark or, better still, Geoffrey Blainey. The argument from the coalition is simply this: this parliament should give our rural kids that chance.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Wortley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn’t you do it?

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Only one senator at a time has the floor. It is now Senator Wortley’s turn.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this matter of public importance debate the Australian government’s commitment to students in regional Australia is being questioned. The reality is that the Labor government have done more in just over three years for our tertiary students, put more in place for our tertiary students, including those in regional areas, than the coalition did in more than a decade. Not only have we done more but we are also addressing the damage that was left behind by the Howard government.

We know that education is of paramount importance. A strong and appropriately resourced education sector is vital to Australia’s future and one of the cornerstones of our future wellbeing as a nation. We know that, for our young people, education really is the window to the world. We know and understand that this is the reality. That is why in government we have made unprecedented commitments to education, specifically on the issue of the independent youth allowance.

The Bradley review of higher education found that participation in study at university by people from regional areas was falling and that the participation in study by people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds languished at 15 per cent, as against a population share of 25 per cent. That was when those opposite were in government. They were in government for a decade—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eleven and a half years.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than a decade. Prior to the implementation of the legislation, the system was already broken. It was broken for both of these groups—those from regional areas and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. One should look at who held the reins during the years leading up to this—and, yes, it was the coalition, who are sitting opposite. Let us be clear here. Under the coalition, the participation of rural, regional and socioeconomically disadvantaged students in higher education fell and it showed no signs of improving. Senator Joyce, you can sit there—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Wortley, would you please address your remarks through the chair.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are some sitting opposite who have their heads down, looking slightly dismal. I can understand that because, if I had been part of a government that had left behind a higher education system like this, I would feel the same.

The Bradley review also found that youth allowance arrangements were poorly targeted, that assistance was not going to those students most in need. In March this year the government introduced comprehensive reforms to ensure that across Australia more university students had fairer access to student income support. The legislation giving effect to these reforms was supported by the opposition. The changes have benefited students who move away from home to study, particularly rural and regional students and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. For many it has meant that they now have the opportunity to attend university. The reforms introduced by the government include lowering the age of independence, an increased threshold for the parental income test—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come back to that, Senator Nash—a tighter workforce participation test to target students genuinely in need of assistance and the creation of new scholarship payments. As a key outcome of these reforms the parental income test has become the main criterion for students to qualify for youth allowance. Under the changes, the parental income test threshold was increased from $33,300 to $44,165 and the 20 per cent family taper was introduced. So that threshold for the parental income test was increased and as a result over 100,000 students, including students from regional areas, will benefit because more students will be eligible for youth allowance as dependants.

So it is now the case that many students who previously had to prove independence will have automatic access to support. Already 25,000 additional students from low- and middle-income families have improved access to youth allowance. The proportion of students from regional, rural and remote areas receiving income support has increased. This is because of the changes to the parental income test. These are students who may well not have otherwise been able to undertake tertiary studies. The parental income test changes have removed an existing barrier for those students. In addition to these reforms, the workforce participation criterion was also tightened. The changes to the youth allowance eligibility criteria only comprise one element of the student income support reforms, the ones that those opposite voted on and supported.

Also introduced were the new student start-up scholarship and the relocation scholarship, which improves access and equity for rural and regional students who need to relocate to attend their place of study. To date nearly 180,000 higher education students who receive student income support have received at least one instalment of the new student start-up scholarship. In addition, since April this year nearly 23,000 students who have relocated from their home to a place closer to where they study have also received an additional relocation scholarship—23,000 students. And the government is also progressively lowering—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I urge those on the opposite side to listen—the age of independence, with more than 2,600 students achieving independent status since April this year, when the age of independence was lowered from 25 to 24 years. This will be reduced to the age of 22 on 1 January 2012, further recognising the increasing self-sufficiency of young people.

In stark contrast, the needs of regional students were neglected by the Liberal-National coalition for more than a decade. I have said it. Interestingly, it was the coalition government in 1998—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash, you need to listen to this—that increased the age of independence from 22 to 25. They increased it. So the age of independence was increased by the coalition government from the age of 22, where it was, to the age of 25. This was in 1998 and it sat there. For the decade that those opposite were in government it sat at 25.

It has taken a Labor government to reduce it. The government’s $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund will operate from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2013. This fund to assist rural and regional students under the age of 25 to undertake higher education studies is very welcome. So from the beginning of next year, young people from rural and regional areas who require financial help to take up an offer from a higher educational institution may be able to receive assistance through this fund. Those in need will have access to this fund. The government has also committed to the establishment of a rural and regional task force to consider and advise on eligibility criteria for assistance with the fund. The role of the task force will be to advise the government, and this is just one of the ways in which the government is helping more rural and regional students aged 25 and under to take on higher education.

The government reforms support the most disadvantaged students in regional areas. Disadvantaged students from remote, very remote and other regional areas are excluded from the changes to the workforce participation criteria provided they need to move away from home to study and their parents’ income is less than $150,000 per annum. This is a good move. The opposition agreed to this in March this year and now they are suggesting that these arrangements need to be extended. The opposition never negotiated to exclude inner regional students from the changes. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow Senator Wortley in this debate because she made some very good points that I would hope to build upon. Before I commence on the detail of the private member’s bill, I want to take a moment to reflect on the process farce that has occurred on us coming here. I will save deeper reflection on what has occurred in managing opposition business on this occasion, but it does need to be highlighted that what has occurred in the Senate today has trashed a deal that was done eight months ago on this issue. And as Senator Xenophon rightly pointed out in the failed motion to suspend standing orders to deal with a private member’s bill, nothing has changed in these issues. Yes, there may well have been, as Senator Mason pointed out, an election, but in terms of the arrangements for student income support and people from remote and regional areas, there has been nothing in that context that is different, nothing at all, other than that Senator Mason has been pounced upon by the Nationals and has highlighted once again the fragility of this coalition—the fragility that exists in terms of sensible policy process from the opposition. That is the issue that leads us to where we are in terms of the private member’s bill or the matter of public interest that is now before us.

Let us have a look at the detail of exactly what this is about. Rather than it being about the government mismanaging student income support, I draw on, as Senator Wortley did earlier, the point made by Senator Mason. Yes, the Bradley review did show that things were going seriously backwards for regional students. It was interesting that Senator Mason made this point because, if you look at the period of time when the government should have ensured appropriate processes to manage student participation from regional and remote Australia, it was indeed the Howard government—it was the Howard government who failed the students. I thank Senator Mason for highlighting what the Bradley review highlighted, because the measures that were introduced under the Howard government led to that decrease in participation. That decrease in participation, mind you, did not only occur in tertiary education for remote students; it also occurred in secondary education. We had dismal figures. The completion rate in secondary schooling went backwards under the Howard government. So how the Nationals can come into the Senate now and try and claim some credibility on this matter is astounding.

Let us look at what is being peddled here. The private member’s bill they sought to have us debate now was about applying the same eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for students residing in the inner region zone as currently applies to students residing in outer regional, remote and very remote zones. As has been pointed out, the fact remains that the special provisions for disadvantaged students from outer regional and remote locations were agreed with the opposition when the reforms to student income support were passed in March this year. As Senator Xenophon pointed out, there is nothing new. The suspension of standing orders was not supported because there is nothing new other than that Senator Mason was mugged by the Nationals on this occasion and the Manager of Opposition Business foolishly played along. That was the only new thing here.

Under the agreement that was negotiated with the coalition, students from remote, very remote and outer regional areas are excluded from the changes to the workforce participation criteria provided they need to move away from home to study and their parents’ income is less than $150,000 per annum. The opposition is now suggesting that these arrangements be extended to students living in inner regional areas as well. The opposition is aware that this whole package of reform measures was carefully designed with the aim of budget neutrality. The opposition has stated that the funding to support its proposal would come from the capital investment fund—(Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a complete display of utter hypocrisy. We had the capacity to deliver fairness and equality but they voted for hypocrisy and platitudes. We had Senator Hanson-Young talking about a patch-up job. I am afraid, Senator Hanson-Young, I would prefer a patch-up to a flat tyre—that is what you have delivered to the people of regional Australia. Then we had Senator Brown, so help me, railing against queue jumping. This is almost like Brave New World. A couple of weeks ago he was telling us, ‘It is the “don’t ask, don’t question policy” on leadership,’ and today we have the Greens railing against queue jumping. It is a very interesting paradigm that we live in.

What is it about? Senator Brown and the Labor Party are also proffering their advice on how we have to save money by not educating people in regional Australia! How pathetic is that? The money we have wasted on ceiling insulation could have been used to educate kids in regional Australia and given them a tertiary education. We could have used even a portion of the money you wasted on the BER to fix up this problem. We could have used the money you just threw out the door with your $900 cheques in a better way—that is, educating people. The greatest nexus with your aim of social advancement is education. You voted against it today and so did Senator Xenophon and the Greens. They voted against social advancement for those who live in disadvantaged areas! You can go through all the platitudes and histrionics, but the fact is that you had the opportunity to vote for justice but you voted against it. That is as simple as it gets.

This is who you voted against: Dalby; Kingaroy; Rockhampton, which is Labor town, both state and federal; Hamley Bridge; Angaston; Riverton; Ballina, another Labor town; Gympie; Nambour; Warwick; Gladstone; Bundaberg; Orange; Dubbo; Northam; Bunbury; Busselton; Tamworth; Lismore; Shepparton; Wagga Wagga; Nowra; Lithgow; Mount Gambier; Byron Bay; Singleton; Branxton; and Dungog—yes, you also voted against your people down in the Hunter Valley. You voted against those people because of the urbane society that you are trying to create—this urbane Green-Labor clique. They believe that they have the right to go into a tertiary institution but nobody else does. It is not there for other people. This is part of the bumper-sticker morality that now pervades this place.

It is quite clear and simple: you could have voted for fairness, you could have voted for equality—you could have voted for the capacity of people in inner regional areas to go to university after a gap year—but you voted against it. I can assure you that after two years in the workforce—which is what they will have to do with their, on average, 30 hours a week in 13-week blocks over 18 months—people will peel off. People will make their decision: ‘Bother it. I’ll stick to doing what I’ve been doing.’ They will have a new social network, a new girlfriend or boyfriend and a new job, and they will not go. So you have compromised their capacity for social advancement in life—if you believe, as I thought Mr Whitlam did, in a tertiary education.

It is so obscene for a party that spent in excess of $81 million on an ETS that never went anywhere, which even they themselves denied. That amount of money could have been used to educate people. Education is right at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. There are people who will go without food to educate their kids. There are people who will go without a better house, without new clothes and without a car. One people’s principal desires is the education of their children. But you voted against that and now we have to put up with this absolute and utter hypocrisy that is being blurted out by all and sundry around the chamber, these amazing platitudes. In this new, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, they have found it in their souls to leave people behind. And what do they offer? ‘Oh well, we’ll send it to an inquiry.’ We only have days till the end of the year. You know that. There are time constraints. To say that this is a surprise is a load of rubbish. This has been fought and people knew that it was coming, that the time was coming. The coalition had to act. Senator Nash, Senator Williams and Senator Mason acted to try and bring a resolution on this.

I do not know what is going to happen to the whales; I really don’t. I do not know whether they are going to be saved or whether they are going to be slaughtered; I just do not know. What I do know is what is going to happen to those kids in regional Australia. I do know what is going to happen there. They will not get the chance for the same standard of education and of life as is delivered to people in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. I do not know what precedence in the scheme of things the gay marriage bill should take. But apparently Senator Brown believes that the gay marriage bill, whales and everything else are more important than delivering equality, in its most seminal form—the capacity to deliver to people the ability to advance their lives via education.

Then they talked about being out of time. That made complete sense when, last night, I watched as they started going back into the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech! No, you are not out of time—you are just completely and utterly disorganised. This whole parliament has turned into a farce and a joke. You have nothing that you are going forward with and you just leave the crucial issues behind.

So what are we going to say to the regional people who you so earnestly told you were going to look after when you attained the government benches? What are you going to say to the people of Ballina? What are you going to say to the people of Rockhampton? How does this one actually work? ‘We believe in you, but we don’t believe you should go to university’? ‘We believe in you, but we believe that you’re a second-rate citizen compared to someone in Sydney or Melbourne’? ‘We believe in you, but’—wink-wink, nod-nod—‘we believe in you just a little bit less than we believe in the whales’?

That is apparently where Senator Brown is: he has more concern about things in the South Seas that he has no power—none whatsoever—to affect. And he puts that up as an excuse to leave regional people out. Today, he, Senator Xenophon and the Labor Party could have put up a change that would have made people’s lives better. They could have made people’s lives better. They could have done something constructive that would have actually taken people ahead. They could have been decisive. They could have been compassionate. They could have shown foresight. They could have stuck to their vision of who they were as a party when Gough Whitlam brought in greater access to tertiary education. But, no—they descended into hypocrisy, they descended into the murk and they turned away from regional Australia. (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.