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

by leave—I rise to speak on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s report on the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report was listed yesterday and then tabled late yesterday but we did not have the opportunity to speak on it at that point in time, so I want to take a few moments of the Senate’s time to discuss the report, even in light of the fact that this morning we had some discussion on the bill that is related to this issue. My bill, which relates to the Independent Youth Allowance issue was the subject of an inquiry by the regional affairs and transport committee. We held a day’s inquiry before Christmas. Unfortunately, there was only a one-day hearing in Canberra, but even though it was only a one-day hearing—and I am certain that Senate Back will concur with me—the evidence given to the inquiry both on that day and in written form with over 200 submissions certainly brought home to the committee the very real and damaging impact that the government’s current policy regarding Independent Youth Allowance is having on so many of our regional students.

We know that this government is treating regional students unfairly. I do find it quite extraordinary that, subsequent to the bill passing through the Senate this morning, this afternoon we have the situation where, as I understand it, the Prime Minister is going to the Governor-General to stop the bill being debated in the House. It seems quite extraordinary the lengths the government is going to in order to not debate this bill, when all the bill does is merely require fair treatment for regional students.

There is a report from the government, which those of us in the coalition have dissented from in our minority report. The chair’s report obviously indicates opposition to the bill, which we most definitely disagree with and indicated in our minority report to the committee. One area of particular importance that I did want to note is that the government does recognise the issue of the flood impact in many of our regions on the ability of students to find work and fulfil the 30-hour average a week requirement.

I commend the government and I certainly commend Senator Marshall for his understanding of that issue. I think it became very clear to the committee through the inquiry that there needed to be some flexibility with regard to that particular requirement to work 30 hours a week on average. I note the government’s recommendation on that matter, which indicates that this should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I would hope, Senator Marshall, that you will be talking to your colleagues and the minister, Senator Evans, to arrange a speedy resolution to this particular issue so that those students can indeed have certainty around that area when they have been so badly affected by the floods and are obviously not able to fulfil the 30-hours-a-week requirement.

I will take a moment to note the very real and devastating impact the floods have had in New South Wales. While obviously not suffering the same terrible effects they have had in other states—we all recognise the extraordinarily disastrous nature of those floods—New South Wales was significantly impacted by flooding prior to Christmas. I thank the government for their recognition of this problem and look forward to their very speedy resolution of it so those students can have some certainty.

I would also like to note the additional comments made by the Greens. Some of this is in hindsight now because this morning we saw the Greens move their amendment for what they saw as the way to progress issues for students with regard to independent youth allowance and having to relocate. I note that in this report the Greens did recommend that the bill be amended. Obviously this morning that was not agreed to by either the coalition or the government, and quite rightly so. We had the situation this morning where we were dealing with a very specific issue. The Greens were introducing another issue entirely. What was particularly disappointing—and that word is probably not strong enough—is the fact that the Greens, for all their talk and bluster about how they support the regions and how they support regional students, walked away from the opportunity to show their support for regional students. The bill that was debated this morning required nothing more than fair treatment for all regional students and the Greens chose to walk away from those regional students and side with the government in what is becoming a rather more obvious alliance. They walked away from those regional students and their families, who I know are going to be extremely disappointed that the Greens would not stick up for them, would not back them and voted against fairness for regional students. It was incredibly disappointing and quite hypocritical of the Greens to take that position this morning.

We on the coalition side also recommended in the report that there should be a comprehensive review of all the youth allowance arrangements, in particular of regional students’ access to education. There is a huge inequity for regional students across this country when it comes to accessing education and we need to do a thorough and comprehensive review, as the coalition said during the election campaign, of all the youth allowance arrangements, particularly into barriers for those students from regional areas when it comes to accessing further education. I know the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport did an inquiry at the end of 2009, but events and policies have changed significantly since then. So it is quite appropriate for this government to undertake an urgent review. I note that they have said they will review the current arrangements in 2012, but we do not believe that is good enough. This is something that should be happening right now.

I have gone on record before saying that the issue for regional students is that of having no choice but to relocate in so many instances and that relocation costs about $15,000 to $20,000 for those students and their families. When you compare that to students in the city areas who fortunately have the opportunity to live at home, there is a huge inequity when it comes to those students in the regions accessing further education. We know from all the evidence we have seen that around 55 per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared to only 33 per cent in the regional areas. We also know, through the evidence we have seen, that is because of the financial cost that is placed on those students and those families. That also needs to be addressed. I note Senator Back’s very clear understanding of this relocation issue and the fact that that is what should be the criterion that is used to judge assistance for regional students. However, in the meantime we have this current legislation around the independent youth allowance and the anomaly there needs to be fixed.

During the course of the inquiry we heard evidence from a very bright, smart young lady, Sarah Dickens from Mount Gambier in South Australia. I think this story illustrates the complete nonsense and the absolute dogs breakfast, to use a technical term, that the current legislation is presenting for regional students. She lives in Mount Gambier and has friends who live 150 metres away. Ms Dickens’ family is classed as inner regional but her friends who live 150 metres away are classed as outer regional. Each family is subject to different criteria. Ms Dickens’ family members have to do a two-year gap year and work 30 hours a week while friends up the road only have to do a single gap year and have the ability to earn the lump sum of money. The issue here is that both of those families live 450 kilometres from the nearest university. I know Senator Marshall appreciated this piece of evidence when it was given because it is very clear from that one instance that the anomalies in this legislation need to be fixed.

Through the minority report we put to the committee the coalition explained very clearly why this legislation needs to be fixed. The government have to stop hiding under constitutional issues and stop running to the Governor-General—using the Governor-General as a human shield, as the member for Sturt put it this afternoon, which is precisely what they are doing. They have to stop all this nonsense. They can change their own legislation. They can amend their own legislation. They do not need my bill. They can insert one line into their bill, fix this problem and provide a fair deal and fair go for regional students right across the country.

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

I welcome the opportunity to broaden this debate a little bit. It is a debate we have had a number of times in this chamber and has really only focused on one small element of the Bradley reforms and some of the changes that have been made by the government.

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

That’s what the bill is.

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

That is right, Senator Nash. I appreciate your remarks earlier and the passion with which you have prosecuted the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010, which is only proper. The Bradley review was a broad-ranging review, but anyone listening to the debate would think that it was all about the independence test—that is the impact that has created the controversy. I think it is worth putting on record some of the background to the review and some of the other very positive changes that have improved equity arrangements for income support and benefits for students. I will take a few moments to go through them and give some background to them.

In December 2008, the Review of Australian Higher Education, the Bradley review, reported on whether the higher education sector was structured, organised and financed to position Australia to compete effectively in the new globalised economy. The Bradley review examined student income support programs and found that they were not accurately targeting students in most need of assistance. It also found that one of the unintended effects was that Youth Allowance was being accessed by some students living at home in high socioeconomic status households. To address these issues the review recommended a comprehensive reform of student income support programs, which the government did. Unfortunately, when you change the rules people will be unhappy if they are adversely affected by those changes, but, overwhelmingly, the changes have benefited many thousands of students.

In response to the Bradley review’s recommendations in relation to student income support, the government announced a package of reforms in the 2009-10 budget. The reforms were aimed at ensuring that only those students who are genuinely independent qualify for assistance. They included changes to the parental income test for dependent students, in July 2010. The parental income test threshold was increased from $33,000 to $44,165 and further increased in January 2011. The 20 per cent family taper rate was introduced to replace the 25 per cent per child taper rate. Changes to how young people can access payments as independent recipients, including lowering the age of independence from 25 years to 22 years, are phasing in from 2010 to 2012. The introduction of the Student Start-up Scholarship for all university students receiving Youth Allowance, Austudy, ABSTUDY or the relocation scholarship was implemented. The Student Start-up Scholarship assists with the costs of textbooks and specialised equipment—even for those on a part-time rate of student income support. That scholarship was $650 in each half year of 2010 and increases to $1,097 in each half year from 2011. These are new programs.

The changes to the parental income test and taper rate will improve access for dependent young people from low- and medium-income families: over 100,000 students are expected to benefit from the changes. Many will receive a higher payment than would previously have applied, and many students who would previously have considered it necessary to gain eligibility as independents will no longer need to. One hundred thousand students will significantly benefit from that reform. It is estimated that an additional 67,800 students will qualify for income support and approximately 44,600 students will receive a higher rate of payment.

In relation to changes to the workforce participation criteria, it was noted that they were about establishing genuine independence, so the whole package of reforms goes to targeting assistance more closely to young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. To meet the criteria, students must work an average of 30 hours per week over 18 months in a two-year period. By the end of August 2010 around 174,000 students had received at least one payment under the Student Start-up Scholarship, and over 20,000 students had received a relocation scholarship. The effect of the decrease in the age of independence has already resulted in more than 2,400 students gaining access to Youth Allowance or ABSTUDY for the first time or receiving increased student payments. The government expects 7,000 additional students to benefit in the 1 January 2011 change.

These are significant improvements for over 100,000 students. Yes, it is regrettable that the changes to some of the rules have created some difficulty for some. Those issues have now been widely canvassed and there are some issues that the government needs to look at. It is always a problem when a geographical system is used for entitlement—wherever a line is drawn there will be some people on one side of the line and some people on the other side of the line. This is a difficult issue. It has been problematic for the government, but there is a lot of goodwill from the government and I hope that some of these issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties into the future. The impact of the changes the government has made has vastly improved access for over a hundred thousand students, and I think that needs to be acknowledged.

Question agreed to.