Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is in continuation that I will focus my issues particularly on the concerns raised on the changes to youth allowance. Continuing with my speech from last night, I would like to explain to the minister the unintended consequences and the impacts as a result of this policy. I would seriously ask the minister to look at the consequences of her changes and to rectify the issues relating to the way in which regional students will be able to study in future.

I will use my electorate of Riverina as an example. We are extremely fortunate to have Charles Sturt University campus in Wagga Wagga, the largest city in my electorate. The electorate, though, is over 42,000 square kilometres, so it is only those students who actually live in Wagga Wagga itself who can attend the university without having to leave home and relocate. Even if the students decided that they would be able to study at Charles Sturt University, the majority of them come from well outside travelling distance and will be unable to undertake that travel, bearing in mind that we do not have the public transport system that is available in the cities. So not all students can attend Charles Sturt University; some will need to go to other universities that cater for their specific needs. Those students who must move towns or states to attend the appropriate university for their career of choice need some form of financial support.

For some students, due to course commitments it is literally impossible for them to hold down a part-time job in order to support themselves. For example, a fourth-year veterinary science student at Charles Sturt University spends around 80 hours per week dedicated to his or her degree through combined personal study and in-class lessons. If he or she had to move to Wagga Wagga to study and their parents could not support them then they would need to receive student income support. If their parents do not come in under the family tax benefit part A and still do not have the means to support the child, and the child cannot work due to their university commitment and the heavy lift of the degree study, how does one suggest that these kids live, eat and pay for their rent and their upkeep? The reality is that they cannot. The individual in this example represents the situation of so many students. Under the proposed changes, this student would have to take a two-year break between school and university and attempt, with no guarantee of success, to hold down a full-time job or at least 30 hours a week for 18 months over two years.

Let us consider this: we have a rise in unemployment, particularly in regional Australia but also right across Australia. The logistics of finding full-time work or 30 hours per week for at least 18 months during a two-year period in regional areas and towns is extremely precarious. Many of my constituents believe that they or their sons and daughters will not be able to accomplish this. We have singularly been in drought for seven years, so the opportunities for employment are vastly reduced. A large percentage of my constituents’ employment is dependent on agriculture. This type of work is often unreliable due to environmental impacts and, in many cases, is seasonally structured. With the area having been in drought for seven years, for many of my kids from right across my electorate from areas such as Hay, Ivanhoe, Temora, Rankins Springs, Merriwagga or Bland shire, it will be just simply impossible for them to meet this requirement.

The third element of the current workforce participation criteria, which the government intends to scrap, is an extremely practical and appropriate criterion for regional circumstances. A person can earn, in an 18-month period after leaving school, an amount equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage level A of the Australian pay and classification scale generally applicable to trainees. Currently, this requires earnings of around $19,532. This criterion has enabled so many regional students access to student income support, enabling them to attend university. It is imperative that the government see that the criteria of working full-time, or 30 hours a week, for 18 months over a period of two years in order to be independent is not appropriate for regional residents and, for many, will simply be absolutely unobtainable.

As I have previously mentioned I have received considerable amounts of calls, emails and letters from concerned parents and potential students. I can seriously stand here and say to you that this issue alone has generated more phone calls, emails, letters and counter inquiries than any other issue that I have had in 11 years, such is the concern. The minister stands up at the dispatch box and tells us that it is all good for us and that we are just scaremongering, but I have said nothing to elicit the phone calls and concerns that have come in; they have come in off their own bat.

People in rural and regional areas are not stupid; they do not just blindly follow the leader—they know how to work things out for themselves. They have worked out for themselves that they have got a major issue. I will certainly not mention any names in this, but I received a letter from a person from a tiny little town that has been drought stricken and on its knees for seven years. The person wrote:

I have grave concerns for the future of many rural students following the release of changes in tender for the Youth Allowance scheme in the 2009 budget.

I will not go into the specifics of the person but they talk about seeking the advice of Centrelink after the daughter had completed her HSC in 2008, with regard to eligibility for independent youth allowance. She has been working toward the goal of earning that $19,500-odd I spoke of earlier. In order to do this, she deferred her university studies in a particular field for 12 months. The staff at the university that she was going to attend also recommended that she defer so that she could qualify for youth allowance, understanding that she had significant financial pressures that could hinder her heavy study load.

This young lady has been living in quite a remote town and working really, really hard to meet the criteria. As the writer of this letter said:

Should the changes to Youth Allowance be implemented, it will be almost impossible for rural students to find a full-time job for 30 hours a week for an average of 18 months out of two years.

That is because they are living out in these isolated towns and there is no work there. That young woman’s community is identical to most of the communities across my electorate that will be sadly impacted by this measure. This person has driven tractors for wheat harvesting, worked on building sites and done an enormous amount of seasonal work, two lots of which involved living away from home, because of course there are no employment prospects for her in the local community. There are no jobs in those local communities. Sadly, this girl has now been denied the opportunity to meet the criteria that were in place at the time, as a result of the minister making these changes retrospective. If you are going to make these changes, surely you would make them prospective, for the future, so they would not impact so on these regional students, who have no choices. The letter goes on to say:

These changes, if implemented, will be particularly unfair for the students who deferred for 2009, as they have left school, followed the guidelines of Youth Allowance eligibility criteria as set by legislation, only to have the goalposts changed halfway through the year.

It says:

We need to make sure the Rudd government does not sacrifice the 2008 HSC class in order to make their bottom line look better.

And, seriously, that is the issue. A drastic mistake has been made; fix it. Please do not just stand on this issue and let the students of Australia down. (Time expired)

See this speech in context