Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to this matter of public importance. I thank the member for Lyne for bringing it into the parliament. I appreciate what the Minister for Youth has just said. This is a very important debate. Essentially it is about legislation which is before the parliament at the moment, and particularly relates to access to youth allowance, whether that be through the parental income test or through the work test to prove independence. The government has initiated a number of changes in relation to how youth allowance can be accessed.

The Minister for Youth made some important points a moment ago because there are some good points in the changes. Some students will receive more in youth allowance than they did before, not only in relation to the relocation scholarships but also in relation to the start-up arrangements, the $2,254 that will be available to anybody. Whether it be through the work test or parental income assessment, they will be able to access that money. Even students whose family’s income is, say, $90,000 will be receiving a very small amount of youth allowance, probably $6 a fortnight. Their family will be able to access the $4,000 relocation scholarship in the first year, $1,000 in the second year and also the start-up arrangements of $2,254. For that particular family, with one student living away from home, there will be access to some moneys. If there are two students, one in first year and living away from home in a country environment, they could access only a small proportion of the youth allowance out to $1,390, I think it is. It would still trigger the mechanisms of the scholarship arrangements.

There are some anomalies in relation to this. I speak today for a number of members who are not able to speak. The member for Gippsland—who may well have been running a campaign in his own electorate—has highlighted the gap year, a very significant issue. For students who left school last year, who did so in good faith, believing that earning $19,600 during the year would allow them to access youth allowance, the rules have changed. The student will have to work 30 hours a week for 18 months in a two-year period. Essentially, that means that students who were embarked on that process under the old rules, and in good faith, will now have to miss university for two years in many cases. As the minister said, some of them may be able to access youth allowance through the parental income test; many will not.

Given that there are savings of $1.8 billion to the budget bottom line from these changes, there is room to move in relation to those kids who are locked into the gap year event. I urge the government to look at this more closely. As the member for Lyne said, this is a dreadful introduction to civics for students who left school last year, assuming that, if they obeyed the rules, they would be able to access youth allowance through an independence test. They suddenly find the rules have changed.

The Minister for Education—I thank one of her staffers, Jim Round, for coming to me on a number of occasions to talk through the mathematics of this issue—has used the phrase ‘social inclusion’ time and time again. If we are serious about social inclusion, we have to make sure that young people do not miss out on youth allowance because of a retrospective policy change. It is time that the government reviewed this particular policy. Another member who is unable to speak is the member of Ryan. The people of Ryan have mentioned great concern as to the outcome of this debate. We are all very well aware of the member for Ryan’s concern for the people in his electorate as we have seen it on many occasions.

Another issue I would like to address is the structural components within this particular change of policy. I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her initiatives in the Senate in relation to this. I am told there will probably be a Senate inquiry into this policy. I suggest the government look much closer—once we have the Treasury modelling which has achieved the $1.8 billion in savings—at the structural gap which still exists. If I were able to tell you exactly where it exists, I would, but I think the modelling will show it up. Country students who do not have the choice of attending a university in their town will have to travel away to access university. In many cases they will now have to leave home, to go to another town, to work for 30 hours a week for 18 months so that they can say that they are independent of their parents, and that makes a mockery of it. There is not going to be an opportunity in country towns for a lot of those students to find what essentially is full-time work for an 18-month period. There is a structural fault in this policy change which really needs to be examined when the Senate committee looks at the way in which Treasury came up with the numbers.

There may be a way where this could be fairly close if not revenue neutral to Treasury. There is a distinct difference between country people who have no choice, with no university in their town, and those who live in Armidale, for instance, who have access to the University of New England. They should be treated differently from a young person who comes from a community like Walgett, which has no university. That young people has to physically leave a community where it is highly unlikely that they will get 30 hours work a week, where there are major unemployment issues, where it is highly unlikely that they would be able to achieve the independence allowance.

The last thing I would say in terms of this government is that I do not believe they want to restrict people from gaining an education. I think they do want to encourage it and a lot of their other policies, including some of the education revolution policies, are sending positive signals to young people and communities, whether they be in the country or in the city. But this particular piece of policy sends two direct arrows through the hearts of country children: the capacity to work to 30 hours a week in a full-time job in a town where there is no employment. How do we handle that structurally? We send them away so they can work for two years so that they can come home to go to university? Those sorts of things really have to be looked at. I think the integrity of a Senate inquiry may well pick up some of those issues.

I would also congratulate schools in my electorate who are particularly upset about the gap-year issue. They see it as one of real inequity. The McCarthy Catholic College community—the students and their families et cetera—are part of a petition that I put before the parliament earlier in the week. I would hope that the minister and the Prime Minister would have a very close look at this.

In relation to the politics of this, there has been a lot of people from the coalition who have rightly argued the points that the member for Lyne raised, I know the member for Kennedy will raise and other country members have raised—and even privately raised from the government side. This will be a test as to where they stand when this particular piece of legislation does get before the Senate. It is one where we have to work out the structural problems and then make a definitive vote in relation to supporting those country students who are going to miss out through not being eligible for the parental income test and not being able to acquire youth allowance because of the lack of work in their particular jurisdictions. I thank the House.

See this speech in context