Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, which is of critical importance to many families right across north-east Victoria in my electorate of Indi. We had the previous speaker, the member for Lindsay, refer to ‘any reasonable objective observer’, though he did not go on to clarify what any reasonable objective observer might think. From what he said, one could infer that any reasonable objective observer could only support what the government was doing. By inference, of course, anyone who raised a question, or a doubt, or found out from objective analysis that a practical application of the proposed changes to their personal family circumstances would mean they would be worse off and their children would be worse off, are not reasonable and they are not objective.

This is no surprise. We are not shocked any more by the extraordinary application of the methods of propaganda described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-four. This government really goes out of its way to spin the impossible into the possible. We see this time and time again. But do you know what? When a proposed government change is so detrimental to so many families—even in a nation like Australia that has had a very stable political history, where there is relative political apathy—when you get an issue that touches the nerve of so many families, they actually prick up their ears, they get angry and they see the spin for what it is. This is exactly the case with these proposed changes to the youth allowance. It is quite fitting that as young people in my electorate prepare to sit their first year 12 exam on Friday, we are debating this legislation which, for many of them, will have the potential to decide which path their lives will take.

Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s best efforts over the last few months to spin her way out of this issue, local people know that their children will be worse off under the government’s changes. It does not matter what the government says. They can call them unreasonable, they can call them biased—these people know that their children will be worse off under these changes. I had Neal from Wangaratta—and I have had many constituents write; I will be quoting from some of their correspondence—say to me:

I heard Julia Gillard tonight on ABC regional radio as she tried to sell the changes. I was infuriated with her attitude and political spin.

The minister has pulled out absolutely all stops to convince people that the government’s changes will not disadvantage local people in my electorate. She rose in parliament on 1 June and mocked the current system as being skewed to people who earned $200,000, $300,00 and $400,000 a year, and that the coalition—that stood up to the government on these changes, which will seriously disadvantage students from many regional and rural areas—was seeking to ‘benefit those better off at the expense of the vast majority’. There you go again. If you raise any query about possible changes of policy of this current government—that is apparently all knowing and all seeing—then you must be on the side of ‘the better off’, you must be on the side of the bad people and you must be on the side of the oppressors. It is just typical spin: don’t try to explain a policy; don’t try to come up with a good policy—just turn around and attack your opponents. It is probably not just a tactic but a symptom that they have not yet realised that they are in government. Not only do they have a serious responsibility to govern for all Australians; they are also in government to initiate responsible policies and not just behave like an opposition as they did before the 2007 election.

Ms Gillard has tried very hard to convince people in my electorate that the Labor Party scheme is more generous for rural and regional students. She said in the Mansfield Courier on 15 July this year, ‘The allowance is still means tested but more generously, particularly for rural and regional students.’ Country people—and I know from direct experience of people in north-east Victoria—can see through cleverly crafted spin. They know that the government’s changes will leave students who need to move away to university high and dry in spite of anything that the minister may say. Nigel from Benalla says:

No matter what the rhetoric is, these changes discriminate against non metropolitan parents and students.

Year 12 students sitting their VCE exams in Indi this week and over the next few weeks have considerable uncertainty hanging over their heads. No matter how well they do in their exams, no matter how high their ENTER score and no matter what they achieve during the next few weeks, some of them may not be able to go on to the university of their choice—to which they have merited entry—because are not able to afford it. Many local families who have spoken to me and written to me already support their children who have left home to go to university, but they cannot afford all of the costs required for their children’s move, and accommodation and living expenses while studying at university. Many students take on extra jobs to help out with this. It is these expenses which put rural families at a disadvantage when compared to metropolitan families. Peter and Rhona from Lima East are both teachers. They have two sons. Their combined income exceeds the threshold. One of the sons is currently in year 12 and he wants to study law. They said:

Continuing to live at home while fulfilling his dream of tertiary study is completely impossible because of where we live. Whereas we had always planned to support our son’s tertiary education, we could not afford the high costs of paying for all of his living costs in Melbourne and supporting his costs of study.

Many families in my electorate are finding it difficult to make ends meet as it is, and they simply cannot afford the additional costs associated with sending their son or daughter to university away from their home base. It is for this very reason that many people in the local area choose to defer their tertiary studies for 12 months to take a so-called gap year. Until now, they have been able to gain access to the Youth Allowance scheme through the workforce participation or gap year route that the government is seeking to abolish with this legislation. They spend the year working to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance so that they can afford to move away from home to attend the university of their choice.

The unfortunate reality for people from north-east Victoria is that, due to the high expense of moving away to metropolitan areas, they need some extra financial support, and this has been provided to may of them via the Youth Allowance scheme. Local students who have taken the gap year in the past have not complained, even though it sets them 12 months behind in their course, but have gone out to find work so that they can earn enough to qualify and achieve their ultimate goal to study at university. As one lady who wrote to me said:

If young people are prepared to spend a year working hard in order to qualify for the Youth Allowance so that they can attend University, then this should be rewarded, not discouraged.

Minister Gillard does not seem to comprehend that most students from rural Australia do not have the option of living freely at home while pursuing their studies. The minister does not seem to understand that there are considerable costs associated with moving to a metropolitan area. As reported by the Mansfield paper on 15 July 2009:

Ms Gillard said the allowance had been perceived as students having to qualify by being independent from parents, but this was not so.

The minister clearly does not understand the reality for many local students. As Judith from Benalla said:

A ‘gap’ year is not a luxury, or a ‘rort’ it is a necessity for many rural students.

The Victorian Education and Training Committee Inquiry into Geographical Differences in the Rate in which Victorian Students Participate in Higher Education found that there was an overwhelming theme of the difficulty students face in meeting the cost of living. Estimated living costs were $15,000 to $20,000 per year. The committee heard that a substantial proportion of students struggle to accumulate sufficient income to meet the costs of undertaking their university course and that families also struggle to meet such high costs because often they have other dependent children at home, they are paying a mortgage and they have the usual financial burdens associated with raising a family.

Carl from Allans Flat said:

These proposed changes are just another kick in the stomach to bush students and parents struggling to meet the costs of further education.

The choice to take a gap year is being made by an overwhelming majority of students in the local area. According to evidence presented to the Victorian Education and Training Committee inquiry, in 2007-08 one in three school leavers from non-metropolitan areas deferred their studies, compared with 10 per cent of metropolitan school leavers. Those who choose to take a gap year in order to qualify for Youth Allowance include students from farming and small business families—and students whose parents are public servants or work in retail. It goes right across the board. These students are traditionally excluded from qualifying for the dependent rate of youth allowance because of the high value of their parents’ property or other business assets or because of the income test. Often, for these families, the reality is that they are asset rich but income poor. Many are earning a normal income—not a high income—but their children have been excluded because of the income test. Many families in the region, particularly farming families, do not have the cash flow required to support their children at university. Many of them do not qualify for drought assistance, so the exclusions that would usually apply to their situation do not apply.

There are a number of students in my local area who are currently on their gap year who have been caught up by the Rudd government’s changes. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations gave evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport hearings into the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill—this bill—that 25,000 students who are currently on their gap year will be denied youth allowance under the government’s changes. We saw the Deputy Prime Minster perform almost a backflip—maybe more of a half-twist—when she gave a reprieve to 5,000 gap year students in August. But Ms Gillard was not moved when the coalition gave her the opportunity in parliament to come to the table and negotiate on amendments to the government’s scheme in early August. Ms Gillard refused to even stand up in parliament and defend her own policy.

I have already referred in other areas to the inquiry of the Labor-dominated Victorian Education and Training Committee, which released its report earlier this year. The committee’s decision to investigate the issue of geographical influences on access to education was not made in relation to the federal government’s proposed changes, but the findings of the committee are alarming and do have serious implications for the government’s new Youth Allowance policy. The committee heard in 2007 that university application rates were below the state average in every non-metropolitan region apart from the Western District. It also heard that in 2007-08, 14 per cent of school leavers from non-metropolitan areas who received an offer from a university rejected their offer, compared with only 8.6 per cent in metropolitan areas. Anecdotal evidence presented to the committee also suggests that there are higher completion rates for metropolitan students.

Also significant, the committee heard that aspiration towards higher education is an important factor in the desire to pursue further education, and we have seen that in many other reports as well. For students with weaker aspirations, barriers to higher education participation are more likely to have a decisive influence, and this is certainly something I have seen in my electorate. Some students, upon learning the news that the government was proposing to make these changes to Youth Allowance, have already given up hope of attending university. Peter from Staghorn Flat said that the government’s plan ‘has caused significant anxiety—is against the principle of a fair go’. This really resonates amongst many young people, many of whom are about to embark on their year 12 exams.

While welcoming the government’s changes in principle, the Victorian committee expressed concern that the Rudd government’s changes will have a detrimental impact on access to higher education for those who need to live away from home to study. It was said in the committee report, ‘The committee believes that this change will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.’

We see the Rudd government placing considerable emphasis on its two new scholarships—the Student Start-up Scholarship and the Relocation Scholarship, which replaced the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship. But in order to qualify for these scholarships, a student must be receiving youth allowance. So it really locks out disadvantaged students in any case.

Also significant, this Victorian committee heard that the amount available under the new Relocation Scholarship will be substantially less than that available under the existing Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship. Many students have written to me and said that they will now have to work more during the university semester in order to support themselves financially. Previously students were able to cut back on hours they worked during the semester in order to focus on their studies, but many will simply not have a choice now. As Charlotte from Benalla said:

The new Youth Allowance Scheme will mean I not only need to earn enough money to make the move to the city where my course is held, which is quite expensive as it is, but when my course begins I will still need to work in order to live because there is no realistic way, to myself, to work 30 hours a week.

The Victorian committee found that excessive part-time work affected students’ well being and engagement in university life and academic achievement and led to an increased risk that students would not continue with their studies. As one mother, Ann from Mount Beauty, said:

As a rural student it is quite an upheaval to go off to university, leaving home and all its support mechanisms, finding your own way in a very different environment and trying to fund accommodation, textbooks, food, sporting activities and HECS. He knows we will help him but he does not want to burden us with those expenses of having to ‘ask’ for money to be able to do the little things like sporting competitions that are so important to his well-being.

Local people do feel disillusioned and let down. Some believed Kevin Rudd when he promised that if elected a Labor government would undertake an ‘education revolution’. The government’s changes to Youth Allowance fly in the face of the promise it made at the last election, whilst conveniently in opposition, ‘to create an “education revolution”, to create one of the most highly educated and skilled nations on earth’. Apparently you can be skilled and educated but not if you live in rural or regional Australia.

As Judith from Benalla said:

Julia Gillard stated that ‘the Australian government is committed to addressing the intergenerational cycle of educational disadvantage’. This is commendable, but at the same time, indications are that a new group will now fall into the category of ‘educational disadvantage’.

And that is students from rural and regional Australia. Even Labor voters have expressed their disillusionment. Someone wrote to me and said:

I actually voted for them because I believed in them. I am sure both my husband and myself would have been happy to forego our lots of $900 if it meant keeping the Youth Allowance intact.

And I am sure many Labor members on the other side are hearing the same right across their electorates, even those who do not have rural or regional electorates. The coalition has moved amendments to the Youth Allowance. We urge the minister to accept the coalition’s amendments to ensure that rural students are not further disadvantaged.

See this speech in context