Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation that has come to this parliament, but it is just so typical of the philosophical attitude of a party that has said previously, under a previous leader, that they did not have any interest in small business and that they did not have any interest in country people. Nevertheless, as a number of government members—backbenchers—discovered when they came in here with grins all over their faces to put down a censure motion which attempted to put pressure on the government to realise how unfair and unreasonable these proposals were, their names were listed as voting down that effort from the coalition, the opposition. Suddenly there was at least some sort of response as it became patently obvious—as it will again today, when votes are taken on this matter—that they do not support country members, notwithstanding that they represent country people.

It has always been a fact in this place that nobody governs without a significant number of seats in rural and regional areas. They are legion. Of course, suggestions that 90 kilometres is the distance at which people are disadvantaged is patently silly. That may be the correct situation for someone who has a fast electric train outside their doorstep. For everybody else it is an untenable situation to attempt to travel that distance daily to conduct study, which is not always, of course, in daylight hours—many university courses and lectures occur in the evenings. The suggestion is that they then get in whatever mode of transport they might be lucky enough to own and drive back home. What is this all about? We can refer to the explanatory memorandum:

The first measure contains changes to the criteria upon which a youth allowance recipient is considered to be “independent”. Independent youth allowance recipients are entitled to a higher rate of payment and are not subject to a test for parental income.

There has also been a change in the age qualification from 25 down to 22 years of age. That is to be done in a phased-in fashion.

In addition, from 1 January 2010, a youth allowance claimant will no longer be able to attain independence through part-time employment or wages.

On the face of it, that might not appear to be too much of a problem. But it is in total contradistinction with the employment opportunities that exist in so many rural and regional centres. The demand for labour is seasonal. It is well-paid in many cases, but in between there is no work. Who is going to go straight from year 12 and get a guaranteed job of 30 hours a week for 18 months in a rural centre of 100 or 150 people? Where is that sort of work available—and, if it were available to a year-12 worker, which more mature worker gets the sack? The independence clause is so changed that it is virtually impossible for students living outside the metropolitan area to comply. If there is a problem associated with the present scheme, it is with those from reasonably wealthy households who do stay at home and then claim to be independent simply because they have a job.

To get the sort of employment that presently applies under the act—that is, employment that pays about $19,000 during an 18-month period—many young people residing in rural areas do have to leave home. They do have to go and take employment elsewhere, because it simply is not available in their local regional community. But doesn’t it get better and doesn’t it just indicate how little knowledge the minister and her advisers have in regard to income? The explanatory memorandum says of the second measure, promoted by the minister as a positive:

From 1 January 2010, the annual parental income threshold for non-independent youth allowance recipients to get the maximum rate of youth allowance will increase from $32,800 to $44,165.

Where out of that sort of income—with, say, another couple of kids at home—do you find the money necessary to transport and totally maintain a child in a capital city studying at university? Where is the money? To relocate that child, $10,000 or $15,000 would be required. Are you going to take that out of $44,000 and keep the rest of the family, pay the mortgage, pay the insurance and pay for the car out of what is left? Yes—if you are on 44 grand in Perth, Sydney or somewhere else and you live within a pushbike ride of a university, you can manage on 44 grand. It is maybe a reasonable assessment. But there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that that sort of money is very, very small for people in country areas who find themselves confronted with paying for the education of their children.

So what do many of them to? They pack up and leave, taking with them all their experience from their place of business, their place of work. They might be medical practitioners—people desperately needed in rural centres—who say, ‘We’ve got to go to Perth because the minister will give us a better deal up there in terms of salary calculations et cetera.’ As I have said on many occasions, including in this place, it so happens that, in the metropolitan areas of Australia, the richer you are, the closer you live to a university. This is not taken account of, either. So here we are with a silly figure that is promoted as relaxing the program. Yes, relaxing the program for those who will be the beneficiaries of these arrangements—those who reside in metropolitan areas, where public transport is available in most instances, with their family. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say in relation to the second measure:

The parental income reduction for youth allowance will also change from a taper rate of 25% per person, to a taper of 20%—

This is, arguably, positive only once you have discovered where you live. It is interesting to note this:

It is estimated that these changes to the parental income test will result in 67,800 additional students—

none of whom reside outside the metropolitan area—

qualifying …

Let me put the case for educating kids from the country. There are so many professionals required in the country—it could be in accountancy, law or medicine, and of course today university is a requirement for someone to be a nurse. A number of processes to assist in this area were brought forward by the Howard government, including an opportunity for below-the-line entry to medical school for about 100 students from country areas. Those students were below the line not because they were dull or did not have the intelligence; they were below the line because country students’ opportunities to study are somewhat restricted in terms of curricula and many other matters. The history of that program has shown that, when these young people do qualify and get into university, their rating amongst the other students rises rapidly. Because they are intelligent kids, they do not stay at the bottom of the pile.

Why do we have that program? Simply because of the evidence available that shows that students from rural areas, who are also more adjusted and very confident, want to live in their regional communities. They go back and deliver services to those taxpaying communities of people who make a huge contribution to our economic circumstances. They saved the government from a technical recession. If one studies export orders, one sees it was compressed exports of wheat from Western Australia that pushed the economy into positive territory. That is not disputable, being based on statistics. The whole thing is that we want these people to go back. Today they have got to have tertiary skills even for the business of farming—probably more so if some of the issues relating to emissions trading and other schemes become a fact of life.

The fact is that these students are entitled to education and the only way that they have been able to get one is under the Youth Allowance scheme, which has a special category even for rent assistance—and so it should. Here are young people going out, taking on real employment and gaining some experience from that while also going on and learning and, in many cases, taking their acquired skills back to their areas—maybe becoming science teachers in country areas. Why do such kids have low TEE marks? They have them because in many cases the education authorities cannot find science teachers or high-level maths teachers for country towns, and this is a better way to get them.

The third measure provides new scholarships for students on income support. That is a big help. In 2010 such a scholarship will be worth $1,127 for six months. That is a total of $2,254 for 12 months. That is twice the average weekly wage, and a kid is supposed to spend 12 months in a capital city on the strength of that! Then they might get a Start-Up scholarship of $4,000 if they are eligible under these new arrangements. But, as I said, if you are a parent in a country area on $44,000, which is not the average wage anymore, then it is virtually impossible to maintain a child away from home.

This is also interesting. The financial impact statement tells us that in 2009-10, expenditure will be $85.7 million; in 2010-11 it will be minus $72 million—in other words, there will be a saving as there will be less money spent in this area—in 2011-12 it will be minus $127 million; and in 2012-13 there will be an additional expense. The total saving for the government will be $106 million. So much for the Education Revolution! So much for equal rights and equal access, one of the fundamentals of Australian society!

This is not equal access to education legislation; it is to the contrary. It improves somewhat opportunities for persons residing in a metropolitan area, but that is certainly not the case for country students. Whether or not there should be special arrangements that recognise the right of all Australian students to have access to top-quality tertiary education has always been a question that has gone unanswered in this place. If there is a distance disability why can’t that be recognised as such? Why would you set a wage limit of $42,000? The average rural family can survive on that if that money is for normal household expenditure. But the second that your family has additional costs you are over the limit.

I will put that in another way, as I have in this House before. Let us say we have a single-income family and junior gets high marks in his tertiary entrance examinations and wants to go and study medicine, engineering, agriculture or whatever it is. The parents look at the family budget and see that on, let us say, $40,000 a year they cannot afford the additional funds for junior to go away. So the wife says: ‘Well, we’ll become a two-income family. I have skills. I have previously worked as a professional nurse’—or, say, she has previously worked as a schoolteacher. ‘I’ll go and work up at the local supermarket.’ But what happens when she earns $10,000 or $20,000 a year? The family is over the parental income threshold, so they do not get any help anyway. How can that be fair and reasonable?

I am delighted that, recognising the needs of these people, the coalition has some amendments. They literally re-establish the status quo and so they should. If they are not agreed to, we will oppose this legislation. That creates some administrative difficulties I understand, but so be it. I do not come to this House as a member representing country people to support legislation of this nature, and nor should about a dozen Labor MPs who also convinced people from country and regional areas to vote for them, I would think on the basis that they would be here to represent their interests. How any one of those people could cast a vote for this legislation is beyond me. What is more, I promise those Labor MPs faithfully I will be looking at the Hansard document where their names will be recorded and I will be posting out letters to their local newspapers reminding their constituents of how their local member voted on this issue.

The disappointment with these measures is universal. I have lodged in this place a petition with over 13,000 signatures, which I received in my office in Albany from all over Australia. If any of those on the other side think I have not got signatures from their locality, they will be surprised. How did this petition eventuate? I published a pro forma petition on my website that people could download to meet the proper requirements of this parliament, which are that such petitions must be on paper and be signed personally. The interesting thing about all that was that we published it and people had to make a physical effort. They had to download it. They had to visit their friends and visit other interested parties and say, ‘Will you sign this thing?’ In the first 10 days 6,800 signatures turned up, posted at the expense of these taxpayers. That is the measure of people’s concern. When a lot of people are angry, they may even make a phone call. Politicians who ignore people going through that particular process for the purpose of protesting against what is a rip-off do so at their own peril. And so it should be at their peril—we come to this place to represent the interests of our constituents.

There are 10 or 15 Labor MPs who have this situation in their constituencies and they do not care. They ran off and got a no-retrospectivity agreement from the minister, and that is the best they could do. They did not do it for the kids; they did it to give themselves a little bit of self-protection politically. It is a shame, and if any of them think that this legislation can pass without their constituents knowing how they have treated the children in their electorate, without recognising their callous disregard of the points I have made today, well, be it upon their heads.

See this speech in context