Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I come from Australia’s largest tropical city, of which I am very proud, and where the lifestyle is fantastic. I also represent James Cook University and its many thousands of students. James Cook University is the most significant tropical university in the world today. It certainly leads the world, particularly in research in marine science and collaborations with the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and so on. A number of very interested students in my electorate are looking at this legislation. Many students have been badly affected by the government’s retrospective legislation, which I think shocked the whole university sector and particularly those on youth allowance when it was announced in the budget.

Last week the Minister for Education was trying to shift the onus of the youth allowance changes onto me and other regional MPs who stood up for Australia’s university students in trying to block these very unreasonable changes that were proposed by the Labor government. The minister’s student support legislation will make it almost impossible for thousands of rural students to gain youth allowance and to achieve their dreams in higher education, and that is unfair.

Outside the metropolitan cities we are fed up with being second-class citizens. We are entitled to a university education, as are students in the city. The changes that the minister is putting forward affect rural and regional students very significantly, and that is not fair. I reject the minister’s claims that, under the coalition’s plan to reduce the rate of the new start-up scholarship, 1,215 families in my electorate will be worse off. The minister’s proposed changes are in blatant disregard of Australia’s rural and regional students.

Ms Gillard’s attention to detail on this issue has been lacklustre at best. The Labor government does not seem to care that students made decisions to defer study for a year, relying on advice from their schools’ course advisers, Centrelink officials and other information from the government. These are sources of information that students rely on. It was these sources of information that gave these students the understanding that they would be able to defer study for a gap year without being adversely affected. They were wrong, because the government retrospectively changed the legislation. Retrospective legislation in any form is always something that this parliament must be extraordinarily careful about because of the unfair aspects that it introduces into people’s lives.

Students from rural and regional Australia do not have the option of living at home while pursuing their studies. That is self-evident. Up until now, students have been able to gain access to youth allowance through the workforce participation or gap year route. This is the route that the government is seeking to abolish. The coalition will move amendments to remove the retrospective aspect of the legislation and we have already announced a policy to provide scholarships to students from rural and regional areas who are ineligible for youth allowance but whose financial circumstances are preventing them from accessing higher education.

We, the coalition, strongly urge the government to support these sensible, fair policies. After all, we are engaged now in some sensible and fair negotiation in relation to the issue of climate change, so why can’t we do it in relation to the issue of higher education? The Deputy Prime Minister has all but admitted her short-sightedness on this issue of retrospectivity by backflipping on her original plan and delaying the implementation of the changes. But now it is crunch time. It is crunch time for the parliament, and she has simply tried to shift the blame back to those who are looking out for the youth of Australia and helping them realise their ambitions.

Stories have flooded into the coalition’s website, and I urge the minister and other interested Australians to have a look at this web site—it is www.educationforAustralia.com.au. The Minister for Education should have a read; she may learn something about what is being said. I recently met Keegan Sard, who is a typical student concerned about the changes to youth allowance. Keegan expressed his concern, and he confirmed that there is no doubt that Youth Allowance reform is needed. Keegan, thanks for expressing that concern. Thousands of other students have also expressed this to the coalition, and I assume to the government.

The Rudd government announced many of the changes contained in the present bill in the May budget, based on some of the recommendations from the Bradley review. However, the Labor government have been unable to get it right. Under this legislation, thousands of students remain uncertain about their higher education future. Regional and rural students in particular have been disadvantaged, and that is why the coalition is proposing significant amendments to this bill. Before considering these, I would like to note the four main changes that this legislation is actually trying to make to Youth Allowance. Firstly, it proposes to change the criteria of independence for the purposes of eligibility by lowering the age of independence from 25 to 22 and removing part-time work as criteria for establishing it. Secondly, it seeks to increase the parental income threshold for non-independent recipients from $32,800 to $44,165. The personal income-free level for youth allowance recipients will also be increased from $236 to $400 per fortnight. Thirdly, the legislation introduces a new start-up scholarship for all youth allowance or Austudy recipients, and this scholarship will be given to an estimated 146,000 students next year. Finally, the bill would exempt all merit and equity based scholarships from the income test, and that is reasonable.

It is important to make sure that students have the support they need when they are studying. I think everybody would accept that. However, the government’s proposed legislation is just not the answer. Labor’s Youth Allowance changes do not address all of the issues currently facing students, nor will they provide support for all of those students who need it. The coalition therefore proposes several amendments to this legislation to ensure that support is there for all students who need it, and that no-one will be unfairly disadvantaged because of the changes.

The minister’s reform package has resulted in a great deal of controversy and debate. This has centred on the categories of eligibility for youth allowance. When Minister Gillard first announced Labor’s proposed reforms, there were going to be two changes made to the criteria of independence. Firstly, the age of independence would be progressively lowered from 25 to 22 years old by 2012 and, secondly, a more controversial measure was to immediately remove part-time employment as criteria for establishing independence. We all know this. The problem with this ill-thought-out second measure is that it was also to apply from 1 January next year, therefore applying retrospectively to 2009 gap year students. They were just appalled, and their complaints flooded into the government and of course flooded into the opposition—and quite reasonably so. So although the changes would come into effect in 2010, they would apply to students starting their studies that year—that is, students who may have graduated high school in 2008 and worked the required hours in 2009. These students, when they began working this year, had no idea of the government’s intention to do this. They had their study plans placed into jeopardy following the minister’s announcement.

We have now seen a partial backflip from the Rudd government and Julia Gillard on this measure when they finally realised it would leave thousands of students in a very precarious position indeed. Their backflip solution is to allow students currently on a gap year to qualify for the youth allowance under the workforce criteria, provided they live more than 90 minutes from their university via public transport. While this change will mean 5,000 students who took a gap year this year thinking that they would be eligible to again qualify for youth allowance, a further massive 25,000 students will not.

The coalition opposes the retrospective operation of the changes in this legislation. We propose that all students currently on a gap year be eligible for youth allowance through the previously existing workforce participation criteria. This will cost an additional $573 million over four years to the figure announced in the May budget. Savings can be found to fund this to ensure the 2009 gap year students are not disadvantaged. For example, Minister Gillard has already announced that $150 million will be saved through the delayed start to changes to the personal income threshold. The coalition will also propose further savings measures.

The current system allows students to be eligible for youth allowance irrespective of their parents’ income if they earn $19,532 in 18 months after finishing school, if they work 15 hours per week for two years after finishing school or if they work full-time for 18 months after finishing school. Under Labor’s changes, only full-time work would remain as a category for proving independence. By removing the option of workforce participation, regional and rural Australian students will find it more difficult to study at university. It is really surprising that the Labor government would put students in that particular situation. These young Australians must make the often difficult decision to move to the city to study. In many situations they may not be able to rely on financial support from their parents, nor be able to qualify for youth allowance under the parental income test. It is certainly a heartless decision by the Labor government to do this to these many thousands of students.

For a young regional Australian, moving to the city to study for several years will cost tens of thousands of dollars. While many farming families may be above the parental income test, they may still be unable to afford the high costs associated with this move, such as accommodation and living expenses, plus all the study costs such as textbooks and equipment. Under the current system, the solution for many of these young Australians has been to take a gap year after school and earn $19,532 in 18 months—thus becoming eligible as an independent recipient of youth allowance. The government’s reasoning behind abolishing this is that it was being exploited by some wealthy families and students who live and study in the city. However, in abolishing it the government has left rural and regional Australian students in a very uncomfortable, very difficult and very uncertain position. Many feel that without the income support of youth allowance they would be unable to move to the city to study, and that is the great unfairness of what the government is proposing in this bill.

The Labor government claim to be interested in promoting higher education for everyone, yet they are actively ignoring the very real concerns of rural and regional Australian students. It is not just coalition members who realise the disadvantage that regional students would suffer under the Rudd government’s changes. The Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee, which is chaired by a Labor member and has an effective Labor majority, noted unanimously—unanimously—that removing part-time workforce participation would have a ‘disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.’ I say, ‘Good on the Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee.’ They can see what the federal Minister for Education apparently cannot.

The coalition therefore proposes an amendment to the bill to ensure that these students are still able to move to the city and undertake tertiary education. We will introduce a measure that creates a new rural and regional scholarship program, which will be worth $120 million. This scholarship will provide real financial support to rural and regional Australian students who move to continue their education. Without this measure, and under the government’s plan, the only option for many of these students would be to work 30 hours per week for 18 months in order to be eligible for youth allowance.

For regional Australian students, making the move to study, often hundreds of kilometres away from family and friends, is a big undertaking. We must make sure that these students do not suffer undue financial stress and are supported in their higher education. James Cook University, in my electorate, has a large proportion of students from regional areas right across the northern part of Queensland, stretching out to the border and Mount Isa, up into the Gulf Country, down through the coalfields and so on. It is a big undertaking for those students to get to university. We must make sure that the students do not suffer undue financial stress and are supported in their higher education.

In some fields of study at James Cook, an overwhelming majority of students come from rural and regional areas. For example, 80 per cent of the students who are studying medicine at James Cook, arguably the best medical school in the country and which has a really fabulous undergraduate degree, come from rural or regional Australia. That is because when the medical school was established one of the criteria was that they would admit students from rural and regional Australia who, when they did their degree in a regional university, would tend to stay in the regional area as doctors. This was a very specific policy decision by the Howard government to offer a medical degree in a regional area so that we would encourage students to become doctors and then stay, serving the people of regional Australia.

What must students like that think about the government when it says, ‘We are going to make it much more difficult for you to go to university.’ That is what this bill is about. Are we really in the business of punishing medical students who come from places such as Hughenden, Julia Creek, Winton, Boulia, Bedourie, Birdsville, who knows? Are we really going to put something through the parliament that makes it almost impossible for these students to attend university? We graduate really great doctors from James Cook. With the association of the Townsville Hospital, which is right next door to James Cook’s medical school, we also provide positions for Indigenous students, all of whom graduate. They make magnificent doctors—really terrific doctors—which is very significant indeed. But this legislation is going to make it very difficult for all of those students to go to James Cook from regional areas. Under the coalition’s rural and regional scholarship program, which is in the amendments to the bill, students from remote areas who wish to come and study in Townsville would be given the financial support to do so. I strongly support that. I want to make sure that these students can get to JCU.

As we reform the system, it is vital that we do not forget the students who most need our support. I have heard many stories from regional students who are very concerned about their ability to move to a city to study. The Rudd government’s changes will leave them without any support and will have many questioning whether they can now afford to study. The government must show that it cares about rural and regional Australian students by supporting the coalition’s amendment. The government’s legislation proposes to introduce new scholarships for students who receive youth allowance or Austudy. The new Student Start-up Scholarship will be introduced in 2010 and, under the government’s proposal, would be worth $2,254 per year.

It is important that the final changes to the youth allowance system be cost neutral. To ensure this, the coalition proposes to set the rate of the Start-up Scholarship at $1,000 per year. This will mean that a greater number of students can receive some form of income support. The coalition’s amendments are designed to make sure all students are better off. Contrary to the government’s spin, the coalition’s budget neutrality amendments do not leave students with a single dollar less than they currently receive in their youth allowance payments. I urge the government to support our amendments and do the right thing by the students of rural and regional Australia.

See this speech in context