House debates
Monday, 26 October 2009
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009
Second Reading
6:11 pm
Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source
I wish to address the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. The opposition has made it very clear that this bill in its current form contains provisions which will strike at the heart of students from rural and regional areas pursuing university and tertiary education. I know from my own electorate I have had complaints in quite a profound way from students and their parents and families. Whether they are from Phillip Island, Bass, San Remo, the Mornington Peninsula—in many different areas there are students that have been disadvantaged. One student, Kieran, about whom a question was asked at this very dispatch box, is from Mount Martha in my electorate, is vision impaired and has been the subject of considerable personal hardship.
The net result out of all of this is that there are 30,000 students who are facing serious consequences. We have put forward clear alternatives that are costed and funded; they are revenue neutral, although with a slight actual gain for the government, but with clear benefits. Our proposition and our principle is simple. It is, firstly, that students from rural and regional areas should be able to qualify for youth allowance. If they cannot, then we will be proposing—as other speakers have outlined—a rural and regional student scholarship program. That is a desirable step forward. It is a practical way forward. It offers equity. It does, as others have said, offer students who will not qualify under Youth Allowance a way forward through a scholarship program which specifically deals with the needs of those who have much greater costs in relocating away from their families in order to pursue their education—an important principle of equity. That is what we propose. That is what we will do. That is what we are pursuing. What we see in this legislation is that there are 30,000 students who will be hurt.
We now hear that the minister will make a partial concession and the number of students who will be seriously disadvantaged has dropped from 30,000 to 25,000. That is still not an acceptable outcome. So we see that a small number of those students who would have been hurt have now been given sanctuary, but 25,000 of 30,000 students who would have been hurt will continue to be hurt: significantly disadvantaged, their education compromised and their family circumstances made more difficult.
The principle of estoppel should apply here—that is, where students have taken a gap year on the advice of their education department, or their teachers or their career advisers, they have done so in good faith. In many cases they have given up their time and deferred their studies for a year. They have deferred their studies for a year knowing that that is the maximum amount of time that is allowed for their courses but that 18 months will be required under this new regime before they can enter. It is a classic catch 22, with no consideration given to those students who will suffer as a consequence.
Our proposition is very clear: that which has been promised must be honoured. Students who could have qualified for youth allowance by taking a gap year should be allowed to do so and should not be penalised or disadvantaged. They should be allowed to attend university and should be allowed to qualify, such as in the case of Kieran from Mount Martha, who is I note vision impaired. They should not be penalised or prevented from seeking their university education through this classic catch 22 of: you must defer for 18 months but your university course will allow you to defer for only 12 months. It is a quite flagrant example of poorly crafted policy in action, but with real and profound human consequences.
For those reasons I fully support the position outlined by the shadow minister. I support our proposal for equity in the Youth Allowance and a gap year that would honour the promise given to students who undertook the gap year—not the gap 18 months, as is now demanded, with the consequences for financial, educational and familial circumstances. I very strongly support the proposal for a rural and regional student scholarship program as outlined by Malcolm Turnbull and the coalition shadow education spokesperson.
No comments