Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This evening I rise to raise my concerns and the concerns of the many hundreds of students and their families from my electorate of Riverina. It has been explained here in the House, time and time again, just exactly what the issues are that are confronting rural and regional students. When you look at the transcripts of hearings that have been held on this issue, your heart really does go out to some very clever people who have determined that the changes the government are making to the way in which youth allowance will be applied are certainly going to impact on them. So rather than them accepting what the government is saying—that this is going to be better for you; we are doing much more for the students than was done before—these are smart young people who have determined that it is not going to be better for them.

If someone applies for youth allowance under the current arrangements they will be assessed as either dependent or independent, as has been identified in the House many times. To be classified as fully dependent and receive the full amount of the youth allowance, the income of the student’s parents must fall below $33,000. For many families, this will not be the case. If students cannot be deemed dependent, they have to become independent to receive the youth allowance. To be classified as independent and receive the full amount of youth allowance, students currently have to meet one of these criteria: they have to have worked full-time—at least 30 hours a week—for at least 18 months in the last two years; or have worked part-time—at least 15 hours a week—for at least two years since leaving school; or have been out of school for at least 18 months and have earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage level A of the Australian Pay and Classification Scale in an 18-month period—about $19,500.

What we have here is a plan by the government to take away the second two options that I have just mentioned. They will have to have worked full-time—at least 30 hours a week—for at least 18 months in the last two years. That is, as all the regional members I think have raised in this House, where the problem lies. It is simply almost impossible for our regional students to do this.

I collated a few comments from the Senate committee hearings on this issue and I will quote from the Hansard. One young person, Ms Sinclair, said during the Senate hearing on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 that she believed the government had it wrong. She said:

I collected papers over the last two months to see what jobs we could apply for. I come from Orange, which is quite regional compared to these girls—

she was speaking about some other students at the time—

I circled nine jobs in four weeks that I could apply for and that gave me 30 hours a week. There are another 300 kids graduating. There are just not enough jobs. The proof is there; it is in the papers and the statistics.

This young woman had circled nine jobs she could apply for that would give her the 30 hours a week to meet what the government is going to demand, but she was going to be one of 300 kids applying for the jobs. The statistics are not adding up very well in favour of regional students. Another young person said that he believed the government was right and that the money should go to people who need and deserve it. But he said:

… it should not be done in a way that eliminates people that do need it from being able to earn their independent youth allowance. In rural areas there are not enough jobs for 30 hours a week for 18 months, especially … with our year. When the next generation of school leavers leave, we will still be here for 18 months and there will be absolutely no jobs for them because employers will not be employing. Without that, it is not that it is too hard; it is impossible. If the work is not there, the students cannot do 30 hours a week of employed work.

As we have indicated all the way through this debate, speakers from regional electorates have said how young people have qualified for this money in the past. One of the young students, when she had the question posed to her by a senator during the Senate committee hearing, said that she had calculated some of the costs at the ANU and it was one of the cheaper ones compared to, say, going to Sydney. She said:

Throwing in the basic costs, I think it was about $13½ thousand for board. When you put a bit of travel money and extra costs on top of that, it was going to be about $18,000.

The senator said to this young girl:

If you were getting the relocation scholarship, that would be $4,000 for the first year.

The young lady answered:

But how many people get the scholarships? That is it. I have two older sisters that have been through it and they apply for all the scholarships that are available, and neither of them have even got one. I understand scholarships cannot be for everybody, but why is it that, when, for example—

and she spoke about another person—

Amelia and I are exactly the same—we are exactly the same people; we are working just as hard—Amelia may get a scholarship and I may not. Why is that?

Most of the students indicated during the hearing that they were planning to earn the money they required in their holidays. They believed that they could do seasonal work in the breaks which would enable them to meet the criteria for their lifelong dream of attending university.

This whole debate has been skewed and is very, very confusing because, when the government say they are going to enable many more thousands of people to access payment, the fact is that ‘access’ could mean anything from $3 a week because it is a tapering amount. There is a tapering level that is applied to this. People are not going to be accessing more of this. Why would you spend $20,000 to get $1,000 back? It just does not make economic sense. As I said, it has been extremely confusing. The government have essentially proposed changes that tighten the criteria, which most regional students use, to access youth allowance. It is of grave concern to the people in regional areas.

I am in the Riverina electorate and I have young students in Ardlethan, Temora and Ariah Park who cannot access work. I have had parents say to me: ‘We come from a town with just a hotel and a local store. There are simply no employment options available. Our child will have to go away and work for 30 hours a week before they can qualify as being independent, and they will have to do that for two years.’ Who will meet their costs for the two years?

One of the telling things I learned from reading the Senate hearing was just how little many government members know about what it is like in rural and regional Australia, such as how long we have been in drought, and just how little understanding there is about the impact of this legislation. One of the young girls was speaking to one of the Labor senators and she said that she felt she was not going to qualify because of assets, because of land. She said:

For me it is assets.

Most of them were saying it is because of assets, because they were certainly not getting income. Senator O’Brien said:

It is the value of your rural property rather than your parental income threshold?

One of the young ladies said:

Yes, even though there may not be any income at all—nothing tangible.

One of the other senators said:

You cannot really sell a paddock to pay for school bills.

Then Senator O’Brien said:

I suppose you could debate that. Some people would suggest that, in some circumstances, some people can borrow against assets to derive an income.

I thought: how could Senator O’Brien, who was once, I think, the shadow minister for agriculture, have so little understanding about the plight that regional Australia, particularly regional New South Wales, has been in for eight years? We are heading for another crop loss and we will be holding a crisis meeting, again, in the Riverina on 3 November for the eighth crop loss in a row—would you be looking at selling off your assets or going into debt and borrowing more money against them? The fact is these people have borrowed to the hilt and have not had income for eight years. I think it was a bit of an indictment and a real eye-opener for people who were listening at the hearing or have read the transcripts—there was obviously very little understanding of how regional Australia has been working over the last eight to 10 years.

In speaking on this bill I can only say that this is a mistake—one of the most serious mistakes that has been made. I urge the minister to recognise this serious mistake, to recognise how it will impact on regional students in particular, to make the changes that are required to be made, to put the other two tiers capacity to earn income back into place and to take out this ridiculous one-size-fits-all criterion whereby you must work 30 hours a week for 18 months to two years, which really equates to full-time work. If the minister cannot see that that disadvantages regional students then, seriously, I do question her judgement. I certainly would say that this should not be supported and, basically, we should be looking to put back the tiers to enable all regional students to qualify for youth allowance so that they can get on with their studies and get onto providing the skilled resources in regional Australia that we are so desperately seeking.

See this speech in context