Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank members who have spoken on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. In the way of these things, the quality of contribution has varied. But there we have it; that is our great parliamentary debating system at work.

I say to the last member who spoke, who gave a contribution that I think mirrored some of the things said by many opposition members during this debate, that I agree with him. I agree that the legacy of the Howard government for disadvantaged kids from country Australia is a truly shocking one; I agree with that. I agree that the legacy of the Howard government is that kids in his electorate do it tough. This government, piece by piece, bit by bit, is delivering an education revolution to make a difference to just that.

I would ask the member to reflect on the fact—which he knows, as I know—that disadvantage starts in the early years. This is a government that is investing in the early years to make a difference to disadvantage. The Howard government was the government that had us coming at the back of the class in the OECD. I think the member would acknowledge that this is a government investing in disadvantaged schools to make a difference. Under the Howard government no-one even bothered to ask for a list of disadvantaged schools, so disconnected were they from the reality of education today.

Nothing was done by the Howard government to put the best teachers in front of the classrooms that needed them the most. Nothing was done on a national curriculum. Nothing was done on the question of school leadership. Nothing effective was done on the question of literacy and numeracy. Then higher education was the subject of cutbacks, so people from the member’s electorate could not get opportunities in universities. We put universities on a growth path. The Howard government never bothered to try to work through the issue of how to get universities to enrol more people from low-SES backgrounds, including rural and regional backgrounds. The Bradley reforms delivered that.

Against this track record of neglect it has fallen to this government to make a difference for country kids—for rural and regional kids. This bill is doing just that. This bill, the Social Security and other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, amends the Social Security Act 1991 to implement a key aspect of this government’s landmark reform agenda for higher education and research after a decade of neglect. It has fallen to us to revitalise Australia’s university system, to put it on a growth path and to make a difference for the most disadvantaged students. This bill contains the government’s response to the recommendation on student income support from the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education.

Student income support and other financial assistance is critically important to getting financially disadvantaged students into higher education. The measures contained in this bill ensure that student income support payments are better targeted and will provide more assistance to those students who need it the most. These reforms must be passed if we are to open up our university system to young Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, something the Howard government cared nothing about and that we are acting on. We know from statistics that the Howard government’s legacy is a track record of failure.

To those opposition members who have participated in this debate, somehow assuming that under the Howard government there was some sort of Nirvana for country children, I point to the following statistics—the crushing reality that ought to require them to reconsider their position. Under the failed old system of student income support—the Howard government system—the participation of low-SES students languished at around 15 per cent, against a population share of 25 per cent. Participation by regional students at university fell to 18 per cent, against a population share of 25.4 per cent—underrepresented and going backwards under the Howard government’s student income support system.

Even some Liberals have finally been prepared to say that the system they created has failed. I refer to the contributions of the member for Casey when he was the shadow education minister, who at least had the courage to pan the former government’s scheme, in a speech a little more than a year ago, when he said about the Howard government’s student income support scheme:

… it has become too easy for students from affluent backgrounds to qualify and too difficult for students from modest backgrounds …

He was right. He further noted that the current system:

… particularly disadvantages many students—particularly those from the country—who have to leave home to study, and has resulted in a situation where record numbers of students … defer their studies with many of them taking a year off to earn money to qualify for independence for Youth Allowance and possibly not returning.

He was right about that—a good perceptive criticism of the circumstances the Howard government had left regional and rural students in.

Under the current system the parental income threshold for students to access support as dependents has become so low that many students have thought that the only way to gain access to student income support is to qualify as independent youth allowance recipients. This has often caused them to delay their studies for a year, potentially not returning. Many of these young people are not actually financially independent of their parents. The Bradley review found that as a result of the current independence test youth allowance is being accessed by some students who are living at home in higher-income households.

For example, the review found that 36 per cent of independent students living at home were from families with incomes above $100,000 per year, 18 per cent were from families with incomes above $150,000, 10 per cent were from families with incomes above $200,000 and three per cent were from families with incomes above $300,000. Yes—you heard that right: government dollars going to kids who live at home in households that earn more than $300,000 a year whilst the participation rate of poorer students and country kids is going backwards. Someone had to fix that disgraceful situation. The government has made the sensible decision, in view of this track record of failure and inequity, to tighten policies—

See this speech in context