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

Maybe opposition members can laugh at that editorial, but should they really laugh? And should they really diminish the contribution of the 39 vice-chancellors around the country, including those vice-chancellors who lead institutions in rural and regional areas? Those vice-chancellors are not saying to the opposition, ‘Pass the bill because it is not split and there is pressure on you’ or anything like that; those vice-chancellors are saying to the opposition, ‘Pass the bill because, as a matter of substance, it has the merits right.’ That is what those 39 vice-chancellors around the country are saying.

I would ask the opposition to take seriously the advice of people who lead universities and deal with students every day. I would also ask the opposition to seriously think about the contribution made by state education ministers around the country, including the minister who serves for the Liberal government in Western Australia. Can she be dismissed as a Labor stooge? Can she be dismissed as a fool? She is a person serving in a Liberal government and she is saying to the opposition, ‘Pass this bill.’

In his contribution, the shadow minister deliberately distorted, yet again, the propositions in this bill. I assume he actually understands this and that he does this deliberately, but maybe he does not understand it. When he speaks, he constantly assumes that the only way someone can get youth allowance is by qualifying as independent. That is simply not right. The force of our changes is that students do not have to go and show themselves to be independent. The force of our changes is that they can be assessed, including country students, on their parental income.

Let us look at these changes together. When kids are assessed on their parental income rather than on their own, the age of independence is going to be progressively reduced from 25 to 22. So, in full operation, we are talking about the eligibility of kids who have left high school and gone to university and who are 22 years of age or less. We are talking about assessing them on their parental income. We have made the parental income test generous enough so if a family earns $140,000 a year but has two students who need to move away from home in order to study they will qualify for youth allowance. Once they qualify for any youth allowance, they will qualify for our student start-up scholarships and our relocation scholarships—$4,000 in the first year if they need to move.

We are making the parental income the prime way of qualifying for youth allowance for students who are 22 years old or younger. We believe that is a fairer system rather than requiring students to take a gap year in order to try and qualify, which is what happens now. Members of the opposition know that that is what happens now, and it is what leads to the distortions where students who have done a bit of work then go and live at home in $300,000 a year households and get a full youth allowance. I note opposition members shaking their heads, but they are the facts—demonstrably the facts. It actually happens.

This scheme: 150,000 scholarships; a new parental income test; relocation scholarships—$4,000 in the first year; age of independence coming down; and the amount a student can earn in income from a part-time job going up before they start having youth allowance taken away from them. That is the scheme and no-one in the opposition, when they are thinking about these questions, should fall for the distorted view that the shadow minister has put today. What he has put today, as a matter of fact, is simply not right.

The opposition say: ‘We have got an amendment. The amendment’s all okay. Split the bill. All that will be fine.’ The opposition have had many amendments, but the most recently articulated amendment from the opposition is that the scholarships start and the new parental means test starts—so the more generous means test starts—but the changes to independence allowance do not. That means you get all the expenditure measures and none of the savings measures. The consequence of that is that you spend a billion dollars more on youth allowance.

When I rose to my feet in question time today, people made cracks like, ‘Take it out of the stimulus package.’ Anybody knows we are talking about permanent recurrent expenditure that will be in the forward estimates in two years time, four years time, six years time, eight years time, 10 years time. On the forward estimates, we are talking about an additional expenditure of a billion dollars. The government are not agreeing to an additional expenditure of a billion dollars. I note they are the same members of the previous Howard government who never once, in 12 long years, woke up and said to themselves, ‘Gee, I know, today’s the day to spend an extra billion dollars on students.’ It never happened, not in 12 years. Why should anybody believe that they are serious about it now?

I am challenging the opposition in two ways. I am challenging them to seriously think about voting for this legislation, but I am certainly laying down this challenge to the shadow minister: if he is going to defeat this bill, promising students an extra billion dollars of expenditure then, as a matter of good conscience, he must say that at the next election his political party will contest that election promising an extra billion dollars in student income support. If he cannot verify that his political party will put an extra billion dollars into student income support then everybody knows this is just playing politics—it is not anything more or anything less.

We have been here before with the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt. We were here at the end of 2008 when, ironically, to stop the national curriculum, the shadow minister for education refused to pass the funding bill for schools, and it looked like schools were going to be in chaos in 2009—not enough money to open their doors. He was threatening to do that. This matter is a direct replay because all the education stakeholders of significance are on our side, just as they were on our side during that school funding debate. In that school funding debate about national curriculum, which will be delivered next Monday, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, pulled the shadow minister into line and said: ‘This is ridiculous. Pass this bill.’ I am calling on the Leader of the Opposition to do just that: pull this shadow minister into line and pass this bill.

This is too important for the continued politics of the opposition. I have actually written to the opposition and said that if they have amendments that are fiscally prudent and meet the test of equity then I am more than happy to sit down, talk about them and negotiate with them. If the price of getting this legislation through is to satisfy the member for Sturt’s political face by having a meeting with him so he can put out a press release saying, ‘I went and told her,’ then, of course, I am willing to meet with the shadow minister. But, of course, what we have asked the opposition at every point is to be fiscally prudent and pass the test of equity. After all these months in between, they still have not written an amendment that passes that test. If the opposition are serious then I say that the Leader of the Opposition should respond to my correspondence asking for a fiscally prudent, equitable amendment. If they do not do that then it is all about their cheap politics. (Time expired)

See this speech in context