Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is interesting to look back on this debate and where it started. In the May budget last year some massive changes to the independent youth allowance were proposed by this government, including one of a retrospective nature affecting students who under the previous guidelines at the end of 2008 had decided to take a gap year in order to comply with the independent youth allowance guidelines. Those proposals were obviously so shocking that students and parents from all around Australia jumped up in outrage over these changes—a shifting of the goalposts. It would be like shifting the grand final from the MCG to the WACA for the third quarter. It certainly was not fair. I now recognise that these changes will fix that problem up.

But of course this government, against our advice, removed the Howard government’s scholarships—I believe in August 2009—and did not have anything in there to replace them. This legislation does help in some respects. I understand that in my electorate approximately 534 students will be eligible for start-up scholarships of about $1,300 in the first year and $2,100 in the second and subsequent years. That will be a little bit of help, but the fact is that for most students in my area the cost is something like $15,000 a year to leave home to attend university.

I also understand that 703 extra students will receive youth allowance. We welcome that change. There is no doubt that we support those changes. But, unfortunately, the second biggest city in South Australia, Mount Gambier—population about 24,000—will not comply with the new guidelines for ‘regional’, even though it is 400 kilometres away from Melbourne university and 400 kilometres away from Adelaide university. It is impossible for students from Mount Gambier to attend either of those universities without leaving home and without the extra cost. These new changes have withdrawn those students. It cannot apply to people in Mount Gambier because the test is done on a medical services test. It is not based on education or on the ability to afford to leave home and attend university; it is based on medical services. Yes, Mount Gambier is a reasonable centre for health, and so it falls under those federal government guidelines. It is a stupid—very stupid—boundary line for this situation, because, obviously, they will have to leave home at a cost of, as I said, about $15,000 a year to attend university. There are many families—even under the new guidelines—who simply will not be able to afford that. It is a crying shame that the second biggest city in South Australia, Mount Gambier, will not be eligible for these changes.

It is interesting to look at the towns in my electorate. Murray Bridge—yes, okay, it is 45 to 60 minutes away from university, so they do not get the ability to apply for youth allowance under these guidelines. Tailem Bend is another 15 minutes away from there and an hour and 15 minutes away from the university. Students from there will still have to either leave home or drive there and back every day—two and a half hours in a vehicle. If you go further down the road to Coomandook, that is another quarter of an hour—and, according to this, that is an hour and a half away from university. They will not be under these new guidelines. So there are anomalies due to the fact that these boundaries are not drawn in a fair way. There are still areas of my electorate that will not receive the benefits they should. I welcome some of the changes, but, obviously, when we get back in government, we will change it to make it fairer for all rural students all over Australia.

See this speech in context