Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, it’s not a bedtime story, and if you care to listen you will find out. It continues:

Perhaps worst of all, under this government we have returned to a system of privilege rather than merit in our universities, a system of allowing the rich to buy a place while those with better entrance marks but not enough money miss out—a system which was eradicated by the Whitlam government when I was in primary school.

Who said these incisive words? Who stood up as the great protector of students’ rights to equity in education? Who was it calling for a fair go for our kids? Those words were taken from the inaugural speech to parliament by the member for Lalor—our current Prime Minister, no less. That is who: the same Prime Minister who now does not want today’s university students to receive equity, the same Prime Minister who now does not want today’s university students to receive opportunity, the same Prime Minister who now plays politics instead of doing the right thing by our youth. They are tomorrow’s leaders, our future.

But it is not just Riverina students who are missing out. The Prime Minister, in her passionate maiden speech, spoke of the decline in commencing Victorian students. ‘Misery and lost opportunity’ were the words she used. It is fair and accurate to say great numbers of Victorian students will be facing misery and lost opportunity if Labor and perhaps moreover the Prime Minister do not support this amendment. Many of those Victorian students hail from electorates presently held by Labor members. Indeed, a great swathe of rural Victoria is designated as inner regional by this ridiculously discriminatory DoctorConnect system used to determine whether students will or will not have access to independent youth allowance.

I would be fascinated to know what they think of the fact that their federal Labor member is denying them youth allowance. I would be fascinated to know what they think of their Prime Minister, for whom it was all right to stand up in 1998 and beat her chest about inequity for Victorian kids yet who now, by her very stubbornness, refuses to give them a fair go. How mean. How—what did she describe it as?—shameful and cruel. The problem is not that this Prime Minister thought that having independent youth allowance being debated in the House of Representatives last week was unconstitutional—oh, no—but that she feared an embarrassing defeat. She knows it is bad policy, she knows it is hurting students and she knows it is damaging to some of her colleagues who represent Labor electorates. So what did she do? She played politics. She shut down the debate. In doing so she once again denied many country kids the same opportunity afforded to others. How unfair. How inequitable. How unAustralian. The core of the problem with all of this is that the Prime Minister does not understand and, worse, does not care about regional Australia. If she did she would have fixed this problem a long time ago. Indeed, if she did, there would not be a problem in the first place.

Here are some facts pertaining to regional students. Finding full-time employment in regional areas and small communities is often very difficult. The youth allowance legislation does not take into account seasonal employment sectors such as agriculture and tourism in regional areas, creating further barriers for regional students. Regional students face significantly increased costs associated with relocating for study. Many regional students have no choice but to relocate to study. Evidence has shown that it is the financial barrier of the cost of relocating which prevents regional students from undertaking tertiary study. The cost is between $15,000 and $20,000 per annum. Students who defer tertiary studies for longer than 12 months are less likely to attend university. Very few universities accept deferments longer than 12 months, meaning those who have to work a 30-hour week for 18 months over a two-year period will have to give up their spot and reapply later. A Senate inquiry found that 55 per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared to only 33 per cent of students from regional areas. They are telling facts and figures. The message ought not be lost on members opposite.

Members who sided with four Independents to silence this debate last week and put it to another review committee now at least have the chance to ensure that all students who had a gap year in 2010—that is, 2009 year 12 school leavers—and who meet the relevant criteria qualify for the payment. They have the chance to ensure that the bill is appropriated with the necessary funds to pay for this measure. Surely members opposite realise there is an injustice in the system. Surely they will want that wrong made right. The Prime Minister and the Labor government have until now ignored concerns about the financial and emotional burden their changes to the independent youth allowance criteria have caused for inner regional students, their families and communities. Labor’s commitment to Independents to bring forward a review of youth allowance, to report by 1 July this year, does not address the problem now. The coalition’s bill sought to do that. Nor does Labor give any firm undertaking to fixing the independent youth allowance issue.

The media release of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans, states:

The review will report by July 1 this year, and the Government will move to implement any new eligibility arrangements from January 1, 2012.

Senator Evans said the review will consider appropriate savings which can be made to pay for any extensions in eligibility for youth allowance. Any new arrangements must be offset by savings. This is simply not good enough. It does not measure up to what is required. Even if Labor does make changes after its review, it is too late for those inner-regional students who left school in 2009 and had a gap year in 2010, as they are now still required to work an average of 30 hours a week and defer for up to two years. Had the coalition’s bill passed, they would now be relieved of this unfair criterion. Last year’s school leavers are also left in limbo, wondering what to expect after the review. There are already cracks in Labor’s deal with the Independents and many unanswered questions.

How can regional students and their families trust the government to deliver on this new promise given its poor track record? This government’s new promise should be weighed against the many broken deals, bungled programs and hopeless mismanagement of youth allowance over recent years. This Labor government promised no carbon tax but now is drafting one. It promised a national takeover of hospitals but scrapped the idea. It promised a national curriculum, to begin in 2011, but it has been delayed until 2013. And the list goes on and on. Now the government promises a review—and another delay. More delays and more reviews but no outcomes for young rural people. The Independents who supported Labor represent regional areas directly affected by this issue. Their constituents deserve an explanation as to why their Independent MPs have sold them out and not voted in favour of the Commonwealth payment made to students to assist them in meeting living and education costs when studying or undertaking training.

In early 2010, the Labor government altered the eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance, requiring students from areas identified as inner-regional to work more hours for longer before being considered as independent. Students living in inner-regional zones cannot access independent youth allowance if they do not qualify for Labor’s new criteria. The regional zones in which students live are determined by the Australian Standard Geographical Classification map. There are many cases where arbitrary lines on the map mean one student is eligible yet another in the same town is not. There are ridiculous cases which have been cited in this parliament whereby students from one side of a street get the allowance and those living on the other side of the street do not. Students may come from the same class in the same school but be discriminated against based on which side of the line their homes sit. The map is therefore inappropriate, and is, in fact, used by the health department.

After months of campaigning by the Liberal-Nationals coalition, the Labor government was forced to make changes to its independent youth allowance criteria, which would have unfairly disadvantaged rural and regional youth. These hard-fought changes meant students living in outer-regional, remote and very remote areas, as per the ASGC map, would now qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance under the original criteria. Unfortunately, the inner-regional zone continued to be excluded. All regional students who have to relocate to attend tertiary education should be treated equally. The Liberal-Nationals coalition sought to move further amendments to include students living in the inner-regional zone, but this was defeated by Labor and the Greens. The Nationals’ Senator Fiona Nash and the member for Forrest have waged a tireless campaign to have this unfair policy altered. I support them in their endeavours on behalf of the thousands of Australian students that Labor has disadvantaged.

I will finish with some pertinent quotes which underline everything I have said about this issue and why this amendment is so important. Cayla Edwards, the President of the Deakin University Student Association, said the Deakin University Student Association:

… condemns the youth allowance work eligibility criteria of 30 hours of work per week for two years. Young people living in rural and regional areas have expressed that their ability to obtain this type of stable employment is seriously limited. Many young Australians living in rural and regional Australia are more likely to access seasonal, or casual work. For this reason—

the association—

strongly recommends that the legislation be amended to allow young Australians the ability to spread out the 30 hours per week, to reflect the reality of their employment opportunities …

Clement Mulcahy, the President of the Catholic Secondary Principals Association of Western Australia, said:

Our prime objection to the change is that it will militate against country and regional students. This is unjust, when these already face serious difficulties in their pursuit of higher education. Such students are already at considerable disadvantage when it comes to studying at University in the metropolitan areas, as they must relinquish the security of home and family life to pursue tertiary education. Ultimately, this will mean higher education will only be available for those who are better off financially”.

The member for Lyne said on March 18 last year:

So they’ve picked a health rating which is basically drawing some artificial lines around what is rural, what is remote and using that as a determinate for whether people have to qualify for independence via 15 hours work or 30 hours work a week. While 85 per cent of the changes are positive, more students would have been assisted if this final aspect was not included in the package …

Sarah Dickins, a student and witness at the Senate inquiry, said:

There is no way you can work 30 hours a week while at university. I have got a friend who does work 30 hours a week at university, a very bright boy, and he is just scraping passes, He is never involved in any of the social or cultural aspects that are the fantastic parts of uni because he is working his job and when he is not working his job he is trying to scrape in the study to get those passes. That is not the way we should be doing university especially in courses like medicine which has 38 contact hours a week, there is no possible way you can be working 30 hours.

And in an age when minimising stress is considered so important, University of Queensland researcher Dr Helen Stallman, regarding a study that found 83.9 per cent of students were mentally stressed and that much of it was caused as a result of financial pressure, said:

Studying full time and having to work to support yourself puts unrealistic pressures on students and more needs to be done to ensure their mental health and that they stay in our universities.

National Union of Students President Carla Drakeford said:

NUS is concerned about the number of students who are mentally stressed, which is why we have always advocated for more students to receive youth allowance.

John Brearley, West Australian South West Mental Health Service and Senate inquiry witness said:

These financial pressures, we understand from mental health, lead to family disharmony; increased levels of mental ill-health and depression; pressures on other family members and risks to younger siblings; increases in domestic violence potential loss of family home or car; family discussions about financial prioritising; feelings of discrimination; and, in small communities, the fears of shame leading onto isolation are real pressures. We are also concerned about the pressures on our young people. There is guilt felt by young people who have concerns of putting financial pressure and burdens on their families. We are having real instances of this where young people not choose subjects in year 11 and 12 that are going to lead them onto university pathways. They are instead looking at pathways that can earn them a quick buck.

Finally, the Prime Minister again, speaking at a higher education conference before she landed the top job, in March 2008 said:

Of course getting our young people to university, TAFE and private institutions is only the start. Once there, we have to ensure they get the best higher education and training possible.

The Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax in a government she leads, but now she is hell bent on bulldozing that through. Here, now, is her chance and her government’s chance to put fairness back on the table when it comes to independent youth allowance.

See this speech in context