Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This bill is not opposed by Labor, but I did want to put on the record the experience of regional students when it comes to this government. As the previous contributors to the debate on this side of the House have said, we do not oppose this bill. We do support it because we do believe we need to support students when they are at university. But this government's track record of support for students is shocking, and through this debate I do want to highlight some of the examples of how shocking it is when it comes to supporting regional university students and regional families.

It is interesting that the previous contributor to the debate brought up the regional forums that they have been holding. When they were talking about this issue, I hope that they had more people attending the regional forum organised by the government in the member's electorate than attended the regional forum that they held at the La Trobe University at Bendigo. Not one student turned up. I should take that back. Not one student who was not involved in the Labor Party turned up to their forum. The student who did turn up was a member of the Labor Party, and he turned up to challenge the government about why they were introducing $100,000 degrees.

So, even when it comes to talking about a bill that should be positive, that should be about saying to families in regional areas, 'We're actually going to help more students come to university,' this government fails to get out and articulate and engage people. If it did, it would learn very quickly how upset regional students are about this government's plan for higher education, its proposal to introduce $100,000 degrees. The deregulation of university degrees has gone down like a lead balloon. It is not popular in the regions because it will be a barrier to so many people in regional Australia being able to attend university.

What the regions also do not like about what this government is doing to universities is the massive funding cuts that it introduced in its first budget, including for La Trobe University and the campus in my electorate. It was $40 million that this government cut. That meant that students, to obtain the same qualifications, have the same experience, would either have to pay more for their course materials or they would have less time at university. As a result of this government's cuts to higher education, university students at La Trobe—whom this government claims to support in this bill before us—have less time with their tutors, less time with their lecturers, less time on campus. The bill before us, whilst it will help a few, will not help the majority of university students. It is a piece of window-dressing by this government to distract people by saying, 'We'll help some of you,' and meanwhile trashing the rest of them when it comes to higher education.

This bill makes changes to the means-testing for youth payments. It will mean extra support for young people living in families with higher levels of assets, by removing certain means-testing provisions, including the family assets test, for youth allowance. So, as other people have mentioned, it does help regional families, particularly, whether they work in small businesses, whether they be farmers or whether they be, as we say, asset rich but cash poor. It does help some families in that way to support their young people when they go to university. It means that more young people living in families with higher assets will now have access to youth allowance.

Of course Labor wants to see extra support for young people from youth allowance, because we understand how expensive life has become for students—and not just students. Life in general has become expensive. I was looking just today at reports released by Domain.com.au and Realestate.com.au on average rents and how rents have increased in places like Melbourne, Sydney and even regional centres like Bendigo. Rents are going up by a ridiculous percentage, so any support from youth allowance will help keep young people at university. Of course Labor wants to see the support come for young people, but we need to acknowledge that it is only a small number of young people who will receive support. This is not the silver bullet to ensure that young people stay at university.

In relation to this bill, we want to point out the hypocrisy at the heart of the government's agenda. Whilst it supports some people going to university, these are the same families that it is going after with changes to other areas, whether it be the family tax benefit or the Medicare system. This government takes with one hand and gives with the other. This is a simple move that does not really help many, and it tries to disguise what is actually going on in many of our regional communities when it comes to the cost of study and the cost of living.

Just last week the government voted to put through legislation which would see young people left with nothing to live on for a month. To young people who finish university, they are saying, 'Too bad; we're not going to help you.' If you don't get a job within the first two days of your graduation, you are not going to get help. If you have been made redundant, if you have lost your job, you are not going to get help for the first four weeks. But this is after their proposal to leave young people without any support for six months.

The government are so selective about which young people they will help. This bill is a demonstration that they are being selective in the young people that they will help. If you are a young farming kid who wants go to university: 'Sure, we'll lend a hand, change the means-testing and help you.' But, if you are a young farming kid who wants to start working and moves to a city like Bendigo and starts seeking help: 'We're not going to help you; we're going to keep you on nothing to live on for six months'—and these days they are saying that it is nothing to live on for four weeks. If you are a young person going to TAFE, the same applies. If you are a young person who finishes university and struggles to get that job interview, struggles to get that first job opportunity—because there is a lack of entry-level jobs today—then: 'We're not going to help you.'

This is another attempt by this government at window-dressing—to pretend to constituents in the bush, in the regions: 'We really do care about you.' Quite frankly, the regions are not buying it. They do not believe that this bill is enough to support and encourage more young people to go to university. As I have said, one of the major barriers to going to university is upheaval that the government have introduced to the higher education sector. Will there be $100,000 degrees? Will there be fee deregulation? Will we actually see the cost of education go so high that a number of people in the regions say, 'I just can't afford it; I'm not going to try'?

I thought it was important just to mention a few local examples—people I spoke to about what their experience of getting some youth allowance has been. These are students from La Trobe University who did not attend the forum that was put on by the government but who spoke to me, when I was at the campus, about their experience when it came to youth allowance. Jack Cullen, who is an outdoor education student, gets some youth allowance, and these are his comments on what it is like to study at the moment: 'It costs me about $110 for food, not including rent, which is huge'—about $280 a week. 'I only get $170 in youth allowance, so I have to budget everything to make sure I get through.' He attends any event on campus that involves food—that sounds like a few staffers we have here, in this place! Any event there is food, he will pop along. That is one less meal he has to pay for.

Youth allowance simply does not stretch as far today as it did when people in this place went to university. Jessica Hill, an event management and business student, gets no youth allowance. She said, 'University life is definitely not like breezing through. If your parents don't support you and you don't work, you won't be able to stay at university; no way.' Jemma, an education student, gets no youth allowance: 'You really have to think hard about where you shop. One of the firsts things you learn at uni is to survive on a budget, eat less and definitely not buy big-brand stuff.' These are people we want to excel in their studies. They currently live in poverty.

These are people who—because of other things this government has failed to tackle—are struggling. Rents are going up because we have not tackled housing affordability. Despite the government's rhetoric about lowering energy bills, they are higher today than they have ever been under any Labor government. If the government pretend they are not, they have their heads in the sand. Energy bills are up. Water bills are up. These are some of the cost pressures on students today—not just on university students but on everybody in our community.

Jack is studying arts. He gets some youth allowance. He said, 'It's not enough to cover expenses. I live at home, at the moment. If I moved out, I wouldn't be able to afford rent or food not to mention bills and text books. The price of food has gone up. It's very hard if you want to eat a balanced diet, which is what I need to do in order to be a healthy human being.' It means the idea of students eating two-minute noodles is a cold, hard reality. I know that some people like to joke about their days as a student when they tried to survive on two-minute noodles. But is it something we should be aiming for, for our young people?

Tim is an arts student too and gets some youth allowance. He has moved to live on campus, at the university, in my electorate. He said, 'I've already had tonsillitis three times this year because of the stress and have no sleep from having to manage working in fast food while getting study done.' He works at McDonald's and studies full time. There are lots of pressures in trying to keep up full-time work and full-time study. He continued: 'Youth allowance helps but it definitely isn't enough. When you get to the checkout at the supermarket there is always a tense moment waiting to see if the transaction is approved. It's like living on a tightrope.'

What this government fails to realise is that students are already doing it tough. The measures in this bill will help some access youth allowance, but they do not go to tackling the broader issues we have facing higher education. It is an attempt by this government to pretend they are helping students. It is only some students they are helping. That is why Labor supports this bill before the House—any support for young people in this space should be given.

The government is kidding itself if it thinks this is a silver bullet that will help all students. For all the speakers on this list—and I note there is a long list of speakers compared to the other debates today—they were not speaking about the fact they want to see them have less in their superannuation. They were not speaking on other bills that would have helped young people. Very few of them spoke about the fact they are going to introduce changes to Newstart, which would see them on no income.

This government and its backbenchers are selective about what they will stand up and speak about in this House. They are in hiding from the truth. They are not standing up and saying, 'Whilst we will give some the opportunity to youth allowance, we have cut funding to universities. We will introduce up-front fees. We will regulate universities that see, in some places, a quadrupling of fees, which will become a barrier. We are doing very little to tackle the cost-of-living pressures. Once these people leave university, we will do very little to help them enter meaningful employment.' This government has no jobs plan for young people. For all their rhetoric, they do very little to help them after they get their education. A clear example of their failure to help people with graduate entry-level jobs is the lack of graduate jobs this government offered to university students finishing last year and this year.

If this government were serious about supporting young people and those who want a higher education, they would do more than what is in this bill. They would stop cutting funding to university; in fact, they would restore it. They would make sure our university campuses were strong and the centre of the university's focus. They would also drop their ridiculous package of $100,000 degrees, which are a real barrier for university students. And they would more than just 'help' some students who do not have access to youth allowance—they would do more. They would ensure they had decent university support services on campus so that students' experiences I shared with you today are in the past and not the future.

See this speech in context