Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015. I commend to you the contribution made prior to the member for Bendigo's contribution—which I will get to—that is, the one by the member for O'Connor. It was both considered and positive.

With respect, I think I had better run out and get some Prozac after listening to the member for Bendigo, because that was one of the most depressing presentations I have heard. If anyone wants to know why, perhaps, the fortunes of this government have turned for the good, it is because we are focusing on hope and not despair. Maybe the member for Bendigo could reflect on that while she returns to her room and considers what she does just before we adjourn.

This bill will implement the government's 2015 budget measures to provide more consistent and more targeted support for families with dependent young people who qualify for certain youth income support payments. In doing so, it honours the original policy intent of youth allowance. I am especially supportive of this bill, as it offers better support for rural, regional and remote families in transitioning their children from school to further study.

A significant proportion of the families in my electorate are engaged in agriculture, forestry or the fishing sector. Some 20,000 of my constituents are employed directly in these sectors, and whilst there are significant employment opportunities for young people within Barker, and whilst Barker now proudly provides tertiary opportunities to constituents through UniSA in Mount Gambier and the Flinders University Rural Clinical School in Renmark and Mount Gambier, a significant number of young people wishing to pursue further study are often challenged by the costs associated with moving to undertake that study.

I have reflected on this challenge previously in this chamber. Many of the constituents I have spoken to who are facing this cost challenge also face significant and arbitrary regulatory provisions which exclude their children from receiving assistance. In the coalition we understand the requirements of Australia's rural, regional and remote families.

During the debate on our university reforms, those opposite were fixated on absurd claims regarding $100,000 degrees. I remind those opposite that for many people out there, especially rural families, getting to university is the real challenge—perhaps that is something that the member for Bendigo can reflect on as well. That is because the Higher Education Loan Program meets the tertiary costs associated with tuition but does not meet the costs associated with living away from home. That is why we proposed reforms to the tertiary sector which would meet this shortfall. But, sadly, those opposite and those on the crossbench in the other place rejected those considered reforms.

That is why we have taken these steps to enable those families to send their children to tertiary education. I am proud to say that this bill will have a positive impact on rural, remote and regional families. The measures taken in this bill are a direct response to the government's understanding of these challenges and those challenges faced by these constituents. This bill recognises the need for a simpler, fairer youth income support system. This government has consistently removed unnecessary regulation, and this is true of the social security sector also.

In this bill we are squarely focused on better targeting youth income support. This government is delivering a more efficient use of taxpayer funds across the social services sector. We have taken steps to deliver stronger compliance frameworks and we have taken steps to curb unnecessary costs in the area of administration of social services. The myGov one-stop shop is an example of this simplification. And yet whilst it too often falls to coalition governments to tighten loose spending by Labor governments, this bill is an opportunity for the government to deliver our resources more effectively and in a more thoughtful and targeted way.

This government does not engage in generosity for generosity's sake. Government should approach each spending commitment with 20/20 vision, focused on policy integrity. This bill is not a ploy to gain some hollow popularity. It is a bill which delivers better outcomes by recalibrating youth income support, with a focus, as I have said, on the original policy intent.

While those opposite remove accountability mechanisms and weaken job seeker compliance frameworks, we have tightened our requirements. Having done so, we have the capacity to deliver more support where it is needed in a way that will provide a significant return on investment to the Commonwealth. This government understands that there is a finite pool of government revenue. We understand that each and every measure must be accurately costed and ultimately paid for by the taxpayer. We take our obligation to the taxpayer seriously, and understand that Australians provide tax revenue to us on trust, to expend in a cautious and effective manner.

Whilst this bill involves a cost to the taxpayer, I believe deeply that it is an investment that will yield handsome dividends into the future. In many cases, the measures in this bill will enable families who would otherwise not be able to send their children to further education to pursue that transformative opportunity. Could there be a better example of a hand up?

Importantly, this is delivered not through manipulating the means test but through bringing that means test back to reality. The coalition believes that we should take a broader focus on families when it comes to assessing youth income support. We are focusing on families who need assistance, particularly those in rural, regional and remote areas who face the higher costs of supporting their children to pursue post-secondary study because of the need to move away from home.

This bill simplifies the rules by more closely aligning parental means test assessments for youth payments with family tax benefit part A. Family tax benefit A is subject only to an income test based on adjusted taxable income, and has no family asset test or family actual means test. Many farming families, as you know well, Madam Deputy Speaker Landy, are asset rich but income poor. With drought now taking hold in much of my electorate, I fear that this may become increasingly the case. It is absolutely critical that we give our young rural, regional and remote Australians the widest scope of opportunities possible. This bill maximises that spectrum of opportunity.

The current arrangement is simply inadequate in this space. It highlights a misperception of agriculture and agribusiness within our social services legislation. Around 1,200 families from rural, remote and regional areas will be eligible for an increase in payment from the removal of the family actual means test, and they are also expected to benefit from the removal of the family asset test.

The changes also mean that farming families will not have farm assets included when assessing eligibility for the youth allowance.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context