Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise on this side of the House and follow the member for Dobell and other colleagues. Once again we on this side of the chamber find ourselves standing, speaker after speaker, representative after representative, to defend the most vulnerable and defend the principle of the fair go in this country. We believe that Australians should be given every opportunity to be educated, to make a contribution, to join the workforce and to live a life of paid work, of dignity. On this side of the chamber we are again defending those positions. It's important to note that, upstairs in the Federation Chamber, speaker after speaker from this side of the chamber are talking about a $65 billion tax cut for the top end of town. It's important that people in my electorate understand that, in Canberra, on this side of the chamber, we are here on our feet defending them. We are upstairs on our feet trying to stop the largesse to the big end of town, while others of us are here protecting the most vulnerable in our communities and protecting their rights to educate themselves and to become part of the working part of society.

If this legislation in front of us passes this House and the other place, it will be another example of the compounding cuts and measures taken by this government in budgetary processes to determine that people who may not have had the best start, may not have finished their education, or whose lives may have been interrupted by any number of things—having a family, caring for parents who are sick or vulnerable—should have their opportunities reduced once more. We have been in this battle now since 2014. I am reminded of a conversation with a single mother in Little River. The member for Kingston, who is in the chamber today, was there and will remember this well, when we were talking about the cuts to Little River Primary School's out-of-school-hours care. That day we met a young mum, engaged in tertiary education, who beautifully explained that, wherever she turned, her chances of finishing her education—so that she could get full-time employment, break the cycle and ensure her children saw her in full-time work—were being slashed by this government.

Here we are again with a further cut that means that this government has gone out to find themselves a few pennies. Upstairs we're looking at a $65 billion tax cut for the top end of town; down here we're talking about a $68 potential cut to some of our most vulnerable who are trying to undertake study. I'm reminded also of the young carers that we met this year. The minister responsible for this piece of legislation, the member for Pearce, is in the chamber now. He was in that meeting that day, where we met young carers caring for parents—some from my electorate—who were talking to us about how difficult it was for them to continue their education while they undertook those caring responsibilities. We heard about scholarships and bursaries that some of those young carers were fortunate enough to receive to assist them to study, but the young person from my electorate was not a recipient of a bursary. Her opportunity to engage in and finish her TAFE course was reliant upon the exact measures that this piece of legislation would now limit.

Let us put it this way: as an example, say a young person who is a full-time carer for a parent who is disabled and unable to care for themselves is engaging in education in a part-time capacity. That person would now have the assistance that had been given to them by the government, to overcome the hurdles put in front of them, reduced by this piece of legislation. It is an indictment of this government that it brings this legislation into this place on the same day it is seeking $65 billion worth of tax cuts for the big end of town—an absolute shame. Again, who are the recipients here? Who are those who receive both of the measures I am most concerned about—the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment? The education entry payment is $208 a year for those studying full-time. When I talk to people they tell me it is already incredibly difficult, that it's only for approved courses and that the hurdles you have to jump in the application process result in discrepancies. There are 37,000 people who receive the pensioner education supplement and only 11,000 people who get the education entry payment. It's already difficult, as reflected in those numbers. Why would you want to make it more difficult? Why would you want to exclude people from getting that $208?

There is also this paring back, saying, 'If you're not studying full-time, you're going to get less support.' We're talking about people in my community who may be travelling and trying to put petrol in a car to engage in study and who take that cost out of the single parent support payment, the disability support pension, the carer payment or Newstart. So we've got a structure here that supports people to engage in education, and those opposite are determined to tear it down.

In every sense, it's another attack on education in this country. It's another attack on people who are trying to lift themselves up, when those opposite claim that that's what they're all about—that they're all about freedom, they're all about the individual, they're all about people being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and climb the ladder of opportunity. Yet here they are, in this chamber today, acting to undercut that and put more hurdles in front of those same people. We know from the figures that—surprise, surprise!—94 per cent of recipients of parenting payments and 69 per cent of recipients of carer payments are women. And we know that withdrawing support from women is going to see women less likely to continue in their education and less likely to join the workforce full-time.

The government talks, and newspaper articles are released. The member for Pearce and others on that side release data on different communities, trying to stigmatise them about the levels of welfare being paid to them. They release this data all the time. Well, they need to understand that when you undercut people's ability to climb that ladder of opportunity, when you undercut their ability to engage in meaningful education, you're going to create a larger cost somewhere else. It doesn't even make economic sense to put things in place that will reduce the chances for women in electorates like mine to engage in education and to find themselves full-time, meaningful work so they can raise their family with less support from government. This is about opportunity, and it's about the rug of opportunity being pulled out from under people in communities like mine. Labor will always—always—work to ensure that everyone can access what they require to ensure that they can have a meaningful life and find employment. But this is a government that talks about jobs and growth yet is tearing down people's capacity to get those jobs. It is extraordinary to be in this chamber today and have these measures before us. It really is about penny-pinching. We are not talking about an extraordinary amount of money here. It is not going to save the budget an enormous amount of money. But it is going to cost the people who are currently being supported to study; it is going to cost them.

The fear for me and my community is that, there will be young people, there will be people in their 30s and there will be people on a disability support pension who will disengage from education as a result of this piece of legislation. Never forget that the education entry payment and the pension education supplement are most commonly paid to recipients of the parenting payment, 94 per cent of whom are women. As someone who worked in education for many years, I was aware of circumstances where young girls became parents and perhaps were at home under the parenting support payment, isolated with a young child and not necessarily engaging in education.

As an educator in the schools I worked in, we made sure we reached out to those young people and got them back working and trying to engage in their education. That's what it's supposed to be about. This piece of legislation will limit their capacity to engage in education. How anyone with an ounce of common sense could think that this is sensible is beyond my understanding. I would think that this government would want to do everything in its power to support those young women to ensure that they continue their education as they raise their small child and to ensure that, when that child went to school and when that child reached the age where government support could be withdrawn from them, they have skills and training that will be readying them to join the workforce full time.

Some of that study is obviously going to be part time. Obviously, it's going to be part time. The thought that everybody who studies needs to be doing it in a full-time capacity is extraordinary, particularly under these circumstances. There are people on the disability support pension, and people who have limited capacities in their life due to health issues. In my community, most understand the level of incapacity required for people to access the disability support pension. The thought that unless they are studying full time they're going to have support withdrawn from them is extraordinary. If someone is on the disability support pension, they have an incapacity. If they are, in those circumstances, engaging in education, that is something that this country should be celebrating and something that those opposite should be celebrating. It's about getting prepared. It's about leaving the door open for a potential return to work. It's about ensuring that their lives are meaningful and that they are engaged, outside their own homes, with the rest of the community. It makes not just economic sense for these supports to be in place but also social sense for these supports to be in place.

I will remind the House that we're here in this chamber acting to support the most vulnerable in our communities and their right to support to ensure that they can stay engaged in education to maximise their capacity to build skills so that they can get full-time employment. While we're here defending that, we're also upstairs presenting a case against a $65 billion tax cut. The contrast couldn't be clearer between what this side of the House care about and what those opposite see as this country's future. To put it simply, we are talking about withdrawing support from people who are actively engaged in accessing education to better their circumstances. We are talking about withdrawing that support so that we can give tax cuts to the top end of town and so that this government can entrench the inequality that we have been confronted with. In a time where inequity is at a 70-year high, we're here quibbling over withdrawing the support that would see many people in my electorate lose their connection to education and perhaps lose hope in their future.

See this speech in context