Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education and relates to a petition signed by McCarthy Catholic College students in the New England electorate concerning the proposed changes to the work test guidelines regarding eligibility for independent youth allowance. These students are requesting that the government delay the introduction of the changes until 1 July 2010 so that those students who completed year 12 last year with a view to attending university next year will not be disadvantaged retrospectively by the changes. Could the minister reconsider restoring the so-called ‘gap year guidelines’ for these students, who engaged in this process in good faith?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I know that he would be working with students and others in his electorate to get out to them the full facts and the full picture about the government’s student financing changes. I want to make a simple point to the member because I know that he is someone who is very concerned about making sure that, when we are restructuring and investing, we are doing that in a way that benefits people on lower incomes and that is fair to people on lower incomes. I am sure that, like me, he was concerned when he saw the conclusion of the Bradley review that the current structure of student income support was leading to money being received by people whose household incomes were right up the income scale—and I am talking about $200,000, $300,000 and $400,000. I am sure he would agree with me that, rather than have money going to families with household incomes of $300,000 and $400,000, he would prefer to do better for ordinary Australians who were trying to send their kids to university.

For those Australians who are trying to send their kids to university, the government’s changes have made a substantial difference to the families who will be eligible. One of the problems with this debate, and one that the member may have experienced in his electorate, is that under the Liberal Party the family income test became so low and so unrealistic that many students received the message that the only way of getting student income support was to credential themselves as independent and go through the work test. Many students actually believe that that is the only way of getting student income support. Actually, the primary way of getting student income support is being in a family where the family income range qualifies. On that, we have made a very substantial difference. I will give one example, for a family with two students of university age. Under the Liberal Party system, their ability to receive student income support cut out at a family income of $75,000. We have increased that to $139,000, meaning thousands more families are in the income range and thousands more students will receive student income support.

Yes, I understand that this required us to deal with the work test because, in order to deal with the matter in a budget-responsible way, these changes are cost neutral. We are saying to students—and I am very happy to work through the individual examples in the electorate of New England and with members who are genuinely interested in benefiting students in their electorates, as opposed to making cheap political points—that we are very happy to work through the circumstances of students. I believe that, when we do that, the member will find that many of the students who currently think that they are ineligible will—on a genuine look at the new family income test—find themselves eligible. I say to the member for New England: if they find themselves eligible for student income support under the new family student support income ranges—and many will—it means that they will automatically be eligible for the student start-up scholarship of $2,254 dollars per year. If they need to relocate in order to study, they will also be eligible further the relocation scholarship, which is $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 each year afterwards. I will be very happy to work through that.

Of course, I am not happy to listen to the opportunism of the opposition, whose shadow minister for education said on 25 March, and I quote his words exactly:

If the Government is serious about reform, then come Budget time we should see some consideration given to reforms suggested by Bradley in student income support - to ensure that sufficient support is going to those who need it.

These are the words of the shadow minister for education and, in their opportunism now, they seek to deny those words. If the Liberal Party want to go out and defend the current system with its skew to people who earn $200,000, $300,000 and $400,000 a year, we would say simply, ‘That is what the Liberal Party does; it always seeks to benefit those better off at the expense of the vast majority.’