Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very glad to be able to continue my contribution on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. When I was last speaking on this I was talking about the second scholarship which is being introduced under the scheme, the relocation scholarship. This scholarship will contribute $1,000 per year and $4,000 for students’ initial relocation. These scholarships will be available to all north-west, west coast and King Island students from my electorate of Braddon who must travel to the Launceston, Burnie or Hobart campuses of the University of Tasmania or, indeed, to the mainland and will make the world of difference in paying for things like bonds for rental houses or to contribute to fees to live on campus. This means all students from my electorate, spanning Latrobe to Smithton, King Island and the west coast, will qualify for a relocation scholarship so long as they are receiving youth allowance or Austudy. It is also important to note that the value of both the relocation scholarship and the start-up scholarship will be indexed from 2011.

Whilst I welcome with open arms the majority of changes to the Youth Allowance system, there was one facet which concerned me considerably. I certainly support the tightening of provisions for students to claim independence to ensure we target financial help to those who need it the most. But I made no secret of my concern for how this was going to affect those students who are currently undertaking a gap year with the view to beginning university in early January 2010. A number of concerned so-called ‘gap year’ students and their families contacted me to voice what they saw as a policy that would leave them in relative limbo—effectively retrospectively penalising them for choices they made a year ago to forgo pursuing tertiary studies for a gap year or two.

I took these concerns to my colleague and friend the Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, on a number of occasions, asking her to reconsider the time frames to introducing this particular amendment. She took these concerns on board and, in time, set up a roundtable discussion for a number of representative regional MPs and students to come to parliament and speak directly to her about their concerns. I must thank the minister for her willingness to listen to the needs of regional students, a courtesy never granted by the former government.

Eighteen-year-old gap year student Alan Nicholas, from Wynyard, was my special guest at the roundtable, which was held at Parliament House in August. Like me, Alan was supportive of the new policy overall but was worried about how the time frames for the introduction of changes would affect him and other gap year students. Alan, along with other regional student representatives, explained these concerns directly to Minister Gillard on behalf of his fellow gap year students—and I would add that he did this with substantive argument and persuasion. Alan was articulate and very clear about his views on these time frames, and I thank him for taking the time to make an appointment with me on this matter very early in the piece and for taking time off work to travel and represent his region.

I must also again thank Minister Gillard because, unlike the former government, which preferred to ignore arguments put by me and others in this place for over a decade, Minister Gillard listened. She revised these time frames to allow students who left school in 2008, are in the middle of a gap year now and are planning to leave home for university in 2010 to continue their plans to do so under the existing system. I acknowledge, however, that this revision does affect the government’s bottom line and, to compensate for this, the changes planned for the amount a student can earn before it affects their youth allowance will be deferred by 18 months. I think this is a fair trade-off. What this means—and this is another positive aspect of the reform program contained within this legislation—is that from 1 July 2012 eligible students will be able to earn $400 a week without having their payments reduced. That is a very important point, often forgotten in the hullabaloo surrounding criticism of this amendment. This significant exemption is an increase from the current $236 and will give participants the chance to access more opportunities to increase their income by up to an additional $164 per week without penalty on their allowance payment.

I know that the eligibility criteria for independence are more stringent than in the past and will require future claimants to genuinely prove this independence over a longer time period. I know that some people regard this tightened work eligibility criterion to be particularly hard for the regional students to fulfil in comparison to their urban cousins. I must say that I have pointed out what I regard to be the geographic discrimination or distinction that exists currently between urban students and those who live in regional Australia and must move for their studies. I will be particularly vigilant in monitoring this aspect of the reform and will not hesitate to inform my minister and my colleagues if this becomes too comparatively onerous for potential students in my region.

The package of reforms outlined in this legislation are premised and targeted to make many more students eligible to receive support to further their studies. The package should be seen in its entirety. These changes will see youth allowance targeted at those families that need assistance most. With a median income of $45,000, my region is exactly where it is targeted. Under the existing system, 18 per cent of students receiving youth allowance are from families with incomes of more than $150,000, 10 per cent above $200,000 and three per cent above $300,000. That is not right; that is not equitable. That has to change and it will.

Contrary to claims from those opposite, the current broken coalition system has seen regional and rural participation in tertiary education actually decline from 2002 to 2007. The extremely low parental income test has effectively forced students into claiming independence from their family and taking a compulsory gap year, after which we know that 30 per cent do not subsequently take up their university offer. Under the alternative coalition plan, almost $700 million over four years will be torn from the pockets of students as start-up scholarships are reduced permanently by $1,254 a year. This equates to more than 150,000 students losing the equivalent of $24 a week each and every week they are at university.

These changes are fair and equitable. I will monitor their effects on my regional students in terms of the income eligibility rule but I welcome news that these scholarships in particular and the allowance will be available to many more people who deserve our financial support. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the effect many aspects of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 will have on the higher education opportunities for young people in my electorate of Forrest. My constituents are very concerned that these changes will directly increase rural disadvantage by discriminating against rural and regional young people’s access to higher education.

The coalition believes that students from regional and rural areas have a right to a higher education in the very same way that students who live in urban areas have a right to a higher education. The Labor government is totally ignoring the most simple, basic and obvious fact known by parents of every student in country areas, which is that every single rural and regional student who has to relocate to study pays significantly more for their education than a student who does not have to relocate. It is really a simple equation.

Youth allowance has been a vital payment that many regional and rural students have qualified for to assist with the additional financial costs associated with relocation and higher education. More importantly, for many students, it is often the only way that young people have been able to afford to attend a university at all and the only way their families can afford to send them to university.

The abolition of the workforce participation route for youth allowance eligibility as an independent will make it harder or simply impossible for thousands of young people from regional and rural families to attend university. A majority of students in my electorate who want to or need to attend university to pursue their careers are forced to relocate to the metropolitan area for further study. This is not a feel-good exercise by the young people or their families. They do not have a choice. If they want to study their chosen or required course, in many instances they have no option but to relocate to the city.

These students are not necessarily able to rely on financial support from their parents, particularly if their parents’ assets exceed the parental means test such as in farming or small business families. Students from these families are often ineligible as dependants because of the assets; however, the family simply does not have the income to support the student or their siblings. The relocation costs for regional and rural students are significant and cannot be compared to the costs for students who are able to live at home.

I have received countless emails and phone calls from people in my electorate regarding this legislation. One of these concerned parents, Monica, wrote:

Country kids and families already deal with a massive disadvantage and tertiary education should not be something we have to fight for. It is our right to be educated and the responsibility of the government to provide it. Plain and simple.

Jill, from the regional town of Dunsborough in my electorate, notes:

We are understanding that there may be some changes needed to the allowance and that there may be some students who are living at home and getting a substantial allowance, but we just don’t understand how students living at home and going to uni can possibly be compared and be lumped in the same basket as country kids who need to relocate and living independently in the true content!! There is NO comparison.

I was also contacted by a young student from my electorate, who said:

It has become necessary for students wishing to pursue further education and training at a tertiary level to move to Perth. The strains of moving to Perth from towns in regional areas are not only emotional for the students who are largely away from their closest family and friends for the first time, but mental and financial as well. The costs of accommodation, university fees, transport and study materials is exorbitant and overwhelming to rural students on a tight budget.

Another example is a mother from the small town of Northcliffe who has a daughter who will begin a six-year law-psychology degree in 2010. The mother wrote:

I think it is very difficult for country kids from small close communities in Perth to survive the pressures of uni life and living in the big city, without family support on a daily basis.

If there was no financial support then it would be impossible for them and their parents! Instead of reducing the help, I think they need to look at what more they can do to support country kids moving to the city and help them succeed.

Students from farming and small business backgrounds in regional and rural areas are often ineligible, as I said earlier, to receive youth allowance as dependents because the value of the average Australian family farm could be significantly higher than the level of assets allowed under the test, even though the family income may be quite low. I know that Ben understands this. The average Australian farming family cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars needed to support their child’s relocation costs, accommodation and living expenses while studying at university. A metropolitan family is also likely to earn far more than a family in a regional area, particularly a farming family.

This legislation also proposes to introduce a tightening of the independence criteria so that a young person must work a minimum of 30 hours per week for 18 months out of two years. This is an indication of just how out of touch this Labor government is. Where on earth will young people in my electorate, from towns such as Northcliffe, Nannup, Harvey, Brunswick, Manjimup, Donnybrook or Dunsborough, find 30 hours of work a week, every single week, as required by this legislation? Young people will have to do 30 hours of work every single week, not one hour less, to qualify for youth allowance. The government is seriously out of touch with regional Australia on this.

I would like to refer to the Victorian Labor government’s Education and Training Committee report into the geographical differences in the rate at which Victorian students participate in higher education:

From 2010 only those young people who have worked for a minimum of 30 hours per week for 18 months will be eligible for Youth Allowance under the criteria for independence.

The Committee firmly believes that this change will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.

In my electorate of Forrest, industries such as tourism and agriculture employ young people, often during seasonal or peak periods—during the hay season or in harvesting—in hospitality or picking fruit. A gap-year student could do 30, 40 or even 50 hours of work a week in these periods compared to the off season where weekly work hours could be cut to 15 or 20 hours or, sometimes, no hours at all. Over an 18-month period, this could average out to 30 hours per week, which is what the current system allows for, but under the proposed legislation working 30 hours minimum a week for an 18-month period is almost impossible for regional and rural students. This is very clearly a deliberate attack on regional Australia. A concerned parent from Dunsborough recently wrote to me and said:

The employment opportunities for someone like my son who lives in Dunsborough may be ok in the Summer months but come off season, there is no way he will manage 30 hours per week.

Minister Gillard has stated:

Many students took a gap year to meet this criterion—and we know for a fact that around 30 per cent of students did not return to study.

Does the minister expect that a student who has to take the full two-year gap period that she is proposing to qualify for independent status will actually return to study? Common sense will tell you the percentage of students who do not return to study will be higher for those who have to defer for two years.

A sole income earner with eight children from my electorate has provided financial details to outline the discrimination in this bill from her point of view. She currently has two children studying medicine and another six wanting to gain higher education in the future. Using the Australian Scholarships Group university costs calculator, it is estimated that one student completing a medical degree commencing in 2010 will cost $153,398 over six years—an average of $25,000 per year. This figure includes costs such as textbooks, equipment and supplies, computer and internet, establishment costs, accommodation, groceries and food, utilities, public transport, entertainment and ancillary. You would understand that the total cost for this parent is prohibitive. This particular parent is ineligible for any government assistance and, under this bill, she will be forced to find an alternative way to finance her children’s dreams of becoming doctors. I ask the minister and the Labor government: do you expect a student who wants to study medicine to take two years off to become eligible for independent youth allowance and then complete a six-year medical degree? With the current shortage of general practitioners in my electorate, attracting and retaining doctors is just so important, as it is in many regional areas. This is only one example of how the proposed system discriminates against students and parents in my electorate.

Another mother recently wrote to me about her situation with her only daughter. She said:

Between my husband and I, we have a gross annual income of approx $110,000 to $115,000. This will mean that our daughter is not entitled to any government support if she only has one year off.

She hopes to gain entry into medicine. This has already entailed expenses and trips to Perth, as medicine requires that all prospective students have to sit the UMAT test.

Medicine is a six year high level course. Taking a two year gap year would make returning to study extremely difficult.

Medicine is one of the more expensive courses of study you can undertake, due to the cost of units my daughter will come out of this degree with a large HECS debt, as well as her parents experiencing financial loss or having to dispose of assets to allow her to achieve her dream.

It is possible that her only opportunity to follow the path of medicine will be if she obtains a scholarship. When doctors are in short supply and many rural and regional areas are without doctors, why is our current government making it so hard for our kids to achieve their potential and help ease the shortages we are experiencing.

A family of four from my electorate has also used the online estimator provided by DEEWR. The results of the estimator concluded that, over the nine years their two children will be attending university, they would qualify under the proposed system for $32,069.60—an average of $3,500 per year. The family also estimated how much assistance they would have received under the current system, including the Commonwealth scholarships for which they are eligible. The total assistance over nine years would have averaged around $14,500 each year. Commonwealth scholarships have been a critical resource for regional and rural students. All students were eligible to apply for a Commonwealth scholarship, unlike the government proposed start-up and relocation scholarships where students must be receiving youth allowance to qualify. This will mean no Commonwealth financial assistance will be available to regional and rural students who do not qualify for youth allowance.

Unfortunately for my constituents, who will all have to pay more to attend university, it took three and a half months of stress and despair for students and families in my electorate before the minister finally backflipped and made changes that will enable 5,000 2009 gap year students who live more than 90 minutes by public transport from the university and who commence their higher education in the first half of 2010 to access youth allowance However, approximately 25,000 current gap year students will still miss out—young people who have planned their lives and tertiary education around gaining independent youth allowance status will miss out. These young people relied on information provided by Centrelink and their school career advisers based on current criteria. And to a regional or rural student—or even one in an outer metropolitan area without public transport—the 90-minute rule is as good as 90 hours. Without access to public transport, 90 minutes means no access to university. Who are and where are these 25,000 great young people who will not qualify for youth allowance this year as a result of the Labor government’s legislation?

It is no wonder that the coalition is extremely worried about education under this minister and the Labor government, given existing problems in delivering education programs. There has been the Building the Education Revolution debacle, a program that is plagued by waste and mismanagement and which has already seen at least a $1.5 billion blow-out. How many rural and regional students could have been assisted with their tertiary education with this $1.5 billion? In fact, the $14.7 billion BER program is now a $16.2 billion program, on borrowed funds that will have to be paid back by the very students who are currently attending the schools receiving the school halls and libraries. Effectively, this is intergenerational debt, courtesy of the Labor government.

We are all aware of $3.5 million allocated for plaques and $3.8 million allocated for display signs outside schools which have been found to be outside Electoral Commission rules. Our concerns with this legislation reflect Minister Gillard’s history of mismanagement and waste, demonstrated by the computers in schools program, which blew out from $800 million to $2.2 billion and now this attack on regional and rural students through this youth allowance debacle.

To assist regional and rural students in overcoming the discrimination and disadvantage in this bill, the coalition has proposed amendments that will remove the retrospectivity for current gap year students by moving the start date from January 2010 to January 2011 for the new workforce participation criteria and providing for a new dedicated rural and regional scholarship program, whether or not the students fulfil the government’s youth allowance criteria. I look forward to the recommendations from the Senate inquiries into both this legislation and the overall issue of support for regional and rural students.

I hope also that by now Minister Gillard has responded to the students, parents and families who took the time to write to her with their concerns regarding the government’s proposed changes. I hope the minister has had to speak with the crying mothers on the phone. Then she may just have some idea of how worried parents have been, of the fact that they may not be able to afford to send their children to university and of what this has done and is doing to their families. Will the minister ignore the Victorian government’s report and will she ignore the recommendations of the Senate inquiries? The great young people and families in my electorate cannot afford for this minister and this Labor government to ignore the very real issues facing regional and rural students.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to offer my wholehearted support for the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. I come to this place representing the people of the electorate of Lindsay and I do so unashamedly. There is no question in my mind that the provisions set out within this bill will deliver great benefits to many constituents within my electorate. In the time that I have been in elected office over the last decade, as a councillor and more recently as the federal member, I have had many people raise with me the inequity in the way that student support has been made available to students. Many families earning a modest living have not been able to obtain any benefit through the student assistance that is provided through youth allowance. These changes will expand the number of households, families and individuals within my community who will be able to access student assistance, which is vital for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds that are attending university or aspiring to attend university. That assistance is absolutely critical to them.

This is an important part of the government’s commitment to lifting higher education participation among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The government has set itself the ambitious objective of by 2025 having 40 per cent of those between the ages of 25 and 34 obtaining a bachelor-level qualification. Most importantly, we aspire to having 20 per cent of higher education enrolments at an undergraduate level coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This is of particular importance to my electorate.

I noted in the submission of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils to the review of higher education that Penrith, which is the local government area within which my electorate is located, has the lowest university participation in the north-west Sydney subregion. According to WSROC, 2.3 per cent is the participation rate. The Greater Western Sydney participation rate sits at about 3.3 per cent, with the Sydney participation rate at 4.5 per cent. Clearly, the WSROC figures demonstrate that many people in Western Sydney do not have access to university education in the way that those in other parts of Sydney have.

I know that many on the other side have brought forward the concerns that they hold for residents, constituents that they represent, in rural and regional communities. I will come to some of the provisions of the bill because I think that there will be many people, not just in electorates like mine but also many people in rural and regional communities that will benefit greatly from the proposals that are before the House at the moment.

I would like to begin by canvassing some of the aspects of the bill and in particular the area that is going to have one of the biggest impacts on my electorate: the changes to the parental income test. These changes combined with the introduction of the start-up scholarships will deliver a significant benefit to many young people in my community who are seeking to pursue higher education. The changes to the parental income test is an area I have received much feedback on from my local community, and many people that feel that they have not had access to any support in the past will now be pleased to understand that they will be entitled to that relief when these changes come through. To look at what these figures mean to my electorate, under the old regime—the current regime—which is the legacy that was left behind by the former government, the full payment cut-out point sits at an income of $32,800. That will be increased to $44,165. Importantly, the median family income in my electorate is approximately $62,800. A large proportion of families within my electorate will now benefit from the increased opportunity to access the full payment under that threshold of $44,165.

More significantly for many of the families in my electorate, if we look at the reduced or softened taper rate and the impact it will have on payments that will be available to families whose children are pursuing higher education, we see that, for example, for a family with one child aged 18 at home under the old or current system, we have a total payment cut-off point at $58,288. Under the proposed changes this will increase to $75,937. The significance of that is that it takes that threshold above the level of the median household income in my electorate, and I know that there will be many families in my electorate that will benefit greatly from the increased opportunity to access youth allowance and income support. If we have a look at a family that has two children, let us say, one aged 16 and the other aged 17, both at home, the total cut-out point will increase from $57,794—once again, still below the median family income in my electorate—up to $97,023. So there will be a large proportion of families in my electorate that will now benefit from that change.

As another example, take two children aged 18 and 20, both at home. If you take this example, under the current arrangements the total cut-out point is that $62,080. That is just below the median family income in my electorate. That threshold has been increased now to $107,709, so a huge number of local families will now obtain the benefit of those changes. There are any numbers of permutations on the different types of family arrangements but the main and consistent principle that applies is that there will be more people in my electorate who will benefit from these changes, and that is a great thing.

One of the other changes that the bill proposes, which is a significant change that dovetails with the changes to those cut-out points and the softening of the taper rate, is the start-up scholarship which will ensure that all university students in receipt of youth allowance would receive $2,254 every year. That is a significant improvement in the position of recipients of youth allowance, and I note the fact that as a result of the relaxation of the parental income test many more students will be able to access youth allowance and will also get the benefit of the start-up scholarship, which will be a massive assistance to those people trying to meet all of the demands and the costs associated with higher education. In addition to that, I see that the bill contains the proposal for relocation scholarships worth $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 in each subsequent year, and there are proposals to provide a little bit more latitude for students in terms of the amount of money they can earn before they start to lose the payments that they receive in the form of their youth allowance. These measures are important measures.

A further measure that the bill contains is in relation to the age of independence, which will reduce progressively from 25 years down to 22 years by 2012. I think that will recognise the reality and the challenges that those students at the age of 22 are facing. The reality is that they are generally independent and not dependent upon their parents. These changes will be a significant part of the government’s proposals to lift higher education participation particularly amongst those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

I want to come to the false allegation that is made by those on the other side—and there is quite a bit of dishonesty going around in relation to the changes that are proposed for workforce participation criteria. I saw that the shadow minister in a press release that he issued on 20 October this year stated:

Any student from an average farming family, for example, will be ineligible to receive Youth Allowance because the value of the average family farm exceeds the assets test for the dependent rate of Youth Allowance. However the average farming family income is nowhere near enough to support their child’s move to the city, plus rent and living expenses, when that student is at University

From what the shadow minister has said there, you would have expected that under the previous government—they were in government for almost 12 years—there would have been a more generous test in that regard. Clearly, if the shadow minister comes forward and says, ‘How outrageous it is that farming families would not meet the assets test,’ you would think those on the other side would have found it necessary and prudent to make a change to that test in their 12 years of government. Unfortunately, they did not. In fact, the assets test continues to be the same assets test as that which was in place during the time of the previous government. It begs the question why those on the other side who are getting so excited about this particular proposal did not act to amend the assets test to relieve some of the unfair burden that they believe the test calibrated at that point is going to impose upon people from farming families.

Indeed, the argument that seems to be being put forward by those on the other side is that the changes to the workforce participation criteria are directed at people from farming families. I would simply say to those on the other side that if the workforce participation criteria were only about providing some relief to those from farming families who could not meet the assets test, then why didn’t they explicitly say that? Why didn’t they explicitly ensure the benefit of that particular avenue for seeking support under the Youth Allowance program? Why didn’t they quarantine it just to people from farming families? They did not do that. The consequences of what they did do meant that a very large proportion of people from families who were not in need were receiving the benefit of youth allowance under the independence arrangements with the workforce participation criteria as it currently exists—the one that we intend to change. If we look at the figures there, we see that 18 per cent of those students who were living at home and receiving youth allowance under the independent criteria were from families with household incomes of more than $150,000.

Those on the other side were quite happy to say to those families in my electorate who were earning less than $32,800 as a family income that they were not entitled to receive the full amount of youth allowance payments but that it was okay for those families on incomes of more than $150,000—18 per cent of all students who were receiving payments—and that that was somehow fair, that was about delivering more equitable outcomes in higher education. Well, it was not fair and it did not deliver better outcomes when it came to improving access and equity in higher education participation. The figures are quite stark when we look at the declining rates of participation in higher education, particularly towards the end of the previous government. That is the decline that we seek to redress, and we seek to redress it through a whole range of measures, one of which is better targeting income assistance in the form of youth allowance and Abstudy to those who are particularly in need.

I also make the point in relation to rural and regional students that rural students receiving youth allowance will still have access to the higher away-from-home rate of payment as well as the remote area allowance, the fares allowance for up two return trips home per year and other benefits such as the low-income healthcare card and the pharmaceutical allowance. For those rural students who are dependent on their parents, the family assets test—the test that was in place under the previous government and continues to be in place—applying to dependent youth allowance recipients will take into account current market values, net of business or farm related debts, so we are talking net figures here. The limit is currently set at $571,500 for most families and is indexed each year. That valuation does not take into account the principal family home and it also excludes up to two hectares, in terms of a curtilage, beyond the family home. So the family home is excluded and the limit is as it previously was and continues to be: $571,500. That is the assets test and that is indexed each year. In addition to that, a 75 per cent discount is applied when assessing the business assets, including farm assets. This means that youth allowance can be received by dependent young people from small business and farming families, with assets up to the value of $2.286 million.

I have no difficulties in coming into this place and supporting a bill that says that we are going to ensure that someone from a family on a household income of $40,000 should not be excluded from the top rate of Youth Allowance in preference to someone from a household with net assets, excluding the family home, of $2.286 million. There will be arguments from those on the other side that people from farming families sometimes face particular challenges—and that is true. But I would make the additional point that families who are in drought affected areas, who are in possession of a drought relief exceptional circumstances certificate and who are in receipt of the exceptional circumstances relief payment and a payment under the Farm Household Support Act will also be exempted from the application of the parental income and assets test for student income support payments. Those families who are affected by drought and to whom that criteria apply neither the parental income test nor the assets test will be used to deny students from those families the benefits of the improved student assistance support regime that we are putting forward. In fact, those families are likely to benefit more from the relocation allowance. They will benefit from the start-up scholarship and they will get the benefit of the relocation allowance. When you put the two together, you are talking about a $6,254 payment in the first year and then $3,254 in subsequent years. It is certainly nothing to be sneezed at.

There are plenty of families within my electorate who have been denied access to higher education because of the inequities that have existed within the current set of arrangements. This bill and these proposals will ensure that many of those families will be able to support their children and those students will be able to support themselves through university so that they can have the opportunity to realise their potential and to make a great contribution to our economy and country, and that is a great thing. It is a great thing for my region and I am very pleased to be standing up here in support of this proposition.

I make the point that I am not the only one who thinks that this is a good measure when it comes to increasing access for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I note, in particular, that the chair of Universities Australia, Professor Coaldrake, in a recent press release said:

The increases to the parental and personal income thresholds will mean that more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds will be able to access the full rate of youth allowance while other eligible students will benefit from the reduction in the allowance taper rate relating to parental income from 25 per cent to 20 per cent.

The observation I make—supported by many others, in fact by any reasonable objective observer—is that these proposals are totally in alignment with the recommendations of the Bradley review, which found that student assistance has in the past not been as effectively targeted as it should be. I support the bill. This will deliver much needed relief to many families in my electorate and assist people in my community to improve their opportunities to access higher education and to make a contribution to our community.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, which is of critical importance to many families right across north-east Victoria in my electorate of Indi. We had the previous speaker, the member for Lindsay, refer to ‘any reasonable objective observer’, though he did not go on to clarify what any reasonable objective observer might think. From what he said, one could infer that any reasonable objective observer could only support what the government was doing. By inference, of course, anyone who raised a question, or a doubt, or found out from objective analysis that a practical application of the proposed changes to their personal family circumstances would mean they would be worse off and their children would be worse off, are not reasonable and they are not objective.

This is no surprise. We are not shocked any more by the extraordinary application of the methods of propaganda described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-four. This government really goes out of its way to spin the impossible into the possible. We see this time and time again. But do you know what? When a proposed government change is so detrimental to so many families—even in a nation like Australia that has had a very stable political history, where there is relative political apathy—when you get an issue that touches the nerve of so many families, they actually prick up their ears, they get angry and they see the spin for what it is. This is exactly the case with these proposed changes to the youth allowance. It is quite fitting that as young people in my electorate prepare to sit their first year 12 exam on Friday, we are debating this legislation which, for many of them, will have the potential to decide which path their lives will take.

Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s best efforts over the last few months to spin her way out of this issue, local people know that their children will be worse off under the government’s changes. It does not matter what the government says. They can call them unreasonable, they can call them biased—these people know that their children will be worse off under these changes. I had Neal from Wangaratta—and I have had many constituents write; I will be quoting from some of their correspondence—say to me:

I heard Julia Gillard tonight on ABC regional radio as she tried to sell the changes. I was infuriated with her attitude and political spin.

The minister has pulled out absolutely all stops to convince people that the government’s changes will not disadvantage local people in my electorate. She rose in parliament on 1 June and mocked the current system as being skewed to people who earned $200,000, $300,00 and $400,000 a year, and that the coalition—that stood up to the government on these changes, which will seriously disadvantage students from many regional and rural areas—was seeking to ‘benefit those better off at the expense of the vast majority’. There you go again. If you raise any query about possible changes of policy of this current government—that is apparently all knowing and all seeing—then you must be on the side of ‘the better off’, you must be on the side of the bad people and you must be on the side of the oppressors. It is just typical spin: don’t try to explain a policy; don’t try to come up with a good policy—just turn around and attack your opponents. It is probably not just a tactic but a symptom that they have not yet realised that they are in government. Not only do they have a serious responsibility to govern for all Australians; they are also in government to initiate responsible policies and not just behave like an opposition as they did before the 2007 election.

Ms Gillard has tried very hard to convince people in my electorate that the Labor Party scheme is more generous for rural and regional students. She said in the Mansfield Courier on 15 July this year, ‘The allowance is still means tested but more generously, particularly for rural and regional students.’ Country people—and I know from direct experience of people in north-east Victoria—can see through cleverly crafted spin. They know that the government’s changes will leave students who need to move away to university high and dry in spite of anything that the minister may say. Nigel from Benalla says:

No matter what the rhetoric is, these changes discriminate against non metropolitan parents and students.

Year 12 students sitting their VCE exams in Indi this week and over the next few weeks have considerable uncertainty hanging over their heads. No matter how well they do in their exams, no matter how high their ENTER score and no matter what they achieve during the next few weeks, some of them may not be able to go on to the university of their choice—to which they have merited entry—because are not able to afford it. Many local families who have spoken to me and written to me already support their children who have left home to go to university, but they cannot afford all of the costs required for their children’s move, and accommodation and living expenses while studying at university. Many students take on extra jobs to help out with this. It is these expenses which put rural families at a disadvantage when compared to metropolitan families. Peter and Rhona from Lima East are both teachers. They have two sons. Their combined income exceeds the threshold. One of the sons is currently in year 12 and he wants to study law. They said:

Continuing to live at home while fulfilling his dream of tertiary study is completely impossible because of where we live. Whereas we had always planned to support our son’s tertiary education, we could not afford the high costs of paying for all of his living costs in Melbourne and supporting his costs of study.

Many families in my electorate are finding it difficult to make ends meet as it is, and they simply cannot afford the additional costs associated with sending their son or daughter to university away from their home base. It is for this very reason that many people in the local area choose to defer their tertiary studies for 12 months to take a so-called gap year. Until now, they have been able to gain access to the Youth Allowance scheme through the workforce participation or gap year route that the government is seeking to abolish with this legislation. They spend the year working to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance so that they can afford to move away from home to attend the university of their choice.

The unfortunate reality for people from north-east Victoria is that, due to the high expense of moving away to metropolitan areas, they need some extra financial support, and this has been provided to may of them via the Youth Allowance scheme. Local students who have taken the gap year in the past have not complained, even though it sets them 12 months behind in their course, but have gone out to find work so that they can earn enough to qualify and achieve their ultimate goal to study at university. As one lady who wrote to me said:

If young people are prepared to spend a year working hard in order to qualify for the Youth Allowance so that they can attend University, then this should be rewarded, not discouraged.

Minister Gillard does not seem to comprehend that most students from rural Australia do not have the option of living freely at home while pursuing their studies. The minister does not seem to understand that there are considerable costs associated with moving to a metropolitan area. As reported by the Mansfield paper on 15 July 2009:

Ms Gillard said the allowance had been perceived as students having to qualify by being independent from parents, but this was not so.

The minister clearly does not understand the reality for many local students. As Judith from Benalla said:

A ‘gap’ year is not a luxury, or a ‘rort’ it is a necessity for many rural students.

The Victorian Education and Training Committee Inquiry into Geographical Differences in the Rate in which Victorian Students Participate in Higher Education found that there was an overwhelming theme of the difficulty students face in meeting the cost of living. Estimated living costs were $15,000 to $20,000 per year. The committee heard that a substantial proportion of students struggle to accumulate sufficient income to meet the costs of undertaking their university course and that families also struggle to meet such high costs because often they have other dependent children at home, they are paying a mortgage and they have the usual financial burdens associated with raising a family.

Carl from Allans Flat said:

These proposed changes are just another kick in the stomach to bush students and parents struggling to meet the costs of further education.

The choice to take a gap year is being made by an overwhelming majority of students in the local area. According to evidence presented to the Victorian Education and Training Committee inquiry, in 2007-08 one in three school leavers from non-metropolitan areas deferred their studies, compared with 10 per cent of metropolitan school leavers. Those who choose to take a gap year in order to qualify for Youth Allowance include students from farming and small business families—and students whose parents are public servants or work in retail. It goes right across the board. These students are traditionally excluded from qualifying for the dependent rate of youth allowance because of the high value of their parents’ property or other business assets or because of the income test. Often, for these families, the reality is that they are asset rich but income poor. Many are earning a normal income—not a high income—but their children have been excluded because of the income test. Many families in the region, particularly farming families, do not have the cash flow required to support their children at university. Many of them do not qualify for drought assistance, so the exclusions that would usually apply to their situation do not apply.

There are a number of students in my local area who are currently on their gap year who have been caught up by the Rudd government’s changes. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations gave evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport hearings into the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill—this bill—that 25,000 students who are currently on their gap year will be denied youth allowance under the government’s changes. We saw the Deputy Prime Minster perform almost a backflip—maybe more of a half-twist—when she gave a reprieve to 5,000 gap year students in August. But Ms Gillard was not moved when the coalition gave her the opportunity in parliament to come to the table and negotiate on amendments to the government’s scheme in early August. Ms Gillard refused to even stand up in parliament and defend her own policy.

I have already referred in other areas to the inquiry of the Labor-dominated Victorian Education and Training Committee, which released its report earlier this year. The committee’s decision to investigate the issue of geographical influences on access to education was not made in relation to the federal government’s proposed changes, but the findings of the committee are alarming and do have serious implications for the government’s new Youth Allowance policy. The committee heard in 2007 that university application rates were below the state average in every non-metropolitan region apart from the Western District. It also heard that in 2007-08, 14 per cent of school leavers from non-metropolitan areas who received an offer from a university rejected their offer, compared with only 8.6 per cent in metropolitan areas. Anecdotal evidence presented to the committee also suggests that there are higher completion rates for metropolitan students.

Also significant, the committee heard that aspiration towards higher education is an important factor in the desire to pursue further education, and we have seen that in many other reports as well. For students with weaker aspirations, barriers to higher education participation are more likely to have a decisive influence, and this is certainly something I have seen in my electorate. Some students, upon learning the news that the government was proposing to make these changes to Youth Allowance, have already given up hope of attending university. Peter from Staghorn Flat said that the government’s plan ‘has caused significant anxiety—is against the principle of a fair go’. This really resonates amongst many young people, many of whom are about to embark on their year 12 exams.

While welcoming the government’s changes in principle, the Victorian committee expressed concern that the Rudd government’s changes will have a detrimental impact on access to higher education for those who need to live away from home to study. It was said in the committee report, ‘The committee believes that this change will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas.’

We see the Rudd government placing considerable emphasis on its two new scholarships—the Student Start-up Scholarship and the Relocation Scholarship, which replaced the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship. But in order to qualify for these scholarships, a student must be receiving youth allowance. So it really locks out disadvantaged students in any case.

Also significant, this Victorian committee heard that the amount available under the new Relocation Scholarship will be substantially less than that available under the existing Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship. Many students have written to me and said that they will now have to work more during the university semester in order to support themselves financially. Previously students were able to cut back on hours they worked during the semester in order to focus on their studies, but many will simply not have a choice now. As Charlotte from Benalla said:

The new Youth Allowance Scheme will mean I not only need to earn enough money to make the move to the city where my course is held, which is quite expensive as it is, but when my course begins I will still need to work in order to live because there is no realistic way, to myself, to work 30 hours a week.

The Victorian committee found that excessive part-time work affected students’ well being and engagement in university life and academic achievement and led to an increased risk that students would not continue with their studies. As one mother, Ann from Mount Beauty, said:

As a rural student it is quite an upheaval to go off to university, leaving home and all its support mechanisms, finding your own way in a very different environment and trying to fund accommodation, textbooks, food, sporting activities and HECS. He knows we will help him but he does not want to burden us with those expenses of having to ‘ask’ for money to be able to do the little things like sporting competitions that are so important to his well-being.

Local people do feel disillusioned and let down. Some believed Kevin Rudd when he promised that if elected a Labor government would undertake an ‘education revolution’. The government’s changes to Youth Allowance fly in the face of the promise it made at the last election, whilst conveniently in opposition, ‘to create an “education revolution”, to create one of the most highly educated and skilled nations on earth’. Apparently you can be skilled and educated but not if you live in rural or regional Australia.

As Judith from Benalla said:

Julia Gillard stated that ‘the Australian government is committed to addressing the intergenerational cycle of educational disadvantage’. This is commendable, but at the same time, indications are that a new group will now fall into the category of ‘educational disadvantage’.

And that is students from rural and regional Australia. Even Labor voters have expressed their disillusionment. Someone wrote to me and said:

I actually voted for them because I believed in them. I am sure both my husband and myself would have been happy to forego our lots of $900 if it meant keeping the Youth Allowance intact.

And I am sure many Labor members on the other side are hearing the same right across their electorates, even those who do not have rural or regional electorates. The coalition has moved amendments to the Youth Allowance. We urge the minister to accept the coalition’s amendments to ensure that rural students are not further disadvantaged.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation that has come to this parliament, but it is just so typical of the philosophical attitude of a party that has said previously, under a previous leader, that they did not have any interest in small business and that they did not have any interest in country people. Nevertheless, as a number of government members—backbenchers—discovered when they came in here with grins all over their faces to put down a censure motion which attempted to put pressure on the government to realise how unfair and unreasonable these proposals were, their names were listed as voting down that effort from the coalition, the opposition. Suddenly there was at least some sort of response as it became patently obvious—as it will again today, when votes are taken on this matter—that they do not support country members, notwithstanding that they represent country people.

It has always been a fact in this place that nobody governs without a significant number of seats in rural and regional areas. They are legion. Of course, suggestions that 90 kilometres is the distance at which people are disadvantaged is patently silly. That may be the correct situation for someone who has a fast electric train outside their doorstep. For everybody else it is an untenable situation to attempt to travel that distance daily to conduct study, which is not always, of course, in daylight hours—many university courses and lectures occur in the evenings. The suggestion is that they then get in whatever mode of transport they might be lucky enough to own and drive back home. What is this all about? We can refer to the explanatory memorandum:

The first measure contains changes to the criteria upon which a youth allowance recipient is considered to be “independent”. Independent youth allowance recipients are entitled to a higher rate of payment and are not subject to a test for parental income.

There has also been a change in the age qualification from 25 down to 22 years of age. That is to be done in a phased-in fashion.

In addition, from 1 January 2010, a youth allowance claimant will no longer be able to attain independence through part-time employment or wages.

On the face of it, that might not appear to be too much of a problem. But it is in total contradistinction with the employment opportunities that exist in so many rural and regional centres. The demand for labour is seasonal. It is well-paid in many cases, but in between there is no work. Who is going to go straight from year 12 and get a guaranteed job of 30 hours a week for 18 months in a rural centre of 100 or 150 people? Where is that sort of work available—and, if it were available to a year-12 worker, which more mature worker gets the sack? The independence clause is so changed that it is virtually impossible for students living outside the metropolitan area to comply. If there is a problem associated with the present scheme, it is with those from reasonably wealthy households who do stay at home and then claim to be independent simply because they have a job.

To get the sort of employment that presently applies under the act—that is, employment that pays about $19,000 during an 18-month period—many young people residing in rural areas do have to leave home. They do have to go and take employment elsewhere, because it simply is not available in their local regional community. But doesn’t it get better and doesn’t it just indicate how little knowledge the minister and her advisers have in regard to income? The explanatory memorandum says of the second measure, promoted by the minister as a positive:

From 1 January 2010, the annual parental income threshold for non-independent youth allowance recipients to get the maximum rate of youth allowance will increase from $32,800 to $44,165.

Where out of that sort of income—with, say, another couple of kids at home—do you find the money necessary to transport and totally maintain a child in a capital city studying at university? Where is the money? To relocate that child, $10,000 or $15,000 would be required. Are you going to take that out of $44,000 and keep the rest of the family, pay the mortgage, pay the insurance and pay for the car out of what is left? Yes—if you are on 44 grand in Perth, Sydney or somewhere else and you live within a pushbike ride of a university, you can manage on 44 grand. It is maybe a reasonable assessment. But there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that that sort of money is very, very small for people in country areas who find themselves confronted with paying for the education of their children.

So what do many of them to? They pack up and leave, taking with them all their experience from their place of business, their place of work. They might be medical practitioners—people desperately needed in rural centres—who say, ‘We’ve got to go to Perth because the minister will give us a better deal up there in terms of salary calculations et cetera.’ As I have said on many occasions, including in this place, it so happens that, in the metropolitan areas of Australia, the richer you are, the closer you live to a university. This is not taken account of, either. So here we are with a silly figure that is promoted as relaxing the program. Yes, relaxing the program for those who will be the beneficiaries of these arrangements—those who reside in metropolitan areas, where public transport is available in most instances, with their family. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say in relation to the second measure:

The parental income reduction for youth allowance will also change from a taper rate of 25% per person, to a taper of 20%—

This is, arguably, positive only once you have discovered where you live. It is interesting to note this:

It is estimated that these changes to the parental income test will result in 67,800 additional students—

none of whom reside outside the metropolitan area—

qualifying …

Let me put the case for educating kids from the country. There are so many professionals required in the country—it could be in accountancy, law or medicine, and of course today university is a requirement for someone to be a nurse. A number of processes to assist in this area were brought forward by the Howard government, including an opportunity for below-the-line entry to medical school for about 100 students from country areas. Those students were below the line not because they were dull or did not have the intelligence; they were below the line because country students’ opportunities to study are somewhat restricted in terms of curricula and many other matters. The history of that program has shown that, when these young people do qualify and get into university, their rating amongst the other students rises rapidly. Because they are intelligent kids, they do not stay at the bottom of the pile.

Why do we have that program? Simply because of the evidence available that shows that students from rural areas, who are also more adjusted and very confident, want to live in their regional communities. They go back and deliver services to those taxpaying communities of people who make a huge contribution to our economic circumstances. They saved the government from a technical recession. If one studies export orders, one sees it was compressed exports of wheat from Western Australia that pushed the economy into positive territory. That is not disputable, being based on statistics. The whole thing is that we want these people to go back. Today they have got to have tertiary skills even for the business of farming—probably more so if some of the issues relating to emissions trading and other schemes become a fact of life.

The fact is that these students are entitled to education and the only way that they have been able to get one is under the Youth Allowance scheme, which has a special category even for rent assistance—and so it should. Here are young people going out, taking on real employment and gaining some experience from that while also going on and learning and, in many cases, taking their acquired skills back to their areas—maybe becoming science teachers in country areas. Why do such kids have low TEE marks? They have them because in many cases the education authorities cannot find science teachers or high-level maths teachers for country towns, and this is a better way to get them.

The third measure provides new scholarships for students on income support. That is a big help. In 2010 such a scholarship will be worth $1,127 for six months. That is a total of $2,254 for 12 months. That is twice the average weekly wage, and a kid is supposed to spend 12 months in a capital city on the strength of that! Then they might get a Start-Up scholarship of $4,000 if they are eligible under these new arrangements. But, as I said, if you are a parent in a country area on $44,000, which is not the average wage anymore, then it is virtually impossible to maintain a child away from home.

This is also interesting. The financial impact statement tells us that in 2009-10, expenditure will be $85.7 million; in 2010-11 it will be minus $72 million—in other words, there will be a saving as there will be less money spent in this area—in 2011-12 it will be minus $127 million; and in 2012-13 there will be an additional expense. The total saving for the government will be $106 million. So much for the Education Revolution! So much for equal rights and equal access, one of the fundamentals of Australian society!

This is not equal access to education legislation; it is to the contrary. It improves somewhat opportunities for persons residing in a metropolitan area, but that is certainly not the case for country students. Whether or not there should be special arrangements that recognise the right of all Australian students to have access to top-quality tertiary education has always been a question that has gone unanswered in this place. If there is a distance disability why can’t that be recognised as such? Why would you set a wage limit of $42,000? The average rural family can survive on that if that money is for normal household expenditure. But the second that your family has additional costs you are over the limit.

I will put that in another way, as I have in this House before. Let us say we have a single-income family and junior gets high marks in his tertiary entrance examinations and wants to go and study medicine, engineering, agriculture or whatever it is. The parents look at the family budget and see that on, let us say, $40,000 a year they cannot afford the additional funds for junior to go away. So the wife says: ‘Well, we’ll become a two-income family. I have skills. I have previously worked as a professional nurse’—or, say, she has previously worked as a schoolteacher. ‘I’ll go and work up at the local supermarket.’ But what happens when she earns $10,000 or $20,000 a year? The family is over the parental income threshold, so they do not get any help anyway. How can that be fair and reasonable?

I am delighted that, recognising the needs of these people, the coalition has some amendments. They literally re-establish the status quo and so they should. If they are not agreed to, we will oppose this legislation. That creates some administrative difficulties I understand, but so be it. I do not come to this House as a member representing country people to support legislation of this nature, and nor should about a dozen Labor MPs who also convinced people from country and regional areas to vote for them, I would think on the basis that they would be here to represent their interests. How any one of those people could cast a vote for this legislation is beyond me. What is more, I promise those Labor MPs faithfully I will be looking at the Hansard document where their names will be recorded and I will be posting out letters to their local newspapers reminding their constituents of how their local member voted on this issue.

The disappointment with these measures is universal. I have lodged in this place a petition with over 13,000 signatures, which I received in my office in Albany from all over Australia. If any of those on the other side think I have not got signatures from their locality, they will be surprised. How did this petition eventuate? I published a pro forma petition on my website that people could download to meet the proper requirements of this parliament, which are that such petitions must be on paper and be signed personally. The interesting thing about all that was that we published it and people had to make a physical effort. They had to download it. They had to visit their friends and visit other interested parties and say, ‘Will you sign this thing?’ In the first 10 days 6,800 signatures turned up, posted at the expense of these taxpayers. That is the measure of people’s concern. When a lot of people are angry, they may even make a phone call. Politicians who ignore people going through that particular process for the purpose of protesting against what is a rip-off do so at their own peril. And so it should be at their peril—we come to this place to represent the interests of our constituents.

There are 10 or 15 Labor MPs who have this situation in their constituencies and they do not care. They ran off and got a no-retrospectivity agreement from the minister, and that is the best they could do. They did not do it for the kids; they did it to give themselves a little bit of self-protection politically. It is a shame, and if any of them think that this legislation can pass without their constituents knowing how they have treated the children in their electorate, without recognising their callous disregard of the points I have made today, well, be it upon their heads.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Start whinging about it. I hope you do because all those speeches that have been made so far include speeches from people who have an overall responsibility to see the kids in their region get the same education as anyone else and for it to be affordable. We have that argument about health and we should have it about tertiary education. It is the same, and this sort of access rule is fundamental. When country parents make an effort to raise the money but make themselves ineligible in the process, that has got to be greatest piece of irony I have ever experienced.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Education, is, among her many other responsibilities, the Minister for Social Inclusion. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 is all about social exclusion. If you are a country student who has done well in your secondary studies and you want to go to university but your parents cannot afford the $20,000-plus on top of the fees that must be paid, then you simply are not going to have a tertiary education. That is a social exclusion for those country students and it means rural and regional communities in the future will have an even greater problem attracting professionals to do the essential services that are carried out in country towns and cities. For example, we have got a massive shortage of doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, social workers, lawyers, surveyors, hydrologists, IT specialists, and on it goes—a huge shortage. The only way we can guarantee that those professions are manned by men and women who will come through our tertiary sector is if a lot of them are born and bred in rural areas. That is simply the way our culture operates in this country.

I had the pleasure of opening a clinic the other day in Shepparton. It was a clinic for plastic surgery, a much needed service in our part of the world where sun damage too often leads to all sorts of cancers. In opening that clinic, the lead person, a very highly skilled and internationally renowned surgeon, said that the only reason he was working in Shepparton was because he went to school in Euroa, a nearby town, and he understands and appreciates what it takes to work, to set up a business and to thrive in a rural and regional area. This minister, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, has made sure that country students are going to struggle and will not be able to afford tertiary education from a rural base. You have to wonder what is behind this. Is it a further gutting of rural and regional Australia’s economy or is it simply turning your back on Australians who struggle hard but who have the misfortune to be born beyond the tram tracks or congestion of Sydney? This is a serious problem.

The measures that the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced in this bill do not go anywhere near solving the problem of providing sufficient funds for those from families that have not got wealth to go to university. The first measure contains changes to the criteria that apply to youth allowance recipients if he or she is considered to be independent. As we know, independent youth allowance recipients are not currently subject to a test for parental income. The second measure makes significant changes to means testing of parents for payments to students and youth. From 1 January 2010 the annual parental income threshold for non-independent youth allowance recipients to get the maximum rate of youth allowance will be increased from $32,800 to $44,165. This is still far too low. You cannot have one or two students already at university or perhaps one or two students in your family still at school and find the $20,000 per year of additional fees to have your student go to a city to study at a university. It is simply not possible. Sadly, when I checked this year with career counsellors to look at how many promising Year 12 students were still applying for university, there is a huge drop off.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Murray will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.