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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sturt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to ensure equal access to higher education for all Australians.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition is in favour of equal access to higher education for all Australians, including rural and regional Australians, and we are in favour of the new Commonwealth scholarships, but we are opposed to disadvantaging rural and regional Australians. The minister has handcuffed the new Commonwealth scholarships to denying rural and regional Australians access to youth allowance, and we cannot support this and will not support it. The minister is holding students hostage so that she can satiate her own ego at getting a win over the opposition. It is juvenile, it is pathetic, it is sad and it is what we have come to expect from the Minister for Education. If she really cared about students, she would do more than just point-score: she would pick up the phone, she would offer to talk, we would sit down and we would negotiate. But she has not. I have offered and she refuses.

This minister is a failed minister. She has failed to deliver computers in schools; she has failed to deliver trade training centres; she has failed to deliver childcare centres; she has failed to avoid blow-outs, waste and mismanagement in the memorial school halls program; and she has failed to deliver new Commonwealth scholarships. And now she has failed to deliver reforms to youth allowance. Her crowning achievement for which she hopes to be remembered is that she has established a website, My School. I have a feeling that she will go the same way as the other ministers whose crowning achievements have been websites—GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch.

This minister owes students, particularly in rural and regional Australia, an explanation for why she could have passed this legislation last year and why no student should be waiting on their scholarships or their youth allowance, but instead, in insisting on handcuffing the Commonwealth scholarships to the youth allowance reforms, she has denied students the opportunity to receive scholarships and new youth allowance.

This bill hurts rural and regional Australians, and let me explain why. To satisfy the work participation test to access the independent rate of youth allowance, students in rural and regional Australia will need to work 30 hours a week for 18 months in a two-year period in order to qualify—in order to meet the work participation test. Where on earth in country Australia are rural and regional Australians going to find that kind of work?

Our side of the House truly represents rural and regional Australia. The vast majority of seats in rural and regional Australia are held by the coalition, and we have a large representation of members from country Australia. They understand that rural and regional young people will not be able to get those kinds of jobs, which means they will either have to leave home to qualify for the independent rate—so defeating the purpose of the independent rate of youth allowance and the purpose of trying to get country people to go to university and go back to the country to work—or simply not go to university.

Students from country Australia are already a disadvantaged group of people when it comes to higher education. They are under-represented at universities. This is only going to make the situation much worse, and their parents—the parents of young Australians in the country—know this and have been contacting our members by email, by phone, by visits, through rallies and through letters, saying, ‘Stand up for rural and regional Australia.’ But this minister turns a hard face to those Australians and says: ‘We’re not going to change. We want to get a tactical win over the opposition. We want to make them back down.’ Well, Minister, the livelihoods of Australians and their higher education dreams are much more important than your eggshell-like ego, and I can tell you that we are going to stand up for rural and regional Australia and we are going to split the bill in the Senate. We are going to move to split the bill so that Commonwealth scholarships can be paid and so that youth allowance can be dealt with as a reform on its own.

Do not just take my word for it, Minister. Your own Labor Party chair of the Education and Training Committee in Victoria, Geoff Howard from Ballarat, said of the changes in his introduction to a report that they handed down last year:

… the Committee … is concerned that the specific circumstances of rural and regional young people still have not been adequately addressed. Already, many such students defer their studies to meet eligibility criteria for income support and this route to financial independence is set to become even more difficult under the new system.

He went on to say:

… the Committee believes that the removal of the main workforce participation route will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas—

and that the changes—

… will have a detrimental impact on many students who deferred their studies during 2009 in order to work and earn sufficient money to be eligible for Youth Allowance.

There are others who understand what is really going on in country Australia, like the Isolated Children’s Parents Association, who wrote to the minister saying:

Where will some students residing in rural and remote Australia find full time jobs for a two-year period? The short answer is they won’t.

The Country Education Foundation of Australia, representing 38 local education foundations across rural Australia, wrote again to the minister saying:

Anyone who has spent any time in rural communities will understand that for the vast majority, providing part time or full time jobs for unskilled youth in the numbers required will be impossible.

Impossible, Minister. ‘Anybody who has spent any time in rural Australia would know,’ is what the Country Education Foundation of Australia said.

But, of course, the minister does not spend any time in country Australia. She simply takes the advice of her department in the same way as she did on trade training centres, on computers in schools, on the memorial school halls and on the childcare centres, because this minister is incapable of actually delivering a program or a reform. Even the My School website collapsed on the first day, and the minister tried to convince people that eight per cent of the Australian population had tried to access it between 1 am and 7 am. It was an absolutely ludicrous claim from a minister who is becoming a laughing-stock in education.

It is not just the Labor Party in Victoria that has criticised and damned the government’s plans, or the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association or the Country Education Foundation of Australia; it is average individual Australians in country areas. Even today, Karen emailed me, saying:

The 2008 group will become eligible under the current independence test scheme in about six weeks, and to change it now seems grossly unfair. They have been waiting for an outcome for nearly 18 months now. All the best in sticking to your points and getting a better deal for rural and remote students.

People know that this side of the House understands and cares about rural Australia and they know that the minister does not.

The bill is retrospective as well in its effect. Over 25,000 young people have had the goalposts moved on them during their gap year. The minister simply says to those people: ‘Stiff cheese—you’re going to miss out. We’re going to go ahead with our youth allowance reforms regardless.’ Not only is she holding a gun to rural and regional Australians, saying, ‘You won’t get your Commonwealth scholarships unless the coalition supports us,’ she is also saying to those people in their gap year—those at least 25,000 who still miss out—‘Stiff cheese; we’re not doing anything for you. The plans you made for higher education and the reason you took an 18-month gap year so you could qualify for the youth allowance, we’re just going to change that.’ It is a fundamental principle of law and regulation that if someone relies on the laws or regulations at the time, they should be able to rely on those laws into the future. They should not have the goalposts changed on them in the middle of that reliance.

The coalition has moved amendments in good faith to fix these problems. We moved them last year and the government rejected them. The Senate passed them, they came back and the government rejected them again. That is why we are in this position where in February—almost March—tens of thousands of students have been made worse off by the government and its intransigence, and the minister who refuses to negotiate.

We have moved the amendment to begin the new program on 1 January 2011. That amendment would remove the retrospectivity from the bill and mean that no-one in their current gap year would be worse off as a consequence of the government’s changes. The government rejects that. We have moved amendments to make pathways for rural and regional students to get to higher education; to change the thresholds to put them back in the position they would have been in if these youth allowance reforms had not been proposed. In other words, to return the work participation test to 15 hours rather than 30 hours, which will mean they will be able to access the independent rate of youth allowance. The government has rejected those amendments.

The minister likes to blather on about some idea that came up in a Senate committee, which she insists, in true Comical Ali mode, is somehow the opposition’s policy. The media do not buy it and the public know it is not true. We have actually proposed as part of our amendments a $696 million savings measure by reducing the start-up scholarships from $2,255 to $1,000: new scholarships and new money—not taking money away from students but money they have never received before. That $696 million savings measure would pay for all of the amendments that the opposition has proposed. Our amendments are revenue neutral; they punch no hole in the government’s budget. If the government rejects them, then they are the ones who are punching a hole in their own budget bottom line and they will wear it.

We will move all those amendments again in the Senate, but we will also move amendments to split the bill into the new Commonwealth scholarships bill and the youth allowance reforms. We warned the minister in May last year and throughout last year that linking the new Commonwealth scholarships—handcuffing the Commonwealth scholarships to the youth allowance reforms—would meet with disaster, and that is exactly what has happened. Either today or tomorrow we will move to split the bill, and I hope we will have the support of Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and the Greens. We are negotiating with them because they have already all indicated that they believe the bill should be split.

It will then be in the government’s court to decide whether young Australians get paid the new Commonwealth scholarships, because that split bill will come back to the House of Representatives and that is going to be the true test for the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. That is when the iron will really hit the fire; that is when she is going to have to decide. The acid will be on her to decide whether young Australians should get those new Commonwealth scholarships or whether she will rip them away from them.

The split bill will be supported by the coalition in the Senate and then we will deal with our amendments to the youth allowance reforms, because we believe our amendments put rural and regional Australians in a position where they will have a pathway to university which the government is currently denying them. We will unhandcuff the two measures and we will not allow the government to hold students hostage to the minister’s ego. We will propose our savings measures again so that the changes are revenue neutral. If the government opposes splitting the bill, and if the government insists the bill be kept together, then it will be the government that is playing politics.

Let me finish with Lisa, of Shepparton, who also emailed me just today:

Well done in standing firm on youth allowance. Everyone seems to have forgotten what this is all about. We have lost the mechanism used by thousands of country students to get a tertiary education. The sliding scale of the proposed arrangements means a pittance for all but the poorest students. Certainly those students should be catered for, but the reality is that most of the doctors, nurses, accountants, teachers and lawyers who service regional Australia will come from the ranks of ordinary middle-class people, who now face an uphill battle to keep kids at uni at an average annual cost of $20,000 a year.

Lisa has summed it up entirely. The government’s reforms are going to disadvantage and hurt rural and regional Australians. We will not support them in their current measures. We will support the new Commonwealth scholarships and we will split the bill. If the government insists on keeping them together, with the support of the Senate we will vote them down and it will be on the minister’s head.

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

What I am going to seek to do in my reply is take the politics out of this debate and introduce some very, very simple facts.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt was heard in silence.

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

I do note that the shadow minister was heard in silence. For those who are genuine about this debate, as opposed to those who want to interject with their politics, I will make some facts clear. The facts are these. We inherited a youth allowance system that saw the participation rates of country students go backwards whilst money was being paid to students living at home in metropolitan Australia in families earning $200,000 and $300,000 a year. It was not right. We were advised by Denise Bradley, as part of the Bradley reform process for higher education, to fix this inequity. We introduced legislation at the time of the budget last year to do just that.

I freely acknowledge that the legislation in its original form caused great anxiety for students caught in the transition—that is, students who had already proceeded on a gap year before the date of the budget and who were seeing that their arrangements would be disrupted by the new rules. I freely acknowledge that. So we went on a process of consultation, and I note that the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water, who is at the table with me—a member who represents regional Australia—was one of the members on this side of the House who was involved. I note that the member for Cunningham, sitting in the House at the moment, was certainly involved, as were the members for Ballarat and Bendigo. They came and spoke to me and said that we needed to address this. At the same time, I freely acknowledge that there were coalition members who raised this issue with me and there were senators who raised this with me.

I understand that that was an issue causing anxiety in rural and regional Australia, and the bill has been amended. We firstly amended it for students who would have made their arrangements to go on a gap year and who need to move away from home in order to study. We amended it. Then, in the course of Senate negotiations involving the Greens and Senator Xenophon, we amended it further. Now the transition arrangements for the students who were on the old rules—those who had made their arrangements before the date of the May budget—have been expanded to gap year students who live at home with families with an income of less than $150,000. So let us just acknowledge this. Yes, there was a problem with the transition. The bill has been amended—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—But not fixed.

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

I did not yell out at the shadow minister, so I would be thankful if those opposite would actually listen—and, if they want to come and put a view to me, I would be very happy to hear it. The bill has been amended so that students who would have made their arrangements before the announcements in the May budget and who need to move away from home to study have had their arrangements fixed. Now, the present version of the bill fixes arrangements for students who do not need to move away from home to study but who live with families with incomes of less than $150,000 a year. So transition has been fixed, apart from a class of students who live at home in families earning more than $150,000 a year. If the central concern of the opposition is for families with incomes of more than $150,000 with students living at home, they should clearly say that. But that is not rural and regional kids—we know that. That is not kids from lower income backgrounds—we know that. So that is the bill before the parliament.

In terms of looking at the bill before the parliament, I note that today’s Sydney Morning Herald had an editorial entitled ‘It’s time to retreat on student grants’. I freely acknowledge that this editorial is not uncritical of me. It is critical of me for the first piece of legislation I brought into the parliament, and I will wear that criticism.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt is warned.

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

I would direct members who are seriously interested—as opposed to members, like the member for Sturt, who are clearly so interested in playing politics that they cannot sit and listen—to this editorial, because I think it makes some powerful points to members of the opposition. It is not uncritical of me. It is not uncritical of the original version of the legislation. Acknowledging that it has now been amended and saying to the opposition, ‘It’s time to retreat on student grants,’ the editorial says:

The government, amid a storm of criticism from student representatives, saw reason and amended its plans. That, surely, should have been enough—but the opposition, having had one victory, will not let go. The changes are not enough, it says. It wants to split the measure so the government’s more generous allowance goes through, while the savings measures are held up. This is simply irresponsible. In pursuit of this dubious objective, the opposition and its allies are willing to hold students hostage as a new academic year approaches. They should back down.

They are the words of the editors of the Sydney Morning Herald. But we then look to who else is calling on the opposition to pass this bill.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Maybe opposition members can laugh at that editorial, but should they really laugh? And should they really diminish the contribution of the 39 vice-chancellors around the country, including those vice-chancellors who lead institutions in rural and regional areas? Those vice-chancellors are not saying to the opposition, ‘Pass the bill because it is not split and there is pressure on you’ or anything like that; those vice-chancellors are saying to the opposition, ‘Pass the bill because, as a matter of substance, it has the merits right.’ That is what those 39 vice-chancellors around the country are saying.

I would ask the opposition to take seriously the advice of people who lead universities and deal with students every day. I would also ask the opposition to seriously think about the contribution made by state education ministers around the country, including the minister who serves for the Liberal government in Western Australia. Can she be dismissed as a Labor stooge? Can she be dismissed as a fool? She is a person serving in a Liberal government and she is saying to the opposition, ‘Pass this bill.’

In his contribution, the shadow minister deliberately distorted, yet again, the propositions in this bill. I assume he actually understands this and that he does this deliberately, but maybe he does not understand it. When he speaks, he constantly assumes that the only way someone can get youth allowance is by qualifying as independent. That is simply not right. The force of our changes is that students do not have to go and show themselves to be independent. The force of our changes is that they can be assessed, including country students, on their parental income.

Let us look at these changes together. When kids are assessed on their parental income rather than on their own, the age of independence is going to be progressively reduced from 25 to 22. So, in full operation, we are talking about the eligibility of kids who have left high school and gone to university and who are 22 years of age or less. We are talking about assessing them on their parental income. We have made the parental income test generous enough so if a family earns $140,000 a year but has two students who need to move away from home in order to study they will qualify for youth allowance. Once they qualify for any youth allowance, they will qualify for our student start-up scholarships and our relocation scholarships—$4,000 in the first year if they need to move.

We are making the parental income the prime way of qualifying for youth allowance for students who are 22 years old or younger. We believe that is a fairer system rather than requiring students to take a gap year in order to try and qualify, which is what happens now. Members of the opposition know that that is what happens now, and it is what leads to the distortions where students who have done a bit of work then go and live at home in $300,000 a year households and get a full youth allowance. I note opposition members shaking their heads, but they are the facts—demonstrably the facts. It actually happens.

This scheme: 150,000 scholarships; a new parental income test; relocation scholarships—$4,000 in the first year; age of independence coming down; and the amount a student can earn in income from a part-time job going up before they start having youth allowance taken away from them. That is the scheme and no-one in the opposition, when they are thinking about these questions, should fall for the distorted view that the shadow minister has put today. What he has put today, as a matter of fact, is simply not right.

The opposition say: ‘We have got an amendment. The amendment’s all okay. Split the bill. All that will be fine.’ The opposition have had many amendments, but the most recently articulated amendment from the opposition is that the scholarships start and the new parental means test starts—so the more generous means test starts—but the changes to independence allowance do not. That means you get all the expenditure measures and none of the savings measures. The consequence of that is that you spend a billion dollars more on youth allowance.

When I rose to my feet in question time today, people made cracks like, ‘Take it out of the stimulus package.’ Anybody knows we are talking about permanent recurrent expenditure that will be in the forward estimates in two years time, four years time, six years time, eight years time, 10 years time. On the forward estimates, we are talking about an additional expenditure of a billion dollars. The government are not agreeing to an additional expenditure of a billion dollars. I note they are the same members of the previous Howard government who never once, in 12 long years, woke up and said to themselves, ‘Gee, I know, today’s the day to spend an extra billion dollars on students.’ It never happened, not in 12 years. Why should anybody believe that they are serious about it now?

I am challenging the opposition in two ways. I am challenging them to seriously think about voting for this legislation, but I am certainly laying down this challenge to the shadow minister: if he is going to defeat this bill, promising students an extra billion dollars of expenditure then, as a matter of good conscience, he must say that at the next election his political party will contest that election promising an extra billion dollars in student income support. If he cannot verify that his political party will put an extra billion dollars into student income support then everybody knows this is just playing politics—it is not anything more or anything less.

We have been here before with the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt. We were here at the end of 2008 when, ironically, to stop the national curriculum, the shadow minister for education refused to pass the funding bill for schools, and it looked like schools were going to be in chaos in 2009—not enough money to open their doors. He was threatening to do that. This matter is a direct replay because all the education stakeholders of significance are on our side, just as they were on our side during that school funding debate. In that school funding debate about national curriculum, which will be delivered next Monday, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, pulled the shadow minister into line and said: ‘This is ridiculous. Pass this bill.’ I am calling on the Leader of the Opposition to do just that: pull this shadow minister into line and pass this bill.

This is too important for the continued politics of the opposition. I have actually written to the opposition and said that if they have amendments that are fiscally prudent and meet the test of equity then I am more than happy to sit down, talk about them and negotiate with them. If the price of getting this legislation through is to satisfy the member for Sturt’s political face by having a meeting with him so he can put out a press release saying, ‘I went and told her,’ then, of course, I am willing to meet with the shadow minister. But, of course, what we have asked the opposition at every point is to be fiscally prudent and pass the test of equity. After all these months in between, they still have not written an amendment that passes that test. If the opposition are serious then I say that the Leader of the Opposition should respond to my correspondence asking for a fiscally prudent, equitable amendment. If they do not do that then it is all about their cheap politics. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are only days away from the time when university students are about to begin their studies for 2010. Some students have already begun their courses. But there are tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of students who do not know where their income support is going to come from for the year ahead. They do not know whether they should start their studies or not. They do not know whether a university degree is to be an elusive dream for them. They have worked a gap year and abided by the rules that were in place when they started the gap year. They took the advice of Centrelink and school councillors and did what they were told was the right way to qualify for income support for their university education. Now the time has come and they do not know whether they will qualify for the income support that they need.

The government can fix this problem today. The legislation for the new scholarships can be separated from the rest of the legislation. There will be an opportunity to vote on that in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The government can support that and wipe away all of the uncertainty and concern that the students of Australia are currently facing. They can deal with the legislation in a day and give people the confidence that they need. They can give them the opportunity to commence their education with the confidence that they may be able to afford to pay the bills.

There is enormous uncertainty and concern amongst students about this issue. Earlier today we heard the Prime Minister convulsing about a definition of ministerial responsibility and all sorts of changes to the way in which we might hold a minister accountable for his failure to responsibly deliver a program. Surely, under any definition of ministerial responsibility, the minister with responsibility for this issue should fix it. She should take responsibility, rather than walking away, and fix the problem.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She did.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she did walk away but she can fix the problem. She can deal with the issues, take ministerial responsibility and do the job that she is supposed to do. Instead, there is another new version of ministerial responsibility, which is that the ministerial responsibility for not passing this issue actually rests with the opposition leader or with the opposition spokesman. Somehow or other they are responsible for the failure of the government to deal with this issue in a proper and effective way. The fact is that ministerial responsibility rests with the minister and fixing the problem that the government has created rests with the government. It does not rest with the shadow minister or with the opposition. If she wants to accept her responsibility as a minister she can do it today and she can sweep away the worries and concerns of students across the nation.

Last year, against the advice that the minister had received, the government abolished the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships. That was vital support for students, in particular those from rural and regional areas. It enabled some of them to make the significant step of going to a capital city or a large provincial city and undertaking university education. The reality was that that income gave them the confidence to start. Others had chosen the gap year route, had worked their way through it and were ready to study away from home at university.

You would know well from your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that people in remote areas have only one-third the chance of getting a university degree that people who live in the cities have. I ask the minister in the context of her role as Minister for Social Inclusion to include the people of rural and remote areas in the education dream. Minister, If anyone is serious about social justice, social equity and social inclusion in this nation then they cannot regard that figure as acceptable.

We must work to find ways of supporting people making the significant change in their lives of opening a new home far away from families, friends and support groups to give themselves and their families a better chance in life and to bring back their professional skills to their rural towns. They can train to be doctors, lawyers, accountants or engineers and come back to the regional communities to help build up the skills in those towns. You cannot do that unless you get can get a fair go at an education. The reality is that the government is not prepared to put in place mechanisms which give rural and regional students a fair go.

All of this arose, the government told us, because they were concerned that some wealthy families in cities were able to qualify for the independent youth allowance. I acknowledge that there were deficiencies in the old scheme and it is reasonable that they should be corrected, but you do not have to get rid of the entire scheme for everybody in order to deliver those reforms. We are prepared to make those changes. We will support those kinds of constructive changes to the youth allowance scheme, but do not introduce a 30-hour work test which you know no student in regional Australia can ever pass.

They are no jobs in regional communities that offer the 30 hours a week for 18 months needed for them to qualify. The work that comes up in regional communities is generally seasonal. They may work 60 hours a week for a few months, earn the qualifying amount of money and then be able to receive a university education. The government is ruling out this option. There were a few jobs around in regional Australia over the last few months installing batts in ceilings but they did not last very long. They may have paid quite a bit of money for a short-term program of that nature and enabled students to qualify, but the program is gone and the opportunity for those people to work to qualify for the independent youth allowance has gone with it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you and many other members, particularly in regional areas, have heard hundreds of stories of students who have been left in the lurch by the government’s failure to address the independent youth allowance question. There are many stories from people who are concerned about where this scheme has gone. The government talks about having an education revolution, but it is not an education revolution when you deny people an opportunity to go to university. Leisha, from Geraldton, wrote last month to say that she had studied hard to get an acceptable score for university in Perth. She took a gap year in 2009 and worked full-time to try to qualify for the youth allowance and live in an expensive city. Now she faces taking on a full-time job while studying in an effort to make ends meet.

I got an email from Michael of Gladstone, who did try the full-time job route while he was at university in Brisbane. He could not manage that workload and do his studies as well. He decided to take a gap year to try to earn sufficient money so that he would be able to complete his university studies. Roz, a parent and a drought-stricken primary producer near Toowoomba, wrote desperately seeking action and information for her daughter about what was going to apply. She said: ‘I need an urgent reply as she has only nine days to make a decision about whether she is going to defer, and she needs to know what the possibilities are.’ That was months ago and the government still has not given these people an answer. The Isolated Children’s Parents Association and the Country Education Foundation wrote repeatedly to the minister to make it clear that the work test she was proposing would simply deny access to every student from regional areas who wanted to qualify. That is not fair. That is not the way to deal with an issue of this nature.

The minister now has an opportunity to correct those problems. She will have an opportunity to split the legislation to enable the scholarships to go forward, to enable students to commence their academic year. Is she going to vote against her own Commonwealth scholarships? Is she going to vote for what she has been proposing? Michael from Gladstone called it ‘terrible legislation’. Now it can be fixed. Will the minister finally give some level of belated certainty to students and their parents? The ball is in the government’s court. There is ministerial responsibility on the line. It is not the opposition’s fault, it is not the opposition spokesman’s fault; it is the government’s fault, because the government has failed—(Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to talk in this debate because, as members would appreciate, the University of Wollongong sits in my electorate. It is a university that is actively engaged in supporting young people from rural and regional New South Wales and, indeed, from across the country, to attend university. I regularly go over to International House, where many of them stay whilst they are studying, and meet with them and talk about the issues they are facing.

What are we actually dealing with here? Let us look at a little bit of history in this area. Students used to be able to qualify as independent at a much younger age than they currently can. At the moment, they have to be 25. Any parent will tell you that it is a challenge for a young person to have to ask you, up to the age of 25, to support them. They are in the transition to adulthood and they want to be quite independent. How did that become the case? Let us remember how we got to the age of 25 as the age for independence. The previous government consistently raised the age that a young person had to be before they could qualify for the independent rate to start with. These young people then thought: ‘I don’t want to be a burden on mum and dad. What are my options? What am I going to do? The only loophole is if I go out and get a job, put off my university study, delay my life for a year or two, and try to get a job and earn an income so that I can qualify as independent.’ That is how we got to the position that those on the other side are supposedly so concerned about now. They created the situation in the first place.

It was an inequity that had serious educational effects, because we know that when young people delay the opportunity to take up their studies—not from choice but because they feel they have to take up employment—there is a significant risk that they will not actually go back to university. That is why the other bit of history is important in this debate. What is that? During the 12 years of the previous government, the number of regional and rural students participating in tertiary education was going down. For all their fear and concern for these students, what were they doing? Absolutely nothing.

At this point in time we have before us the Bradley review that in effect pinged this problem well and truly. There was also the situation, which the Deputy Prime Minister has talked about, where very well to do families, often with businesses, said to their own kids: ‘This is a nice way we can go. Why don’t I put you on in the family business and you can work for a year or two and then you will qualify?’ Do not shake your head, because I know people who did it. The reality is that there were people who were not in regional or remote areas who actually took an opportunity to get their children to qualify for this payment when they were earning $200,000 or $300,000 a year.

The Bradley review has quite rightly said that we should target these payments to make sure that those who most need them get them. What are we doing? Firstly, we are increasing the parental income level so that more of those young people are not forced to make that decision in the first place. Their family income will allow them to qualify for youth allowance where, under the previous government, it did not. That is what caused them to make those difficult decisions about delaying the commencement of their studies.

Secondly, we are decreasing the age, from 25 to 22, at which young people can qualify on their own independent income allowance. When you put those issues in context and look at the problems we are trying to address, which were created under the previous government, it baffles me that we have yelling and outrage from the other side about what we are trying to do to support these rural and regional students. At the end of the day, where we are now is that there were some legitimate issues, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated, that some from the other side of the House and some from this side of the House raised around the transitional arrangements through the bill.

We had that conversation. We now have a range of amendments that the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to—four significant ones. I indicate to the Leader of the Nationals, who was talking about the 30 hours per week requirement, that there is an averaging provision in those amendments to address that issue. There is a review process. There is a task force in place to keep a record of how that is progressing and to raise transitional issues that may come up along the way. There is also the $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund. In bringing this bill before the House again, the Deputy Prime Minister has taken into consideration the sensible amendments that needed to be made to make that transition work.

It is absolutely true that this is a matter of public importance. Why is it a matter of public importance? Because these young people start uni on Monday. Let’s just have a look at how many we have: 150,000 university students who receive youth allowance, Abstudy or Austudy who are waiting to receive their $2,254 start-up scholarship. They can get that—if the legislation is passed through this parliament. The parental income test will be raised, so that families with two children studying away from home can earn more than $140,000 before their allowance is cut completely—if this legislation passes this House. There are students who choose to move to study who may be eligible for an additional relocation scholarship worth $4,000 in the first year of their study plus a subsequent $1,000 for each year after that—only if this legislation passes. From 1 July 2012, if this legislation is passed, students will be able to earn up to $400 a fortnight—that is up from the current $236 level—without having their payment reduced. Finally—the point that I made before—the age of independence will reduce progressively from 25 to 22 by 2012. That will see an estimated 7,600 new recipients of the independent rate of allowance—if the legislation passes this parliament. There are many, many students looking at commencing their university studies next week. Their families and their university communities are waiting to see the outcome of this legislation. They are anxious about how their financial arrangements are going to be coordinated. That is why this is a matter of public importance today.

I also want to make the point, which the Deputy Prime Minister has already made, that there is almost universal agreement that this needs to be passed. What do I mean by ‘universal agreement’? I mean the fact that every state and territory education minister, including the Liberal education minister in Western Australia—an education minister whom I would have thought would have a very good understanding of the issues of rural and regional students—is saying to the opposition: ‘You have made your point. Amendments have been put in place. Get on with passing the legislation.’ Every university group—and we have seen the 39 vice-chancellors—across the country is saying: ‘The reality, for the best interests of the students that we are seeing commence their studies next week, is that this bill, and the amendments that were sensibly put in place, meets all the requirements. Get on with passing it.’ On top of that, we see the Australian Greens and Senator Xenophon in the Senate saying: ‘We agree that the amendments that are being put in place are sensible and reasonable. Get on with passing the bill.’ I could go on and point out that every Independent other than Senator Fielding, I understand, in this parliament has said: ‘We had concerns. We went to the government. We have looked at the amendments. They are sensible. They address the problems. Get on with passing the bill.’

So how did we end up here today? I am sad to say that I believe it is simply and purely because the shadow minister does not know when to stop punching. He does not know when to say: ‘This is a good outcome. In the interests of the country rather than my politics, get on with passing the bill.’

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

I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance, because I am one of those regional members who has repeatedly made representations to the minister directly and here in this House on behalf of students in my electorate. One question the minister and the other members who have spoken here today has failed to answer is: where will students who have to use that 30 hours of work a week to qualify for youth allowance actually get a job? That is a really core issue for those of us who represent rural and regional students. Those families are saying to us that that is the very issue. It is the very issue behind most of the phone calls and emails: where will students who need to qualify for youth allowance using the 30 hours of work a week provision actually be able to find a job?

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 30 hours on average.

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

Even so, where do young people find 30 hours of work a week, average, in my electorate? There are small towns in my electorate. Where do young people in Brunswick, Pemberton, Donnybrook or Harvey find an average of 30 hours of work a week in an 18-month period? That is the question that has not been answered. That is the question that people in my electorate want answered, because for them that is often the only pathway to qualify for youth allowance. It is often the only way so many young people have qualified previously. They are very seriously concerned about this, and I am very genuine in standing up here representing the issues that affect my rural and regional students and their families. This is a very important issue.

I notice that it took a lot of representation. We have seen that the Country Education Foundation and the Isolated Children’s Parents Association have been very concerned about the government’s changes. They are all well aware of them because, like me, they actually live in a rural or regional area and they know that you cannot find 30 hours of work a week, average, in 18 months. They know that, like I do, because that is where we live and work. As has been said in this House, we on this side of the parliament actually represent the majority of regional areas and students in those areas, so we certainly know.

One of the things the Minister for Education said was that parents who have two children at university and who are earning $140,000 will qualify for youth allowance. I understand that the member for Riverina—and I have a piece of paper provided by the member for Riverina—has checked that on the website calculator and that it would actually amount to $2.80 per fortnight per child.

I look at the retrospectivity in this bill and I look at those young people who last year did a gap year. They took advice from their school careers advisers and they took advice from Centrelink and they did the 12 months of gap year on the understanding that they would be able to qualify for youth allowance. Now we know that only 5,000 of those, under the changes that the government has proposed, will actually be able to claim youth allowance, while there are at least 25,000 young people who will not—25,000 young people who completed that gap year in the full belief that they would qualify for youth allowance. They are from the same families who are saying to us, ‘Our children cannot afford to go on to university.’

So it is very important that people, like me and others, who have made representations on this issue do so, because we have to represent the issues that concern those young people. We have offered to split this bill. We have offered to pass the Commonwealth Scholarships and we will continue to stand up for rural and regional students in this parliament.

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

This is an issue that has been revolving in the parliament for many months now. I think a number of points have been scored by both sides in the politics of this issue, but it is becoming a very serious issue for a lot of people—parents and young people out there who are trying to make decisions about their futures. I would just like to make a plea on their behalf that, if there is a way in which both sides can make some adjustments to get this legislation through in one shape or another so that there is some certainty for those young people in the next month, we make every effort to do so.

This is a classic issue where it is very easy to develop political fear, and I have heard some of it today, particularly from the Leader of the National Party. He was essentially talking about the old legislation that has since been amended. That is all very nice from the perspective of scoring political points, but it frightens people in the electorates that we all represent here today. I would not suggest that the legislation which the Minister for Education has put before the parliament is perfect, but the Independents and others, I know, took some of their retrospectivity issues to the minister, and there have been adjustments. The minister talked through those adjustments concerning the gap students and the $150,000 figure—that is, that students living at home in families with incomes greater than $150,000 will miss out. I do not think anyone would complain about that arrangement for gap year students in those circumstances.

There are some very important points here. I know the government plays the income card and the opposition plays the independence test card, but I would implore both of them to look closely at what individual families will actually access under the new arrangements. There are still issues, Minister, in relation to those country kids who have no choice but to leave home. That is a valid issue that needs to be addressed, but some of the claims that are being made on the other side of the chamber—about young people not getting anything if they do not qualify under the youth allowance independence test—are nonsense. You need to look at the numbers, work through the family income with the individual, look at the circumstances of the student start-up scholarships and the Commonwealth scholarships and put the numbers together. There are numerous examples and, if I have time, I will work through some.

We have to make assumptions here, of course. We will assume two children living away from home—one in year 1 and the other a continuing student. Based on a family income of $60,000, the youth allowance for that family would be $25,316. Based on a family income of $80,000, the youth allowance, including the start-up scholarships et cetera, would be $21,327. For that family, based on an income of $100,000—the previous scheme would have cut out much earlier—youth allowance would be $17,338. I know there have been some issues about what the minister said concerning the $140,000 figure, but in a family with an income of $138,000 and two students, one in year 1 and the other in year 2, student 1 would get $6,250—I do not think that has changed—and student 2 would get $3,250, plus the nominal youth allowance amount. Anyone gaining one dollar of youth allowance will access the scholarships, so the system is different.

It seems to me that the coalition wants the best of the old system and the best of the new system and is saying, ‘Hang what’s in the middle.’ What we have to do is look very closely at what this means to parents and students, not to politicians. This is a critical time for those people. I would urge senators, particularly Senator Fielding, to have a close look at this and to work through some examples. I had talks with Steve Fielding last year about possible ways to assist this legislation to get through the parliament—to get both sides to agree. It is not perfect and it probably never will be, but there are parts of it that are better than the old scheme—much better. There is still the issue, Minister—and, as I said, it is a legitimate issue—of country kids who are going to find great difficulty getting that 30 hours a week. I know there are some averaging provisions now, but it still leaves a gap. I understand that most of those kids will access youth allowance through their family incomes, but there is a group of students who are still going to find it difficult—students who cannot live at home, who have no university next door and who will have to leave home both to find work and to go to university. I think that is the grey area that really needs some consideration. If negotiation can take place in that area, I think it would be appreciated. (Time expired)