'ath Yvette (the Deputy Speaker):

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Menzies has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The question now is that this will be now read a second time.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It is a bill that will have a positive effect on many of my constituents in Parramatta and it is a bill which delivers on a number of election commitments that the government made prior to the 2010 election—commitments that I was pleased to see made and which I am even more pleased to see on their way to delivery today.

There were three main election commitments and all are very special for people in my electorate. The first was to provide for baby bonus claimants to have a large proportion of their baby bonus paid to them up-front from 1 July 2011. The second one provided benefits to families with children aged between 16 and 19 who are in full-time secondary or vocational education, and the third extended the pension work bonus to better reflect the realities of many pensioners who work on an ad hoc or part-time irregular basis. It is these last two that I am particularly going to speak about today.

The bill through its improvements to the work bonus expands on a great deal of work we have already done when it comes to pensions. We delivered the Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform package back in September 2009 that already built on a $500 bonus which was paid to pensioners in 2008. But the provisions introduced through that Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform package were the most significant reforms to the pension system in 100 years and they were reforms that were well and truly overdue.

We introduced a one-off increase in the base rate of the pension, a new pension supplement, a pension work bonus and a new indexation system. From 20 September we delivered one-off increases of $32.49 per week for singles who receive the maximum rate of the pension, and $10.14 a week combined for couples on the maximum rate. These increases were made up of a rise in the base rate for single pensioners and a new increased pension supplement for all pensioners.

We also changed indexation arrangements to make them fairer and to respond to pressures on the cost of living, indexing them twice yearly. In fact, from 20 March this year pensioners receive an extra $13.20 per fortnight for singles on the maximum rate, and $19.80 a fortnight for couples on the maximum rate, and increases every six months tend to reflect similar kinds of amounts. This is a significant improvement from the way the pensions were indexed before 2009.

We also increased the utilities allowance from $125 to $500 a year, and that utilities allowance was first paid in March 2008. For the first time the utilities’ allowance was also extended to all recipients of the carer payment, disability support pension, widow B pension, income support supplement, partner service pension, wife pension, and bereavement allowance. The Commonwealth seniors health card holders and certain veterans’ affairs gold card holders also received an increase in seniors concession allowance of $500 a year, which was paid quarterly in line with the utilities allowance. We also increased the telephone allowance to $132 a year for those who have the internet at home. This is available for eligible veterans, income support recipients of age pension and a number of others who have home internet connection—all very important contributions to the quality of life of seniors in my electorate and around the country.

We also provided extra assistance for dental and aged-care costs and worked with state and territory governments to introduce national reciprocal transport concessions for older Australians with a seniors card when they travelled interstate. All these reforms have meant that since September 2009 pensioners on the maximum rate have had their pensions increased by around $115 a fortnight for singles and $97 a fortnight for couples combined. These are changes to the circumstances of pensioners that I am very proud of.

This bill builds on that work by improving the existing work bonus. We have already introduced a work bonus which provides that the first $250 of $500 that a pensioner earns each fortnight would be exempt from tax. But the reality for many pensioners is that they do not work regular weekly jobs; they actually work for a number of weeks of the year. For example, some of them may work in schools, so they may work 40 weeks of the year and they do not get paid for the remaining 12. Others may come back at tax time—they may be a retired accountant who works for a few weeks or a few months around tax time. For them, because their income is averaged over the year, the amount that they earn perhaps impacts on their pension more than it should. This change to the work bonus recognises that. It allows a pensioner to earn $250 a fortnight without it being assessed as income under the income test, and pensioners are able to build up any unused amount of their $250 bonus every fortnight to a maximum of $6,500 a year. Pensioners will effectively be able to annualise their income and carry forward an income bank of up to $6,500 across years.

In Parramatta we have a significant number of pensioners, currently about 21½ thousand of them, with all sorts of work arrangements. It is a very large number of pensioners for one electorate. You can compare that to Warringah or Wentworth, which have about 11,000. I am very pleased to see this legislation introduced to parliament today because it will dramatically impact on many of their lives.

The second thing I want to talk about was, again, a great announcement made during the election campaign, and it is great to see it delivered through legislation today. There was a promise to reform the family payment system to encourage more teenagers to stay at school and to help families meet the higher costs of older children. It is very important that students finish their education because it gives them the best possible chance to fully participate in life, to get a job and the skills they need to flourish in society. The ‘How young people are faring’ report of 2008 found that young people who leave school early without adequate qualifications struggle in the move from school to work. They are at high risk of becoming disadvantaged and they are at high risk of spending long periods of time out of work, especially in times of economic slowdown. We also know that children from low-income families have lower levels of school completion.

We want to stop the cycle of disadvantage and target support for children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds so that they can gain a foothold in society and have what so many of us take for granted. A strong educational system will compensate for an unequal start. As the Prime Minister stated when first making these election promises:

I don’t want to live in a nation where we stand by and kids can get lost. They can get lost out of their school journey: they can fall out of school, fall out of work, end up in aimlessness, drifting through their latter teenage years, meaning that for the rest of their lives, they will probably struggle to get a job and hold down a career.

What we want to do is to make sure we are investing in kids so they can stay in school.

As early as 1999, researchers such as R Cowie were finding that deliberately targeted federal government policy such as the Hawke government’s Participation and Equity Program, a successor to the Disadvantaged Schools Program, could significantly reduce the numbers of young people leaving full-time education. This government is doing all we can to undo the effects of the inertia around educational opportunity that characterised the Howard years.

One of the great failures of the Howard government was its inability to accept the recognised link between investment in education and innovation on one hand and economic growth on the other. Under the Howard government, Australia was the third lowest investor in primary and secondary schooling in the OECD and spent twice as much as other OECD countries on private education. His government cut programs like the Disadvantaged Schools Program, which was started under the Whitlam government, and we are facing the consequences of his lack of vision.

For the last decade of the Howard government retention rates to year 12 in Australia did not improve in any meaningful way. They increased from 40 per cent to 72 per cent under the previous Hawke and Keating governments and essentially stagnated between 72 per cent and 74 per cent for the next 12 years. Those retention rates are low by OECD standards. I point out that 12 years is the length of time it takes a child to go through school from start to finish, so it is clearly more than enough time to impact on the number of children that stay at school. This government is committed to improving year 12 or equivalent vocational completion rates and to reach our target of a 90 per cent year 12 attainment rate by 2015. We have already seen retention rates increase to around 78 per cent in 2010.

This bill is a great example of how tackling this issue in a holistic way through a number of initiatives across portfolio areas contributes to strong outcomes. We are spending $723 million over four years on our National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions program to improve retention rates. This includes $100 million for the states and territories in reward payments for increasing school participation. We are investing heavily in early childhood education because the research shows that this is crucial to retaining students long term. The National Partnership on Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities which will address the complex challenges facing students in disadvantaged communities will also ensure that children from those areas do not fall through the gaps.

This bill goes further, by helping families whose children are between 16 and 19 to keep those children in school. Under the existing system, the maximum tax benefit part A drops from $214 per fortnight to $53 a fortnight when a child turns 16. This is a significant drop in income and encourages teenagers to leave school early if their family is unable to support them in full-time study or training. We all know that the costs of children do not go down as kids grow up. This bill raises the minimum rate for family tax benefit part A. Payment rates for eligible children aged 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary or vocational educational will be the same as for 13- to 15-year-olds.

As promised, the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A will be increased by around $160 per fortnight, a significant increase for families in the low- to middle-income bracket. Over the next five years, the families of around 590,000 teenagers will benefit from up to $4,000 per year in additional financial assistance. These amendments will also mean that older children will now be eligible to be considered a rent assistance child. Rent assistance was previously only claimable for 13- to 15-year-olds. We are also simplifying the system by helping families with kids under the age of 18, making FTBA the main payment for at-home children in high school or a vocational education equivalent.

This bill targets issues that are very real for many families in Parramatta. Around 23.3 per cent of Parramatteans have a schooling level lower than year 11, and in Merrylands this rises to 32.5 per cent. We have an incredible amount of work to do with our younger generation in areas such as this to improve those statistics. There are more than 16,000 families in Parramatta receiving family tax benefit part A, and many of these families potentially stand to benefit from the bill before us.

On average, nearly 20 per cent of Parramatteans are classified as low-income households. In Dundas Valley this rises to 23.9 per cent and in Telopea to 27.5 per cent. These households receive less than $500 per week before tax, so the kinds of increases that we are talking about in family tax benefit part A are substantial for many, many families in the Parramatta region. These are sobering statistics, and ones that we are determined to do something about. In summary, I commend the bill before the House. As the Prime Minister has stated, no child’s fate should be predetermined before they reach adulthood.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to specifically support the amendments to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 put forward by the member for Menzies, and I note that the issue of an inequitable youth allowance is a matter that the Labor Party desperately do not want to talk about. They want it to go away and they certainly do not like the opposition talking about it. They do not want to debate it because they know that they have been wrong. We all know that most of those who sit opposite do not really have much affinity with country people because they do not represent many country electorates. I suspect, though, that some Labor members who do reside in or have some experience with regional areas must be as frustrated as we on this side of the House are regarding the government’s total neglect of and lack of respect for regional students and the particular difficulties and challenges they face in accessing tertiary education.

We have a Prime Minister who loves nothing more than to gloat about her passion for education. She talks about education as the great equaliser and says she believes that every young person deserves the right to a quality education. If that is the case then her actions need to match her rhetoric. If you look at the Prime Minister’s position on the youth allowance, it becomes clear that her statements regarding education are nothing more than empty platitudes designed to give the impression that she genuinely cares about educational equality, but when it comes to regional students it seems she does not. Labor’s changes to the youth allowance legislation fly in the face of everything the Prime Minister supposedly stands for and they exemplify a very inequitable and hypocritical position taken against country students.

When these ridiculous, discriminatory changes were legislated, there was uproar within the rural and regional student community. Students in my electorate were absolutely gobsmacked. Having been advised of the rules that applied to youth allowance eligibility, they planned their gap years and made appropriate arrangements, only to discover that everything they had been told was about to change. Labor effectively said: ‘Well, too bad. You can’t go to university anymore; we’ve decided to change the rules.’ In fact, they have not even apologised about the distress and the disorientation they caused in regard to the academic careers of many country students. They arrogantly lectured country students that the Gillard government knew what was best for them.

Now I am somewhat encouraged that, after some 12 months of pressure and much community activity—and I commend all of those who have been involved in community rallies and who have pressured their member of parliament, particularly Labor members—the Labor Party has admitted that it got it wrong. However, its commitment to the Independents to bring forward a review of the youth allowance to report by 1 July this year does not address the problem now, and there are students now who are faced with this inequality created by the government’s legislation. Furthermore, Labor has not given any firm commitment to fixing the independent youth allowance problems.

In a media release, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, stated:

The review will report by 1 July this year, and the Government will move to implement any new eligibility arrangements from 1 January 2012.

Senator Evans said the review will consider appropriate savings that can be made to pay for any extensions in eligibility for Youth Allowance. Any new arrangements must be offset by savings.

So, even if they do make the appropriate changes after the review, it is going to be too little too late for those classified as inner regional students who left school in 2009 and had a gap year in 2010, as they are now still required to work an average of 30 hours a week and defer their studies up to two years. Had the coalition’s bill passed, they would now be relieved of these unfair criteria. Last year’s school leavers are also left in limbo, wondering what to expect after the review, and there are clearly already cracks in Labor’s deal with the Independents and, of course, many unanswered questions.

How can regional students and their families trust Labor to deliver on this promise given this government’s dismal record on delivering on its promises? They cannot, and that is what is creating great anxiety out there in rural and regional communities. Labor has shown nothing but arrogant disregard for country students. There has been report after report and survey after survey that clearly illustrates the divide between country and city students. There are clear disadvantages that are faced by students from non-metropolitan areas. You would think that any reasonable government, particularly one that purports to place education high on its list of priorities, would make it a priority to address the imbalance between rural and city students. Yet not only has the Labor Party not sought to remedy this inequity; they have actually made it worse.

For the benefit of those who sit on the other side, it is important to put some facts on the table. I appreciate that the Labor Party has a limited understanding of some of these issues, so it is important to put them on the record. Firstly, most students from regional areas need to relocate to attend a university because there is no university in their local town, and often one that is there may not offer the appropriate courses that they wish to pursue.

Secondly, public transport is severely limited or nonexistent for towns that are close to large regional centres with tertiary institutions. In most cases, students actually have to drive or get their parents to drive them. Take, for example, a couple of local young women in my electorate, Stephanie Butler and Eliza Flanagan. They drive more than 150 kilometres from Wangaratta to Charles Sturt University over the border in Thurgoona because they cannot afford to live out of home. If Labor had not inflicted these discriminatory rules on the youth allowance, Stephanie and Eliza would have been able to move closer to Thurgoona and commit considerably more time to their studies. They would not have to spend about two hours a day on the road and hundreds of dollars a week on petrol. But Stephanie and Eliza are the lucky ones; fortunately for them, their courses are offered at a university relatively close to home. What about students who want to study courses that are only on offer in city universities? Does this government expect them to drive more than three hours each way to attend classes?

The reality is that the 30-hour workplace rule that Labor has inflicted upon country students is so strict that most students from areas classified as inner regional areas will be unable to qualify for the higher, of course, independent rate of youth allowance, and many of them will not get the opportunity to go to university at all as a consequence. The requirement to average either 120 hours in each of the 19 periods of four weeks or 390 hours in each of the six periods of 13 weeks is quite simply unworkable and unreasonable.

What the Labor Party does not understand is that much of the work that is available in country Australia is actually seasonal. People work very long hours during the busy times of sowing, picking, mustering and harvesting, but the work is not available on an even scale throughout the year. It makes life extremely difficult for students attempting to meet these ridiculous criteria. Manufacturing and factories in regional areas also have seasonal work available: it is not always an option to have the same hours available for part-time, casual or even permanent staff. Let us be very clear from the outset: if these rules introduced by the Labor Party remain in place, fewer country students will actually attend university.

This point goes beyond the realms of education; it goes to the sustainability of regional economies. Country Australia faces many challenges, and labour shortages are one of the biggest challenges impacting on growth in regional and remote Australia. Countless studies have shown that people who are most likely to live and to work in the bush and those who are most likely to take career steps away from the urban environment are those who have spent time in regional Australia. Whilst there may be a percentage of workers in the areas of health, education and public administration who come from the city to work in country Australia, most serve their obligatory two or three years and return to the cities. But the ones who tend to stay on and serve country communities for greater periods of time, often in a more meaningful way, are those who originally came from country Australia themselves. They are the ones who are our long-term workers and community leaders.

If we place university participation hurdles in front of those who come from regional areas classified as inner regional areas, we will actually shrink the pool of people who serve and work in country Australia. Our higher education students who come from inner regional areas are exactly the same people who often want to stay longer in regional and remote Australia when they commence and continue their careers. By denying them an opportunity to gain a higher education—which is effectively what is happening to many of them through these changed eligibility rules on the youth allowance—we are in the long term denying rural Australia the ability to attract and retain the much-needed workers.

With all of this in mind, I do respectfully ask the regional Independent members of the House to consider the impact of the Labor Party’s legislation on their own communities. I am sure that there are plenty of students in the electorates of New England and Lyne who are just like Stephanie and Eliza from Wangaratta. I am sure that there are aspiring students in those electorates who want nothing more than to pursue their dreams of tertiary education to find meaningful roles for themselves in their communities and to contribute to them in a meaningful way. I am also sure that those communities face the very same challenges that communities in my electorate in north-east Victoria face.

If we are serious about maintaining the viability and facilitating the prosperity of communities outside major cities then we need to lay the appropriate social infrastructure and foundations for future growth. That necessarily demands fair access to support during tertiary education studies. If we want to maintain first-class services and retain skilled workers in country Australia, we cannot continue to place hurdles in front of aspiring students.

I understand the difficult position that this puts the member for New England and the member for Lyne in, because both have previously sided with the Labor government in relation to youth allowance, but I ask them to please consider the pleas of students not only in their own electorates but in electorates across Australia. They have an opportunity to fix in a constructive way a mess that has been created by this government—an opportunity that often does not happen in this place in the term of the same government. It is an opportunity to right a wrong and an opportunity to help create a better life for regional communities.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to be speaking in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Labor has always been at the forefront of ensuring fairness for those most in need in our community. We saw it in our first term of government—2008, 2009 and 2010—with the reforms that we took up in relation to families and pensioners. We saw an increase in the childcare benefit to assist those families most in need with their costs. We saw it with the increase in the base pension rate and the change to the indexation to ensure that adequate increases were occurring in line with cost-of-living pressures. We saw it, when the government needed to step forward to deal with the global financial crisis, in how it gave money to individuals and homeowners through the stimulus package. That stimulus package went to those most in need in our communities.

This is just another step in Labor’s commitment to those most in need in our community to ensure fairness in how we deal with them and also how we provide support for them in the workplace and in the home. That is why it is my pleasure to support all of the initiatives in this bill—for example, the work bonus. My electorate has a large elderly population—over 20 per cent of my electorate are 65-plus—and they welcome this initiative. The groups that I have had the opportunity to talk to at retirement villages about these improvements in the work bonus certainly look forward to these changes being implemented. We came a long way with the Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform package in 2009, when we introduced the work bonus. Now, arising from our commitment in the 2010 election, we take that even further to help those in our community.

So what does this bill provide for? The amendments contained in this bill have two main components in relation to the work bonus. Firstly, the first $250 of employment income a fortnight, rather than 50 per cent of the first $500 as it is currently, is excluded from assessment under the income test for pensioners of age pension age or qualifying age. Secondly, an employment income concession bank is introduced to enable pensioners to accrue any unused amounts of the $250 fortnightly exemption to a maximum of $6,500. Any credit in this bank could then offset employment income that would otherwise be assessable in the future. This is a great benefit to those in our community who are retired and on the pension and want to supplement their pension but who quite often do it irregularly. For example, they may pick up some extra work at Christmastime. We have heard the example that many may help with tax returns at the end of the financial year. This will give them the benefit of being able to accrue that concession bank and offset up to a maximum of $6,500. I am very proud of the improvements to the work bonus that will come about in accordance with this bill and that those changes will occur from 1 July 2011.

Second is the assistance for families with studying teenagers. As parents, whether your child is a teenager or not, we remember when we were teenagers, and the fact is that teenagers certainly do not eat less and certainly do not cost less when they are still living at home. I think this is an important amendment that is probably long overdue. We will probably all sit back and go, ‘Why wasn’t this done earlier by anybody?’ but the fact that it is a Labor government doing it should not surprise anyone. The fact is that we have acknowledged that children from 16 to 19 years old do cost more money, not less than and probably not even equal to younger children. We are bringing some equity to this.

And what does this amendment mean? From 1 January 2012, the maximum rate of family tax benefit A will increase by around $160 per fortnight for teenagers aged between 16 and 19 who are in secondary school or a vocational equivalent or who are exempt from this requirement. And it is important that we emphasise that these young people still need to be at school or in full-time vocational studies to be getting this, because we want these young people to be going out to get their education. But we need to support these families at home to help them deal with that. Under the existing system, the maximum rate of family tax benefit A drops from $214 per fortnight to $53 per fortnight when a child turns 16. It is unbelievable that that is the drop in the rate. It is with great pride that I stand here today as part of a Labor government to say we are going to bring equality in family tax benefit A for families with children up to the age of 19. Importantly, those children are still at school or in full-time vocational equivalent. So this is a great benefit that will assist families in my electorate.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tehan interjecting

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon may not care whether families in his electorate benefit from this—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tehan interjecting

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

The member for Wannon! You may want to get your chance to speak.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say very confidently that the families in his electorate who have teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 will appreciate this change that the Labor government is bringing in.

In addition, we are making improvements to the baby bonus. I am a big supporter of the changes we previously made to the baby bonus—that it be fortnightly payments. We also need to acknowledge that, when you are having a baby, there are up-front costs. There are costs involved in purchasing cots, nappies and all the things that come with having a baby. As any parent knows, although they do not eat a lot of food at that age, the family certainly do need a lot of things at home in those first few days and weeks. That is why it is important we are making these changes to the baby bonus.

There will be a part lump sum up front to assist families and the remainder of the payments will be made over a period of time. The baby bonus will be paid in 13 fortnightly instalments. As a result of this change, from 1 July 2012 claimants will receive $500 more in the 2011-12 financial year in the first fortnightly instalment, and then in the 12 subsequent fortnightly instalments they will receive the remainder of the baby bonus. I think that is a fair way to provide this assistance to families, and I certainly support it.

There are other important amendments. I guess too often across our society now we forget about the people who were affected by thalidomide. We should not, because there are still survivors of thalidomide in Australia. There are 36 Australians who are dealing with the devastating effects of the drug. They have birth defects as a consequence of their mother taking that drug. It is important that amendments are made to ensure fairness in relation to how the payments made to the survivors under the arrangement entered into by Diageo plc, which acquired the company that initially distributed the drug, affect their social security payments and the income and assets test. This is a really important amendment, and I certainly support it.

There are some other amendments in this bill in relation to income management. I do not intend to go through those in detail, but they are important measures that again go to improved administration and support for families and pensioners across my community and across the country. On that note, I reiterate that all the initiatives in this bill are important. They will see benefits flow to people in my electorate. They are commitments that the government made in the 2010 election. There are three election commitments and two non-budget measures dealt with in this bill. It is my pleasure to support this bill before the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of equality and fairness this afternoon and supporting the second reading amendment that should be made to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The amendment reads:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House require the government:

(1)

urgently to introduce legislation to reinstate the former workplace participation criteria for independent youth allowance, to apply to students whose family home is located in inner regional areas as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics instrument Australian Standard Geographical Classification; and

(2)

to appropriate funds necessary to meet the additional cost of expanding the criteria for participation.

It is an absolute disgrace, what the Gillard government have done—with the changes they have made to the independent youth allowance—to regional and rural students. They say they are a government of fairness. Well what they have done to regional and rural students is not fair. I have received numerous letters that highlight this fact.

I received a letter from Rosanne Baird, which states:

Dear Dan

I am writing to you regarding the current Austudy boundaries. Our son Nicholas has just completed a ‘gap year’ and is heading off to University of Ballarat to study business/sport management in late February. I contacted Centrelink today to see what he was eligible to claim.

Nic has worked hard for the past four years, commencing a part time job at the local supermarket, going onto full time during school holidays and then gaining full time employment once he had completed his VCE. He resigned from the supermarket in December 2010, and commenced at the local abattoir, working 40 hours per week.

It is therefore very disappointing to discover that he is not able to claim Austudy automatically, as we live in Stawell, 5 minute drive from us at Deep Lead is in the eligible area!!!!! I am at a loss to understand how these kids are to further their education under this system, we are rural people and all should be treated the same—making life a little easier for our kids.

I know we have to prove that Nic has earned ‘X’ amount of $ and worked ‘X’ amount of hours—this will not mean that he will be eligible—t only gives him a chance! My husband and I earn just on $100,000 per year, whilst it sounds okay, it is not enough to be able to support a full time student and another child still at school.

We are not eligible for anything under the family tax benefit because we earn too much!!!

The only answer for this family is for my husband or I to get a second job to support Nic in his studies.

I would be pleased if you would consider our plight, on behalf of average working families trying to support our kids education.

A second letter that I received is from Anna Zebra. It reads:

Dear Dan

It is with pleasure that I take the opportunity to write this letter to you after speaking with your office. I have been increasingly frustrated with the Youth Allowance situation and the fact that it directly disadvantages country students. I am more than happy for you to use our situation as an example, and will outline our story.

We have four children, and at this stage two have chosen to pursue a tertiary education, which in both cases involves them moving over two hours from home to do so. We live about 10 minutes from Hamilton in a small town called Tarrington. Unfortunately we are not in a financial position to support two children living away from home.

My daughter Jaz completed year 12 in 2008 and took a year off in 2009 to work and travel, then commenced her tertiary study in Melbourne in 2010. She qualified for Youth Allowance as an independant having satisfied the requirements, and is continuing to study and support herself this year.

My son Tyler completed year 12 in 2009 and also took the following year off to work so that he could also qualify for Youth Allowance. Unfortunately the requirements were changed …

And who changed them? We know—the Gillard government, in spite of their so-called fairness.

… in this period so that now due to the “zoning” rule he cannot receive the payment and will have to try to support himself in studies at Ballarat University.

I will outline his situation in point form below:

• completed year 12 2009
• accepted into Ballarat University; deferred position for 12 months to work
• worked full-time at Iluka for 12 months from Nov 09 to Nov 10
• tried to apply for Youth Allowance for tertiary study commencing in 2011 (realising he would not be able to receive any payments until a full 18 months had passed from the time he finished year 12), satisfied all the requirements as an independent student except the residential location, thus due to this he cannot receive any payments
• other students who live 10 minutes from us in towns such as Penshurst are zoned differently so will be able to qualify.

I hope that this is enough information for you to be able to use our case.

This poor boy—his older sister is getting independent youth allowance and going to university, he has met exactly the same requirements as she has and he cannot. Fellow students who live five to 10 minutes down the road are also eligible to get independent youth allowance, but he is not. This policy is an absolute disgrace. It is unequal, it is unfair and Prime Minister Gillard, whose policy this is, should act to change it immediately, because if she does not then she is disadvantaging regional and rural students.

I want to touch on a few points that are relevant here and go to the heart of the two amendments. I would especially hope that all rural and regional members of the ALP—and I know there are not a lot of them—would support us in making sure that these amendments are supported. Here are some facts about what we are dealing with. Finding full-time employment in regional areas and small communities is often very difficult for these students, so they have a hard time trying to just get the employment. When they do and they qualify we should enable them to get independent youth allowance so they can go and get a tertiary education. The legislation does not take into account seasonal employment sectors such as tourism and agriculture in regional areas, creating further barriers for regional students. So it is hardship upon hardship that the government is putting on these rural and regional students.

Rural and regional students face significantly increased costs associated with relocating for study; this is proven and factual, with no debate. Everyone knows that this is true, yet what we are seeing is a government that will not stand up and do the right thing by these students. Many regional students have no choice but to relocate to study. The major universities are in our capital cities. We have some, fortunately, in regional areas. We have a very good university, Deakin, in Warrnambool in my electorate, and RMIT in Hamilton, but unfortunately they do not yet offer the variety of subjects that all students need, so students are forced to go to the capital cities—and that costs them a serious amount of money. Evidence has shown that it is a financial barrier of between $15,000 and $20,000. These students are prepared to do the work so that they have some money to go to university, but what is the Gillard government doing? It is taking away from them the opportunity to get some assistance for these costs.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The education revolution!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the education revolution! It is all about education, all about fairness and all about equality—the so-called education revolution. All it has done is revolutionise the difficulty for these regional and rural students to access tertiary education, and there is not an issue that young people raise with me more than independent youth allowance and what this government has done to make it harder for them to go and get a tertiary education. We have had petitions. We have never seen such support for petitions that have been put in the offices of people right across the country, and I am sure that in Townsville the response has been equally strong as in Warrnambool, Hamilton and other areas where regional and rural students have been disadvantaged.

Another fact that we need to take into consideration is that students who defer tertiary studies for longer than 12 months are less likely to attend university. So it is not even a great policy to ask students to defer so that they can earn the income to qualify for independent youth allowance. Very few universities accept deferments longer than 12 months, meaning that those who have to work a 30-hour week for 18 months over a two-year period will have to give up their spot and reapply later. The university enrolment system that is in place also makes it harder for regional and rural students. Yet we have a government which continues to defend this shameful policy—which was introduced under the concept of fairness. There is nothing fair about it. In fact, a Senate inquiry found that 55 per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared with only 33 per cent of students from regional areas.

Given that fact, you would think that the government would be working towards assisting regional and rural students to go and get a tertiary education. You would think that they would like to close that gap. If your core belief is education, if that is at the heart of what brought you to this place, you would think that you would try to close that gap. Yet what we are seeing is a policy which is going to make that gap widen.

We are proposing a couple of amendments. I say to those opposite: if you want to do the right thing, if you want to get on the side of fairness, if you want to get on the side of equality, you will support our amendments. The figures and the facts are there for all to see. I could read into Hansard a lot more letters and a lot more cases than what I have outlined today. This policy is a disgrace. It is hurting and harming regional and rural students who want to get a tertiary education. We have two simple amendments to this bill. They are not complex. All you need to do is come across to this side and you will do something which will help to bridge the gap between regional and rural students and their city cousins.

We have no issue with 55 per cent of metropolitan students going on to tertiary education. That is a good statistic, and hopefully we can see that rise. But we need to also see an increase in the number of students from regional areas going on to get a tertiary education. Thirty-three per cent is not good enough. We need to get that figure up above 50 per cent. These two amendments will do it. I call on the two country Independents in particular to get behind these amendments, because their electorates are hurt by Prime Minister Gillard’s policy which has done more than anything to damage the attempt to bridge that gap. I call on the two rural Independents to get on the side of right, get on the side of fairness, and support the coalition on these two amendments. This is their chance to stand up for their electorates. It is their chance to get on the side of the coalition, which cares about regional and rural areas and which goes in to bat for regional and rural areas continually. This is their opportunity. Stop the game playing; these two amendments will do more than anything else to help these regional and rural students. I call on them to vote with us and to make sure that these two amendments get up.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing from the opposition today is politics. Before the House today we have some very sensible legislation, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Perhaps it is because this legislation deals with Labor election commitments that the opposition find that they just cannot deal with it. We have not heard from members of the opposition as to whether they will even support our sensible legislation which has been welcomed by the community. Instead they are playing politics with this important legislation. I am not sure why. Perhaps it is part of the Leader of the Opposition’s tactic to continually oppose everything, to start scare campaigns and to not work in a bipartisan way on anything.

It is not surprising that we have seen these tactics today. I am not sure when these tactics were dreamt up by the opposition, but before the House today we have some very sensible, important and meaningful legislation, and I hope that members of the opposition will actually address the substantive legislation and tell us whether or not they are going to vote yes for the substantive legislation. As I said, the reason for these tactics might be that this legislation delivers on Labor’s election commitments, but I would welcome the opposition showing some bipartisanship for once and working in the nation’s interest and in the community’s interest, because this legislation is widely supported.

I am pleased to support the substantive legislation. The Gillard government is committed to providing support and financial assistance to Australians who are most in need. This bill delivers on three significant election commitments that were made by Labor during the election to support families and senior Australians. The bill also gives effect to non-budget measures which will make things fairer for Australians affected by the morning sickness drug thalidomide and which will better support Australians on income management.

Firstly I would like to deal with the work bonus. This bill delivers on our commitment at the recent election to expand the existing seniors work bonus measure to allow working pensioners to keep more of their pension when they undertake paid employment. Introduced in September 2009 as part of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform package, the seniors work bonus allows for a certain amount of income earned by a person who is eligible for the age pension to be disregarded for the purposes of social security and veterans’ affairs income tests. This way, senior Australians are able to earn a little extra money to help out with everyday expenses without losing out when it comes to the government assistance they receive.

This initiative is about acknowledging the valuable contribution senior Australians who choose to undertake part-time work or occasional work make to our economy and to the communities around the nation. By providing financial incentives, we are encouraging other senior Australians to do the same if they wish. That is why we have committed to expanding the work bonus so that the first $250 earned in a fortnight will not be treated as income for the purposes of social security and veterans’ affairs income assessments. This will mean that senior Australians can earn more without affecting their pension.

Furthermore, this bill will make things fairer and simpler for senior Australians who undertake intermittent or seasonal work. Although the work bonus is an extremely popular initiative in my electorate of Kingston, a number of constituents have raised with me the fact that it is not always worthwhile participating in seasonal paid employment, because you can lose as much from your pension as you gain from the work. This often happens. We heard from the member for Petrie about accountants and people who just work at tax time. One of my constituents works as a Father Christmas—a job which I am sure many people can imagine is a very seasonal job. He raised this issue with me—as did a number of others. He said that, under the current system, the income he derives from his work in the Christmas period—although some might say that Father Christmas has to work all year round, but he specifically works during the Christmas period—is assessed for social security purposes and his pension is significantly reduced for that period, making it hardly worth his while to have undertaken the paid employment in the first place. One would say that it is a valuable job, because he does bring a lot of joy to the young people in the community—and it is unfair, because he does not earn any additional income for the rest of the year. This bill will do away with the anomaly by effectively annualising the work bonus.

Senior Australians will now be able to build up any unused amount of their $250 bonus every fortnight up to a maximum of $6,500. The income bank amount can be used to offset future employment earnings. Seasonal workers will now be able to save up their fortnightly work bonus throughout the year so that more income they derive from seasonal work will be exempt from the income test. This is a very important change, and a change that I think is wildly welcomed by many seasonal workers across the country. I urge the opposition to indicate whether or not they support this important change. As of yet, from the contributions from those opposite, we have not heard whether or not they do support these important measures.

In addition, this bill looks at assistance for families with studying teenagers. It delivers on our commitment to provide more financial assistance to families with teenagers who are still at school or a vocational education equivalent. We know that families are struggling with the rising costs of living, and it is not cheap to send children to school. We also know that the costs actually increase rather than reduce as children get older and their clothes and school supplies start costing more. That is why the government is increasing the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A by around $160 per fortnight for teenagers aged 16 to 19 years of age. This could mean up to $4,200 a year for Australian families with teenagers who are studying and will bring their rate in line with what is available for 13- to 15-year-olds.

Under the current system, the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A drops from about $208 per fortnight to $51 per fortnight when a child turns 16 and rent assistance stops completely at this point. This sharp drop in financial assistance can make it really tough for parents to continue to support their children to finish their studies. I have heard from many people in my electorate just how tough this is. We as a government want to make sure that we encourage families to encourage their children to stay at school and to finish year 12, because we know that finishing year 12 is a passport to the rest of their educational life. So it is incredibly important. As the member for Petrie said, it is not surprising but it is a Labor government that is bringing this in. This is something that we committed to in the election and we are now delivering on in this parliament.

We are investing in education to raise secondary school or vocational equivalent completion rates for all Australians regardless of their socioeconomic background. We do not want the suburb people live in to be a barrier to reaching their potential to gaining an education. That is why this measure is so important. By providing greater assistance to families of teenagers at this critical point, we are helping to reduce the financial pressures associated with supporting teenagers who are studying and we are helping to diminish the necessity for teenagers to leave school to support themselves. There are 2,150 local families in my electorate who are set to benefit from the increased financial assistance and around 590,000 families are expected to benefit nationally over the next five years alone. This is about making a real difference, and it is this government that is doing that.

Youth allowance will of course still be available for teenagers aged 18 who are independent and eligible for the away-from-home rate and not in full-time secondary study. This payment will continue to provide ongoing support to young people as they progress into further education and training.

The third element is improvements to the baby bonus. Additionally, this bill will improve the way the baby bonus operates so that parents of newborns are better equipped to meet the initial costs associated with adopting or having a new baby. The birth of a child is a wonderful time for parents but it can also be a stressful time. The baby bonus recognises the extra costs incurred at the time of birth and helps parents with some of these expenses. Under the current rule the baby bonus is paid in 13 fortnightly instalments. This is really important to ensure that there is ongoing support over that initial period of time. However, the changes that we are bringing in today recognise that there are some up-front costs when having a baby and that a little extra cash does go a long way at the time of having a baby.

From 1 July 2011 parents of newborn babies who receive the baby bonus on or after the date will receive $500 more in the first fortnightly instalment than the 12 subsequent instalments to assist in meeting the initial costs of welcoming a child into the family. This is about providing parents with a little extra money to purchase some of the bigger and more expensive items that one needs straightaway—things like prams and cots. Although the total amount of the baby bonus will remain the same, the passage of this bill will adjust the baby bonus to assist families with the up-front costs of having a new baby when they need it most. The three examples I have outlined are examples of this government getting on with the job of implementing our election commitments.

As I said before, I would like to know whether or not the opposition are going to support these important amendments that will make a real difference to people’s lives. Obviously we have seen the opposition come in here today and play politics with it. I wish they would be up-front and make it clear whether or not they will support these, because I know that there are people in my electorate who are eagerly waiting to hear that these amendments have gone through the parliament.

There are a number of other non-budgetary measures in this bill. One includes looking at the payments provided to people affected by thalidomide. Although this amendment does not apply to many people, just 36 Australians, it is very important to those who are affected, so I certainly welcome this measure. This measure is not compensation; it provides important payments to those who are affected.

In addition, there are some minor administrative improvements to income management provisions. Under the current match savings scheme payments, payments are made to people who are subject to compulsory income management and who accumulate savings while undertaking an approved financial management course. However, at present, only savings accumulated after the commencement of the course qualify. The bill before us today simply modifies this so that these people can begin saving as soon as they have registered for a course. It is a minor change but one that I am sure will make a difference. This bill also clarifies the role of nominees under income management arrangements and will improve debt recovery so that customers on income management are not out of pocket.

These measures deliver on significant election commitments, allowing pensioners to keep more of their pensions when they undertake part-time paid work, providing families with greater assistance to support teenagers who are completing their secondary studies and changing the way the baby bonus operates so that parents of newborn babies receive more money immediately after the birth. It also improves income management provisions and provides a fairer income test for thalidomide survivors.

The substantive bill is an incredibly important one. I would urge the opposition to stop playing politics with these important issues before the House today and to support these measures which are widely welcomed by people across Australia. People are waiting for these measures to be introduced. I commend the substantive bill to the House and call on the opposition to support it.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011, which seeks to introduce legislation that will re-introduce previously applicable criteria for the assessment of eligibility for youth allowance by inner-regional students.

Prior to the government’s changes to the eligibility for youth allowance, it could be assessed in a variety of ways. Students could work part-time for 15 hours a week for two years after leaving school. Students could have been out of school for 18 months and have earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage level A of the Australian pay and classification scale in an 18-month period. Students could work an average of 30 hours per week for 18 months out of two years. Now inner-regional students can only access youth allowance under the third criterion. The only criterion applicable to them is that they must have worked an average of 30 hours per week for 18 months out of two years. This change is going to make it much harder for some regional students to access tertiary education. Fewer students from regional areas are going to be in a position where they can go to university.

Thirty hours a week is practically a full-time job, and finding full-time work in the regions can be difficult. Many students in regional areas access seasonal employment in the agricultural and tourism sectors, and the government’s changes to youth allowance eligibility criteria simply do not take this into account.

In addition to these issues associated with the availability of work, there are issues associated with entry into university after 18 months. Many universities do not accept deferrals for periods longer than 12 months. If any more time is needed, students are required to re-apply for a place in a university course of their choice. But eligibility criteria for courses change. Whilst you may get into your chosen course one year, there is no guarantee that this will be the case two years later. In addition, the longer students defer, the less likely they are to pursue tertiary study.

It is already the case that over 20 per cent more students from metropolitan areas go to university than regional students. Instead of attempting to facilitate access for regional students and narrow this gap, the changes to youth allowance will only make it more difficult for these young people. Not only are there costs of studying incurred by having to move away from home to pursue study; there are also significant re-allocation costs to be met—estimated as being in the vicinity of up to $20,000. This is a further significant barrier to regional students wanting to go on to tertiary study.

Unrestricted access to further education is vitally important for our nation. Further education and the attainment of skills will improve productivity and make Australia more competitive. Many regional areas rely on their young people returning to the regions to work after they have completed their study. For example, medical professionals are very difficult to source in the regions. A witness to the Senate inquiry made two points: firstly, that the government should make it easier for regional students to access university education in the hope that some may return to share their expertise with their communities and, secondly, that professional people living in the regions should not feel forced to move because their children cannot receive the education they want. It is important that all young people, regardless of where they live, be able to pursue further education if that is what they want to do. The government’s changes to youth allowance eligibility criteria have just made this so much harder for many young people in regional Australia. There is no equality and no fairness in this.

The restriction of access to youth allowance is having many detrimental effects on young people who are classified as living in regional areas. Many are suffering, as they feel—and rightly so—that an option they once had has been removed. They are feeling isolated and guilty for putting pressure on their families to send them to university. Some families are having to make impossible decisions about which children to send to university. The provision of equal access to further education is fair and right. This is a big issue for these students and should be a big issue for this Labor government. It is a big issue for the coalition, and honourable members would be aware that the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 introduced by Senator Fiona Nash was passed in the Senate during the last sitting period. Senator Nash reiterated the coalition’s position that ‘regional students should have fair and equitable access to educational opportunities.’ The Labor-Greens coalition opposed this bill whilst it was supported by Senators Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding, who voted with the coalition.

A Senate inquiry held into the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] recently received over 200 submissions and heard testimony from witnesses who overwhelmingly stated that the revised criteria for accessing youth allowance by inner-regional students is unfair. These students and their families are asking for a hand up, not a handout. They want to access university studies on an equal basis to their metropolitan counterparts. In conclusion, I urge all members to support this bill in the interests of fairness for all regional students.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I am pleased to speak on this bill today because the bill will make a real difference for many Australians. This bill essentially gives effect to three election commitments and two non-budgetary measures: expanding the seniors work bonus; supporting families with teenagers through family tax benefits; making improvements to the provision of the baby bonus to eligible families; ensuring annuities are paid to people affected by thalidomide; and making minor administrative amendments to income management measures. The amendments that the Gillard Labor government has put forward today demonstrate its commitment to the Australian people.

For seniors, this bill seeks to expand the existing seniors work bonus measure to allow working pensioners to keep more of their pension when they undertake paid work. This is a very important measure. Older Australians have made our nation strong and prosperous and deserve to be supported in their later years, whether in work, in retirement or in their caring roles. Many age pensioners take on part-time or occasional work and should be encouraged and rewarded for these valuable contributions to our community. This expansion will allow this to happen. Many age pensioners or veterans affairs income support pensioners of qualifying age, and even some of the grey nomads, want to undertake seasonal work but are concerned about the impact on their pension. These reforms will increase the amount age pensioners can earn before the income affects their pension. This follows on from the Labor government’s election commitment to expand the existing seniors work bonus, which was introduced in September 2009 as part of its secure and sustainable pension reform package to support pensioners who are continuing to make a valuable contribution to the economy via their part-time employment.

I am sure pensioners in my electorate of Bass will be pleased about this measure. If they choose to work a few hours a week over the Christmas period or to help out in a busy season, they will now be able to do so with our more generous work bonus. The new work bonus will allow pensioners to earn $250 per fortnight without its being assessed as income under the income test. Importantly, under these changes, the work bonus can be annualised. This means that pensioners will be able to build up any unused amount of their $250 bonus every fortnight for up to 12 months, and the unused amount can be carried forward between years up to a total of $6,500 per year. This measure improves awards for age pensioners who work and ensures that they will be able to keep more of their pension when they are working part-time.

The second measure I wish to speak on today relates to helping Australian families with teenagers. This bill delivers on the government’s key election commitment to increase family assistance by up to $4,200 a year for teenagers in secondary studies. Currently, most low- and middle-income families experience significant reductions in government assistance when their child turns 16. This is despite the fact that most 16- to 17-year-olds, and a significant number of 18- and 19-year-olds, remain in full-time study and under the primary care of their parents. From 1 January 2012, the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A will increase by around $160 per fortnight for teenagers aged between 16 and 19 who are in secondary school or its vocational equivalent. During the election, we announced that the level of assistance would be increased for 16- to 18-year-olds, but the Labor government has extended this to 19-year-olds who are finishing off their schooling. This significant increase will help families meet the higher costs of older children and encourage more teenagers to stay at school. This initiative supports the Gillard Labor government’s objective to improve completion rates of year 12 and its vocational equivalents.

Research shows that children from lower income families have lower levels of school completion. This finding demonstrates that the cost of educating teenage children is an important barrier for families on low incomes. The independent review of Australia’s future tax system recommended:

Rates of payment should increase with the age of the children to recognise the higher costs of older children.

The Gillard Labor government recognises this, knowing that families with older children can face higher costs, including the costs of groceries, clothes and family activities. But, under the existing system, the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A drops from $208 a fortnight to $51 a fortnight when the child turns 16. Rent assistance also stops when a child turns 16 and families may lose eligibility for family tax benefit part B, the large family supplement and the multiple birth allowance. This sharp drop in family support can encourage teenagers to leave school early if their family is unable to support them in full-time study or training. The drop in family assistance when a child turns 16 is also one of the features of the family assistance scheme most frequently criticised by parents.

This government understands the importance of this measure for Australian families. With this measure, we are resolving problems of the past. We are a government that is listening to the community and supporting families. The Gillard Labor government is committed to a fair family payment system that targets family support to lower and middle income families. The Labor government believe in supporting families to bring up children, continuing the education revolution to give every child a great start in life. We will continue to support families as they raise children and encourage their children to continue in education. Every child deserves the right to a good education and every child should be given the opportunity to meet their full potential.

Another election commitment was to change the baby bonus to help Australian families. This amendment provides for eligible baby bonus claimants to have a larger portion of their baby bonus paid to them up-front, from 1 July 2011, to assist them to meet the initial costs of welcoming a child into their family. Under the changes, parents will be able to get an up-front $500 payment of the baby bonus to help with the arrival of a child. This will help Australian families buy some of the essentials that they need—a safe car seat or a pram, for example. The changes will give families better access to their entitlements in a way that more directly meets their needs.

I am sure this is a measure that the people of Bass will warmly welcome. This is a move that shows that the Gillard Labor government understands the issues facing Australia families and is taking steps to address these issues. The people of Bass know that the Labor government will look after them. We have a good track record with families, with measures including paid maternity leave and investing in our children through building infrastructure in schools with the Building the Education Revolution projects. The people of Bass know that those opposite are a risk to their families. They know this because some of those opposite were key players in orchestrating the most family unfriendly policy in Australian history: Work Choices. Families need security. Without security families are unhappy—it is as simple as that—and the Liberal Party found out about that in 2007.

This bill delivers on three of the government’s important election commitments: improving support for families, improving the delivery of the baby bonus to new parents and better supporting pensioners who work. The bill also makes minor amendments to income management and recognises the unique plight of thalidomide survivors.

The Gillard Labor government is committed to supporting Australian pensioners, families and students. We will continue to strengthen our support through these measures. I commend the bill to the House.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to the amendments to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 relating to families with teenage children. I agree with the member for Bass that every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, but that is where my agreement ends.

First of all, I want to thank the hundreds of students who attended the public meetings in our electorate with their parents and told me about their concerns with regard to the youth allowance. The Prime Minister and her Labor Party clearly do not understand or care about our regional students. They do not understand the huge financial hurdles regional students are facing to even get to a university. The train line in my electorate of Gilmore does not even make it to Nowra. The electric track stops at Kiama and an infrequent diesel service only goes to Bomaderry. Students in the southern part of Gilmore have almost no option but to take the costly option of moving away from home to attend university—not by choice.

Students in Gilmore are doing it hard. The Labor Party is simply out of touch on this issue. The Shoalhaven youth unemployment rate is higher than 20 per cent, yet the government still demands that students from this area find an average of 30 hours work every week for 1½ years before it will give them given adequate help to get to university. Is this opportunity? Is this choice? I think it is particularly relevant to point out the fact that it was the Prime Minister herself who personally changed the rules.

Employment of young people in the Shoalhaven is overwhelmingly seasonal. Employment comes and goes with the tourist season. Some weeks ago, the coalition introduced the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 into this place to change the independent youth allowance rules back to what they were under the Howard government. If the government had passed our bill, instead of having to work 30 hours every week for 1½ years, students would be automatically eligible to receive independent youth allowance as soon as they earned $26,000, regardless of their working hours, within those same 18 months. The government were too afraid to debate their mistake. They hid behind pomp and procedure to avoid even talking about the real issues. I know the coalition’s change does not seem like much to those opposite, but the truth is that regional students are doing it tough, and this would be one small change that would have allowed tens of thousands of regional students a real chance at university education.

Many families from Gilmore have two or three children going to university and it is very difficult to explain that students in adjoining areas are eligible, yet in Gilmore they are not. The families should not have to choose which child they can afford to send to university. It is time for the government to put aside their pride and admit that they have made a mistake. On behalf of the hundreds of students in Gilmore that have been cheated by this government, I am begging the Prime Minister to put aside her pride and change back the rules. I have heard all the horror stories and I am sure that she has too. We do not need another inquiry. We do not need another review. We need real action from this government. If the Labor Party truly cared about our regional students, they would stand up, show some courage and pass the coalition’s amendments.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure and a certain amount of satisfaction to be here today to speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011]. The content of this bill was the subject of communications and discussions within my electorate of Hindmarsh during the 2010 election and people in my area did support these measures—they supported them with their votes. The interest in these policies was clearly evident after the announcement by the Prime Minister and prior to the day on which most electors cast their votes. The satisfaction that I feel in supporting this bill comes from my knowledge of the benefit that people will derive from the measures contained therein. These measures will make a material difference to many, many people’s lives. People favoured these policies in the context of an election. They voted accordingly and it is satisfying to recognise that they will have the value they placed in their democratic participation meaningfully acknowledged through legislative change.

As we heard earlier from the many speakers who have spoken on this side of the House, there are two principal elements to this bill, and I would like to note them today. The first of these is the effective removal of the distinction within the family payment structure between 13- to 15-year-olds, and 16- to 19-year-olds engaged in full-time secondary study or a full-time vocational education equivalent. The impact of this measure is up to $4,000 more per year for a family with a teenager. That is a terrific amount of money and additional assistance to help families keep their children focused on successfully completing their secondary education.

The family tax benefit part A has dropped by 75 per cent once a child turns 16, the age at which secondary schooling becomes ‘voluntary’. The benefit has dropped from $208 per fortnight to $51 per fortnight. Rent assistance also stops when a child turns 16. This drop in family support is one of the main issues that parents consistently raise concerns about with the government.

We do need young Australians to take on many highly varied occupations and, as we have heard before in debates in this place, not all need either a university education or extensive training. There are opportunities for young people to engage in work and develop skills and a career within the workforce. Nevertheless, I think on balance we would all prefer the great majority of young Australians to complete their secondary schooling or equivalent and enjoy the experience without acute financial pressures. This bill will help families of some 590,000 teenagers avoid those financial pressures over the next five years alone.

I also hope that young people stay at school long enough to practise and learn and to get the benefits of personal reading and self-managed study that they will require. This mode of learning, evident in late secondary education but typically more so at university, will invariably be the mode of learning engaged in by the majority of people through most situations they find themselves in and it will help all people immeasurably throughout their lives.

People’s lives, their work lives and their private family lives, may well be more dynamic and subject to radical change over time than ever before as the workforce and technology change. Be it as a result of increasing reliance on private wealth invested in topsy-turvy stock markets, technological revolutions, shorter careers within any one field of work, or the greater choices that are made available to people through their lives, the one thing that we can predict these days is how unpredictable life is likely to be. We fare better if we can adapt to what life throws at us. Hence, to me, learning the utility of study and how to study are the greatest and most priceless lessons of all. The lessons I hope most young people learn in later secondary education will better equip them to successfully navigate in an ever-changing world for the long haul.

Another thing that has been changing over time is how much longer our lives are likely to be. We face opportunities through considerably longer lives, but with that also comes uncertainties. With better health and greater longevity, age pensioners are not relying exclusively on their pension. Senior Australians are keeping more cash coming into their households through wages irrespective of when they ‘retired’. Many cannot do that, but those who can and do should be congratulated for their ongoing ability to manage their life situation and their cash flow and the way they govern their own quality of life.

For years we have heard governments of both persuasions encouraging people who reach retirement age to continue to work and fund their lifestyles. There have been structural elements which may have discouraged pensioners from doing so in the past. People may have been able to take two steps forward only to have the impact within the social security system slide them one step back, or more. For increasing numbers of age pensioners more of what they earn over the threshold is effectively lost to the government through decreased pension payments. The age pension income test has been increased for new pensioners from 40 per cent to 50 per cent on additional income over the threshold.

I have said this before in this place: I favour a system in which the rate of withdrawal of the age pension is similar to marginal tax rates. But I do acknowledge that this change was made in September 2009 to help fund the substantial increase in the age pension at that time, further helping hundreds of thousands of pensioners doing it tough out there, especially the bulk of single pensioners who need to pay a much greater proportion of their pension on the basics, be it accommodation, vehicle or electricity costs.

Ongoing comparatively high effective marginal tax rates do, and will continue to, decrease people’s incentive to engage in post-retirement work. The government in its wisdom created the work bonus system introduced as part of the Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform of September 2009. It provided additional incentives for age pensioners to engage in work by quarantining wages of a certain value each fortnight from the pension income test. People in semiretirement do not always have a steady, uniform income throughout the year. Many have a period of casual or contract work. I met someone recently who had some contract work marking exams that only came around for a short period a couple of times a year. This is all within the seasonal work market.

This type of work is labour intensive but only for a short period of time each year. The fortnightly income earned in such a period is no reflection whatsoever of what a person earns over the course of the year. It is fundamentally wrong, I believe, for these fortnightly incomes to be extrapolated and used to calculate a person’s pension going forward through the year, wrongly presuming very high ongoing income.

The measure within this bill adjusts the work bonus scheme to increase the amount of income a pensioner may earn external to the pension income test to $6,500 per year. The first $250 earned in any one fortnight will not be treated as income for the purposes of social security and veterans’ affairs payment calculations. Most importantly, where a person does not have uniform earnings of at least $250 each and every fortnight, this bill will enable those pensioners to roll over any unused fortnightly work bonus value to successive fortnight reporting periods up to a maximum of $6,500 per year. If you do not learn anything in one fortnight, you do not lose the potential value of the work bonus; you carry it forward through successive fortnights until you do the work.

The $6,500 value is not limited in its application or use to the one financial year from which it was derived. The work bonus can be accrued from one financial year to the next. A person who earns wages each December, for instance, will not be limited to the value of the work bonus unused since 1 July of that year. People in this situation will have access to the value of the work bonus accrued since they last work, which would be December of the previous year.

These changes to the work bonus system will commence from 1 July 2011. We have in this bill measures that will substantially increase the capacity for people doing it tough to get by. Whether they be families raising teenagers engaged in their last year of very important secondary studies or retirees working an amount of casual or sessional work to make it just that little bit easier to make ends meet, these measures will be a great assistance to many. I wholeheartedly commended the bill to the House.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the amendment moved by Mr Andrews to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This youth allowance saga has been running for some time now in this place and the effects of it have been felt widely across regional Australia, no more so than in my electorate. It seems rather unfortunate that we are trying to deal with this as an amendment to this piece of legislation when the Prime Minister would have the ability to fix this today if she so chose. We are at this point, having to take measures such as this to get this issue dealt with in the House, basically because of the Prime Minister’s stubbornness in dealing with this issue. Indeed, her original changes to youth allowance when she was education minister started this whole process going. Over a period of time through different actions we have had the original criteria for youth allowance restored to remote and outer regional students. Indeed, they have been restored to a large geographic area of my electorate. Unfortunately, my biggest town, Dubbo, and probably the second-biggest town in my electorate, Mudgee, have missed out.

While the independent youth allowance is by no means a perfect way of financing tertiary education, I believe it has been quite effective. A person leaving school and working independently for 12 months to gain that $19,500 income and then being able to start university the following year is a good thing for a couple of reasons: it gives those students a time to reassess their priorities, rethink maybe what their interests are at university; and it gives them an opportunity to be truly independent—to work for someone else. Indeed, if they are going into tertiary education, sometimes when they go back into the workforce it is at a higher level and the work that they do in that year of qualifying for independent youth allowance is good grounding for them so that when they go back to work in a management position, they understand the other end of the workforce spectrum because they have spent time at end.

During the coalition’s time, when John Howard sat at the table—where the member for Blaxland is currently sitting—and behind him sat Peter Costello, the Treasurer, what happened to participation rates for regional and rural students? Did they go up? No. And, gee, didn’t the National Party do a good job then in influencing John Howard and Peter Costello! Did participation rates for regional and rural students in this country increase? They did not. The fact is they went down. For example, between 2002 and 2007, participation rates for regional students at tertiary institutions fell from 18.715 per cent to 18.08 per cent. That workplace participation criterion helped them a lot! It really assisted regional and rural students! The fact is that the changes we brought in benefited people in rural and regional electorates like mine. Hundreds and hundreds of young people will get additional assistance through the changes we have made.

The Nationals say one thing here, parading and prancing about in the House, and say another thing back in their electorates. But the reality is that, when they had a chance to increase participation rates for rural and regional students at universities—when they had stewardship of the treasury benches—they did nothing. In fact, things went backwards. Then they took a policy to the last election to actually reduce funding assistance for university students and participation of students from rural and regional areas. That is the reality, as opposed to the rhetoric, from those opposite.

This legislation is important. It fulfils election commitments and some non-budget measures. One is in relation to the work bonus, and I am pleased to speak on and support that. The work bonus allows working pensioners to keep more of their pension when they undertake paid work, and a number of my caucus colleagues have given the particulars of that in the chamber. The second election commitment fulfilled provides better access to family payments for families with a teenager aged 16 to 19 in full-time secondary education or the vocational education equivalent. Everyone who has teenagers knows that the cost does not decrease as they get older. Clothes, shoes, high-school textbooks, recreational pursuits—the costs all increase. The funding provided for here will benefit families and will have the effect, we believe, of lifting high school completion rates from that miserable 75 per cent of students under the Howard coalition government to an aspirational 90 per cent by 2015.

The third election commitment fulfilled, which I fully support as well, is improvements to the provision of the baby bonus. We changed the baby bonus arrangements to make them fortnightly across 13 fortnights—a good measure, in my view—and we are also providing an upfront payment of $500 in the first instalment which will assist in terms of prams, nursery items and the other things that mums and dads need for a new baby once it is born. While there is no change to the overall amount, I think that upfront measure will help. A further measure in the bill exempts payments to people affected by thalidomide from being assessable for welfare or income tax purposes.

Today, those opposite have waxed lyrical about their commitment to helping families, but I think they need a bit of a history lesson on assistance to families in regional and rural areas and communities across this country. The global financial crisis did not stifle our government’s commitment to reform when it came to tax relief, and we brought such measures forward three years in a row. Nor did it stifle our commitment to reforms for pensioners. We have assisted our 3.3 million pensioners—age pensioners, disability support pensioners, carers and others. Indeed, as early as March 2008, we extended the utilities allowance of about $590 per annum to disability support pensions, something that was never graciously given by John Howard when he was in power. Those opposite discriminated between people on disability support pensions and those on age pensions.

The 2009-10 budget provided $14.2 billion under our secure and sustainable pension reforms, increasing the adequacy of the level of support; increasing certainty in terms of payments; making the pension system in this country simpler, more understandable and more flexible; and making sure our social security system is secure and sustainable. From 29 September 2009, there was a weekly increase in the age pension of $32.49 for singles and $10.14 for couples. We also legislated to make sure there was a benchmark that guaranteed the pension for singles would be 27.7 per cent of MTAWE. We gave $1,400 to singles and $2,100 to couples at the time of the global financial crisis as a short-term stimulus payment. The new permanent carer supplement helped about 500,000 people across Australia who make significant sacrifices to assist their loved ones each and every day. You cannot solve their problems, but you can give them a helping hand. About 140,000 carers who receive the carer payment received a supplement of $600 annually.

As I said, we increased the single rate for the age pension—in accordance with the recommendations of the Harmer review—to bring it up to two-thirds of the combined couple rate, and we changed the indexation with respect to pensions as well. We said that there should be a new pensioner and beneficiary cost-of-living index and that, if it was higher than the CPI, which it has proved to be, it would keep better pace with the rising prices of goods. In particular, I think that the work bonus will be greatly appreciated by pensioners, because many of them do not fully leave the workforce when they transition to retirement. Part-time work for pensioners is important in terms of their financial independence, but it is also good for our economy and our community. Workforce participation is encouraged by the work bonus introduced by this government.

So the work bonus we are achieving for our senior citizens was introduced by a federal Labor government. Again, the coalition failed in this regard. The Howard government’s pension bonus scheme was too complex and failed to achieve the objects of increasing workforce participation. Do not just trust me on this because that is what the Harmer review found in relation to workforce participation. Whether it is participation and universities for regional and rural students or workforce participation for our senior citizens—those making the transition into retirement—the coalition’s record in this regard is atrocious, absolutely disastrous.

They had no commitment to the value of work; they had no commitment to regional and rural areas. They will say whatever they need to make sure that they get their fear campaigns heard in their local country newspapers and on their country radio stations, but when it comes to delivering for regional and rural areas they know nothing. They know nothing about road, rail, community infrastructure which we delivered in these areas for the first time. They know nothing with respect to education reforms. In my regional and rural seat, for the first time, we have seen education treated as a priority. We have seen 220 projects and $108 million under the BER funding. This is the kind of commitment to regional and rural Australia that is so evident by this federal Labor government that cares for those who need it.

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

I rise to speak on the amendment moved to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 by the member for Menzies in relation to the youth allowance and workplace participation criteria for independent youth allowance. I would have to ask why this government continues to discriminate against students in my electorate and right around Australia who meet the inner regional classification? That is the one question that no-one is prepared to answer: why is it that this government continues to discriminate against educational opportunities for these great young people and put additional pressure on families.

We have heard that families have to move and I deal with these families on a regular basis. I had a parent ring me just recently to say that his daughter who will not qualify, because of the deal that has been done between the Independents and the government in the latest review, given her position as a 2009-10 student now has to stop her tertiary education because she cannot afford to continue. She was hoping to be one of those who would achieve support through youth allowance. She now has to come back to her hometown and her dreams of an education and a career have been seriously compromised.

This is the reality that this decision has delivered to regional areas. Apparently there are up to 20,000 great young people around this nation who are affected by this decision. The requirement that forces these young people to find 30 hours of work a week over 18 months is sometimes impossible in a regional area. It really reinforces to me the fact that a Labor government does not understand how a regional area works. I have young people who live in places like Donnybrook, Dunsborough, Brunswick, Harvey and Collie. These are not necessarily big community centres, but how do these young people find 30 hours of work a week over 18 months? A lot of employment that is available is seasonal, so it is just not possible for these young people to meet the commitments of having to find 30 hours of work a week and meet the blocks that they are required to do. Plus they then will have two years away from study. Our concern is that their participation rates will fall even further because the longer they stay away from tertiary education the less likely they are to continue with their higher education.

So this is where these young people find themselves. I have had mothers in supermarkets say to me, ‘We now have to try to find a second extra job ourselves’. These are husbands or wives who have to fund their child’s university education. This is Australia. This is what we have done. This is what the Labor government has done for these great young people and these families. We are seeing a loss, a drain, of these young people and families from our communities. The students already face significant problems in accessing youth allowance and in accessing an education. All they are asking for is a fair go—access to youth allowance—and they will go on and do the best they can and come back and work within the regional areas quite frequently and bring great skills and knowledge back to our communities.

They have no choice but to relocate to study. That is the way it is in a regional area. You cannot just go up the road to the university, there is not one there. You have no choice but to relocate and yet you are being denied the opportunity to access youth allowance to do so for at least two years. The universities are even saying now that they are not going to hold their places. Where does this leave those young people?

The 2009-10 cohort are in no-man’s-land. They were not picked up by the previous criteria and they are certainly not now under the current review. They are nowhere. What plans do they make? What plans do their families make? They cannot plan. This is where this has left them. It is the most appalling discrimination. When the families ask me, ‘Why has the government done this?’ I do not have an answer. Why are your children not eligible but other ones in the same school are? I do not have that answer, only the government has that answer. Only the Prime Minister has that answer because she made this decision. We do know already that 55 per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared to only 33 per cent of students from regional areas. The disadvantage is quite serious already but this is enhancing that disadvantage and I do not understand why the government has made this decision.

We have repeatedly, as have the parents and the students, made the government aware of just what this is doing to the students. The government have had opportunity after opportunity, through motions and through bills and even through their own decisions, to change this. Why not introduce a bill or a motion yourselves? Why not fix it? Why not give yourselves the opportunity to fix it? The opportunity is there every day in this parliament to fix this anomaly that you have created. Please take that opportunity. Do not continue to discriminate against these students and do not continue to put their lives, their careers, their families and their educational opportunity on hold or at risk or make it nonexistent. You can fix this.

I have here one of the latest emails I have received. It says:

I am a 2009 school leaver classified … as an Inner Rural student, meaning that I have to work an average of 30 hours per week over … 18 months … At the time of my graduation, the new changes were still unconfirmed, and so I chose to take a gap year in the hope that I would still be able to qualify somehow.

How does that make us feel? I know how it makes me feel and I hope that is how it makes some on the other side feel. The email continues:

I live at best, two hours by car (and longer if taking public transport) away from my university …

There is no public transport in the majority of regional areas. It is not there, and certainly not to a university that is in Perth. She actually lives over two hours away from a university, and that is not even taking into account the cost of travelling, such as petrol—or, if she were able to access public transport, by train or bus. She says:

… my only real option is to move up to the city, where I’d need to find and pay for accommodation.

Under the old Youth Allowance laws, I would have had to earn … 75 per cent of the minimum wage. When the changes were announced, we’d originally hoped that at the very least, I could qualify by working 40 hours a week for … 12 months therefore averaging the same amount of hours …

But that is not possible under what the government has done. She continues:

My university will not let me defer for any time period longer than a year, and under the new laws I would have to relinquish my place were I to pursue Youth Allowance.

How do you think this makes this young lady feel? How do you think it makes her parents feel?

One of the most tragic real-life stories I have heard—it is not a story; it is the reality—comes from the parent who says to me, ‘We have to choose which one of our children we can afford to send to university.’ How do you choose and what happens to the family dynamic? What happens to those who you cannot afford to send? When I go into schools, what is even worse is that great young people in regional areas like mine say to me when I meet them: ‘I have actually changed my year 11 and 12 focus. I am not going to pursue the courses that will take me to university because my family cannot afford to send me.’ So they are consciously making the decision. Some of the drop-out rates will not be showing because these young people are making very practical decisions that have been forced on them by the decisions that this government has made. They will not show up in some of the figures and statistics, but these kids will be victims of this. That is what is ahead of us here. These young people have to take the decision now of not doing year 11 and 12 as they should be doing. They are taking a voc ed or other type of course or they are going to make another decision to do some form of training if they can secure it. These are conscious decisions that are being made by young people in inner regional areas.

I have another email here. It says:

Thankyou for your continuing efforts to get our kids the same financial opportunities as all other regional kids when they choose to attend university education.

I also find the changes very frustrating, restrictive and unfair with regards to the 18 month criteria. My son and many others from his school finishing in 2009 have chosen to begin their university studies this year because their course does not allow them to defer longer than 12 months or they want to begin following a 12 month enforced break.

My son has very little chance of qualifying for youth allowance now because he has not fulfilled the criteria of the 18 months. He will be using his savings to fund his university course and all living expenses incurred as a result of having to relocate to Perth.

I cannot understand why the 18 month timeframe, other than a means by which many more students will be eliminated from receiving any financial assistance.

This mother says at the bottom of the email:

What else can concerned parents do to make Labor and the independents see what they are doing?

I have asked that question over and over. My colleagues and I have tried over and over to get this changed, to give these great young people equity of opportunity. They are asking simply for a fair go.

As I said here previously, there were many phone calls to my office when the Prime Minister made her statement in Washington—when she said that perhaps the ultimate importance is the right to education, that she was passionate about education, that education is the key to all our opportunities and that education is the one thing that no-one can ever take away from us. That is true, Prime Minister, but you have to be able to access the education in the first place. Prime Minister, the changes that you have made have disaffected great young people. They have taken away the opportunity for education from those young people who have no choice but to not pursue their preferred courses and their preferred career. They have no choice because they cannot afford to go to university. They cannot afford to go without the support of the independent youth allowance.

So many people have said to me, ‘If the Prime Minister believes this, why did she make those changes?’ I do not have the answer either. The comment made in the US was really a slap in the face. People said to me, ‘If the Prime Minister is really genuine about that, why isn’t she making the changes that she has been given the opportunity to make?’ My other request is: why can’t the Prime Minister and this government make those changes voluntarily? Why does it have to take the will of the people, the will of the two houses here? Both houses voted for the changes to youth allowance because they wanted fairness and equity for the great young people in this nation—the great young people from the areas defined as inner regional. The government has resisted this opportunity over and over. But why? Why would you resist the chance to give an opportunity to a young person in a regional area to pursue higher education?

Education should be a priority. It is a priority for me and I was hoping that it was a priority for members of both houses. Both houses voted for this and I have presented petitions. The will of the people, through the voices in both chambers, is for this government to fix this, but the government continues to resist it. I support the amendment. This offers the government yet another opportunity to fix a problem that they have created.

It is a problem that has been visited upon these great young people and their families in rural and regional areas. As I said earlier, all they are asking for is simply a fair go. They want a fair go because they will make the most of the opportunity. They come from a regional area. They will go; they will study; they will learn; they will commit themselves. Hopefully, part of the development of regional areas will come from these great young people who bring their skills back to us. That is the key to regional development in so many senses. It is not necessarily well understood by some, because if it was, the government would not have made these changes. These young people will bring so much back to the regional areas and I support the amendments as moved by the shadow minister.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 legislation that we have before us in the parliament today and to oppose the amendment. This piece of legislation is good news for Australian families. It is good news for Australian seniors and it is good news for those people who are having children. This legislation gives effect to three election commitments and two non-budget measures. I will come back to discuss these in detail.

The first election commitment in the bill is the expansion of the existing seniors work bonus measure to allow working pensioners to keep more of their pension when they undertake paid work. The second election commitment provides for better access to family payments for families with teenagers aged 16 to 19 in full-time secondary school or vocational education equivalent. The third election commitment provides improvements to the provision of the baby bonus for eligible families. The fourth measure ensures the annuities paid to people affected by thalidomide are not treated as assessable income for income support tests or for income tax purposes. Lastly, the bill makes minor administrative amendments to the income management measures.

I will start with one of the last measures—that which deals with thalidomide. I think this is an important measure. Those of us who are familiar with thalidomide know that it was a morning sickness drug that was given to mothers back in the sixties and seventies. It led to birth defects. A trust has been set up and payments have been made. This legislation exempts those payments from income tests. That is really in the spirit of what was intended. These annuities will be excluded from social security and veterans affairs income tests and from income tax. These annuities are not compensation payments, so they can be treated in that way, whereas a compensation payment does have an impact on income tax and on social security and income tested benefits. These are annuities and not compensation payments and this measure ensures that those payments are treated as was intended.

The other issue that I would like to touch on quickly is the matched savings scheme payment. That is designed to assist those who are on compulsory income management. Currently the qualifying savings period starts when the person commences a course. This will be changed so that the person can begin saving as soon as they register for a course rather than having to wait. That is a very positive change, which will help people to save a lot quicker.

I would like to turn to the three parts of this legislation that were election commitments. The first of those relates to the baby bonus. This legislation allows for the first payment of the baby bonus to be $500 and the remaining 11 payments be reduced slightly. The impact of this is to allow a larger upfront payment at a time when families or mothers need that payment. Particularly if it is your first child you have to buy cots, bassinettes and prams. Even that $500 goes nowhere near the cost that will be incurred. For a subsequent child there are still costs associated with the birth. So this is a very sensible change. It is a change that recognises the fact that families—mothers—incur a greater cost at the time of the birth of their child. I feel that this is really good news for families. This is a change that will benefit all people who need to have that little bit extra up front at the time of the birth of their child.

The next measure in this piece of legislation provides better access to family payments for families with a teenager aged 16 to 19 in full-time secondary school or vocational education. Under the current scheme, payments for family tax benefit A are reduced when the young person reaches the age of 16. From 1 January 2012, when this legislation comes into force, family tax benefit A will increase by around $160 per fortnight for teenagers aged 16 to 19 who are undertaking study. Under the existing scheme, the benefits paid under the family tax benefit decrease from $214 to $53 per fortnight when the child turns 16. It is important for the House to note that the later years of study are the years that attract the greatest cost.

The Henry review argued:

Family payments should be the main form of assistance for children—

or young people—

aged up to 18 years, or until the completion of secondary school …

This change recognises that family tax benefit will be the main form of support for those young people. It continues:

Beyond these points, youth payments focused on encouraging study … should be available.

There should be a seamless transition from family assistance to income support for young people. This should be based on the person’s circumstances and only one payment should be available …

This legislation picks up on that recommendation in the Henry tax review. The Gillard government views education as vitally important and recognises that, if a young person completes their education, their work opportunities are much greater. This change will encourage young people to stay at school longer. It provides greater support to families and, in doing so, gives those young people better opportunities for the future. This is a very important change and one that I am sure all members of this House will embrace.

I would like to turn to the changes to the work bonus. The introduction of the work bonus by this government in 2009 was groundbreaking. Currently we are trying to encourage more people with skills to stay in the workforce. The work bonus was introduced as part of the government’s Secure and Sustainable Pension reform package and worked as an incentive for older Australians to stay in the workforce and thereby stay engaged, utilise their skills and continue to contribute to the welfare of our country—although I might add that people who choose not to work after the age of 65 still make enormous contributions. This is a way of utilising the skills of a very important group in our community. When the work bonus was introduced it was groundbreaking legislation, encouraging senior Australians to engage. This legislation expands the work bonus. The first $250 earned in a fortnight will not be treated as income for social security and veterans affairs purposes. Pensioners will be able to build up any unused amount of their $250 fortnightly bonus in an ‘income bank’, up to a maximum of $6,500. This ‘income bank’ can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test.

I—and, I am sure, a number of members of this parliament—have been approached by pensioners and seniors that work in blocks. Two particular groups in my electorate of Shortland come to mind. One is the group of people employed as Santa Clauses. Santa Clauses only work at one particular time of the year, and they earn a significant amount of money—although nowhere near $6,500. It is seasonal, intense employment, in which they earn more than the $250 a fortnight that they are exempt. This legislation will allow all those seniors that really enjoy working as Santa Clause at Christmastime to bank their work bonus. The other significant group—a very significant group—is seniors and pensioners who work supervising university exams. A number of pensioners who have come along to see me have said that the $250 exemption is great but it does not work as effectively for them as it could. The changes in this legislation allow them a maximum of $6,500, which well and truly covers the amount of money they earn. The changes will ensure that pensioners are able to keep more of their pension when they work.

At this time I would like to put on record that I think that one of the truly untapped resources of our society is senior Australians, those people that would still like to contribute through working. I feel that as a nation we need to embrace the fact that they have skills to offer and we need to be more mindful of the fact that mature workers in Australia should be embraced and welcomed into the workforce. This is one way of acknowledging that older Australians that are in receipt of a pension can make an enormous contribution. This is great legislation. It is really good news for all those Australians that are affected by it and I recommend it to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This is a very important amendment which seeks to provide a fairer and a more equitable system of student income support via the independent youth allowance. In particular, this amendment deals with the workforce participation criteria for the independent youth allowance and the discriminatory system of inner regional and outer regional classifications, which is unfairly affecting students in Gippsland and across regional Australia. I have spoken on the broader issue of income support on many occasions during my almost three years in this place. It is important to remind the House about some of the history of this debate and, some would say, the history of this debacle.

The former Minister for Education Julia Gillard created a mess in the May 2009 budget with her attack on gap year students. The retrospective nature of the government’s legislation caused the problems for regional students in the first place. What erupted was a fight right across regional Australia—not just in Gippsland but in every regional community. The member for Cowper, who is with me tonight, and other members right across regional Australia were inundated with calls from students, from teachers and from parents and friends of students. They were angry and they are still angry today. Dozens of petitions were presented to this place, with many thousands of people protesting about the gap year arrangements as proposed by the education minister of the time. There were rallies in many regional communities where students spoke out against the injustice that was forced upon them by Julia Gillard as education minister.

To her credit, the minister finally backed down, but the only reason she backed down was that she realised she had a political problem. I would like to tell the Prime Minister now that she has another political problem. This system of discriminating against regional students on the basis of lines on a map will hang around her neck like a dead albatross until the next election. Regional MPs opposite may think that this is some sort of political game. Let me assure them that when it comes to student income support I am not about political games. This is about achieving a fair and equitable outcome for regional students who right now are being discriminated against by this government—and this government knows it. The political futures of regional MPs—and I include Labor MPs and Independent MPs—are at stake in this debate. There is a depth of passion in regional communities which you probably have not noticed. If you do not wake up to it soon, the price you will pay at the ballot box will be extreme.

I appeal to Julia Gillard as a former education minister and as Prime Minister to finally understand: you have completely misread regional Australia. You have completely misread this issue from start to finish. Rural people are very slow to anger, but I can assure you they do not forget and they will not forget a Prime Minister who had the capacity to deliver a fairer and more equitable system of student income support and failed. They will never forget that they had a Prime Minister who came in here and talked about the education revolution, who staked her whole career on her reputation in relation to education, but who, when she had the chance to do something which was in the interests of students right across regional Australia, failed miserably. Students across Australia and their parents and teachers want us to fix this mess, and this amendment before the House tonight is the first step.

I am concerned that the Independent MPs from the regional communities—the member for Denison, the member for Lyne and the member for New England—have fallen for the sucker punch here. They believed this government’s assurances just a couple of weeks ago that it will take action in January next year to try and fix the mess in relation to the inner regional and outer regional classifications. But surely they are beginning to realise that a promise from this government is not worth anything and it is certainly not worth anything to the students from the 2009 and 2010 cohorts who will miss out while the Independent MPs continue to support the Gillard government’s procrastination on this issue.

The workforce criteria problems as they exist right now exist because we have two systems in place—this classification of outer regional and inner regional. If you are regarded as an outer regional student, you face easier criteria to achieve the independent status, but for students in inner regional areas—and in my electorate these include towns like Sale, Maffra, Hayfield; these are very small towns which are regarded as inner regional—finding full-time employment in those regional areas and small communities is often very difficult for the students. They struggle to achieve the independent criterion of 30 hours per week over a total two-year time frame.

This legislation also does not take into account the seasonal nature of many jobs in regional communities—particularly the tourism sector and the agricultural sector in my electorate—which creates another barrier for regional students, and here I am referring particularly to inner regional students. What we are talking about here tonight with this amendment is a system of fairness and equity of access for all regional students, who, as we understand, are often forced to move away from home to pursue higher education. The Prime Minister needs to end the hollow rhetoric about an education revolution and start cleaning up the mess that exists in student income support. Even the current Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations has acknowledged this is a mess. He was on ABC Gippsland radio recently and said the current system ‘was an inelegant solution’ and he also admitted it was ‘a bit untidy’. The students, parents and teachers listening would have other words to describe the mess that has been created by this government.

The pathetic solution that is being put forward now is to bring forward an inquiry and make it report a bit earlier, by 1 July this year. But the minister himself is already backing away from any suggestion that he will address the issue of inner regional and outer regional classifications for the purpose of accessing independent youth allowance. The Independent MPs should be taking note of every word that comes out of the education minister’s mouth in relation to this. They did a deal a fraction over two weeks ago, and he is already backing away from that deal. I take note of the earlier comments of the member for Shortland. She said that the Gillard government views education as vitally important. People on this side of the House view education as vitally important as well, and we are demanding a fair go for students in regional communities. This, as I said, is a major issue right across regional Australia, and it is another fundamental breach of trust by the Gillard government.

The members who shake their heads—who come from metropolitan areas or from regional communities and who think that we are playing a game on this particular issue—need to understand the stress and the uncertainty that they have created right throughout regional Australia with these changes. I would probably be getting 10 calls a week in my office from parents in the inner regional area who are trying to find a way for their child to access youth allowance. I acknowledge that there are two ways to access youth allowance: either dependent youth allowance or independent youth allowance. I have acknowledged from day one that the changes to the income threshold for dependent youth allowance have been well received in regional communities and they have been seen as positive steps right throughout regional Australia. I commended the Prime Minister for those changes when she was previously the Minister for Education. But the issue of independent youth allowance is where the government has failed miserably and caused enormous confusion and enormous uncertainty.

What people opposite do not seem to understand is that these students make their decisions years in advance of actually going to university. They start setting their career pathways in year 9 and year 10, in consultation with their careers advisers and their school principals. So this uncertainty and the confusion over how the criteria will apply for independent youth allowance has already affected students from the 2009 and 2010 cohorts. Continuing this holding pattern until January next year is just making it more difficult for students right throughout regional areas. The real holding pattern from 1 July this year should be to abolish the current arrangements of inner regional and outer regional and give all regional students the same access to independent youth allowance. That should be the holding pattern until this review is completed. Then the review should continue, and the review should completely overhaul the system of student income support. The changes from 1 January next year, rather than talking about changes in inner regional and outer regional, should be looking at a complete overhaul of student income support, with a tertiary access allowance which addresses this fundamental inequity for regional students.

Mr Deputy Speaker Kelvin Thomson, I acknowledge that you represent an inner Melbourne seat. But the members who represent regional seats see that the extra costs borne by parents from our community to send their children to university are becoming such an onerous burden that students are simply bailing out of the system. We have young people who have the potential to go on to achieve great things at university who are making the decision, for economic reasons, to remain in a regional community, and I fear we are selling those children short. I believe we can do better in this place than to have regional students curtailing their ambitions and forfeiting their dreams of higher education simply because we have a government that talks big about an education revolution but fails to deliver when it comes to real support for regional families. This is a social issue and it is an economic issue. We are taking money out of regional towns to pay for the accommodation for country students when they go to metropolitan areas to attend university. We are stripping wealth out of regional communities to do that. There is no compensation whatsoever for the families, and it is becoming more and more difficult in these times of increased costs of living for families to make those financial commitments.

As you heard the member for Parkes refer to earlier, families are making very tough decisions and having to choose which one of their children can attend a university and which student has to remain in the regional community. We in this place need to reduce the economic barriers for regional students who are forced to leave home to attend university. The social issue is very apparent to all of us who live in a regional area. The importance of regional communities having opportunities to train our own young people to take on roles in areas such as health, engineering or other tertiary-qualified areas is well understood. We know—and various studies have proven this—that if country kids get the opportunity to go to university then they are more likely to return to a regional community in the future and contribute their skills to that regional area. They are much more likely to return and address some of those major issues we have, particularly in the area of health services. But our participation rates in regional communities when it comes to tertiary courses are much lower than those of our metropolitan counterparts.

Unless you fundamentally believe that country kids are dumber than city kids, there must be an issue. The issue is the economic barrier. We in this place have the power to start reducing the economic barrier and stop robbing country kids of the opportunity to achieve their full potential. This is a chance for us here in this place to stand up for regional students. It is a chance for those opposite to live up to their rhetoric about the education revolution and actually start delivering on the transformational power of education that they talk about but unfortunately have failed to deliver in their time in this place.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, both in this chamber and in the other place, for their determination in pursuing this issue. Those opposite may be getting sick of us standing up here, talking about youth allowance. They may be getting sick of us attaching amendments to various bills. Let me assure them that we will continue to pursue this issue until we finally get a fair result for regional students. I want to thank the thousands of parents, teachers and students who have rallied to support this cause right throughout Australia. From the day we rallied together in 2009 to stop the unfair treatment of gap year students, we have held the Rudd government and the Gillard government to account on this issue. We must continue that fight. To those people from regional communities who are listening tonight, let me assure you that there are members in this place, on this side of the House—such as the member for Parkes, the member for Cowper, the member for Mallee, the member for Menzies, the member for Calare and the member for Mackellar, who are all in the chamber—who are determined to fight this case until we finally get a fair and equitable system for regional communities.

I would also particularly like to thank Senator Fiona Nash for the work that she has done on this issue, along with the member for Sturt—the shadow minister for education—and the member for Forrest, who we have heard from tonight. They have been at the forefront of this issue and are continuing to pursue the government in relation to getting a fairer deal for regional students. There have been many other coalition members—I have just named a few—who have fought the good fight. We will continue that fight, and I urge all concerned Australians who may be listening to this broadcast tonight to raise this issue at every opportunity. Write to your Labor regional MP. Write to your Independent MP in regional communities and demand a better deal. Write to them. Send them an email. Ring them up. The only way they are going to listen is with people pressure. Once this Prime Minister realises she has a political problem, she will take action. That is the only way this government listens to the people of Australia. We must continue to highlight this issue in the interests of fairness and the interests of equity for regional Australian students. I thank the House.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. You just heard the comment made that this is a social issue and an equity issue. It is also an issue about the future of regional Australia. It is a very well-known fact that when Australian kids go to a place like the UK they have no trouble getting a job, because their work ethic is recognised. It is also a well-known fact that when country kids go to the city they have no trouble getting a job in Australia, because their work ethic is recognised. We do not have a problem in the bush and regional Australia about having kids with a work ethic and the desire to use it. But we do have a problem in that the professionals we need and who we retain—the medical profession in particular—tend to be the ones who were born and grew up there.

Most of the occupations to which I refer require further education after year 12 in high school. By and large, they cannot get that in regional Australia. It is a very real issue, even in an electorate like mine is now—almost small, as opposed to before; it is a mere 30,000 square kilometres—which does have a university at Bathurst and various outreaches. The chances are that even in that area either students cannot get into the course they want to do or the course does not exist where they want to do it.

As you have heard others say, the Prime Minister only backed down on the youth allowance in the outer regional and more remote areas of Australia when she had no choice politically. What is the difference from living in Cobar and having to travel to Sydney? You still have to live away from home. They are great people in Cobar; I know them very well. However, if you live in Orange, Bathurst, Lithgow, Forbes or Parkes the chances are that you will not be able to do your tertiary education locally unless you are lucky enough to get into Bathurst—and most cannot. You have to go to Armidale, Canberra, Sydney or one of the other universities in Australia. You certainly cannot go there and live at home. So I am rather puzzled as to why—quite correctly—the decision was made that the more remote areas should have the old system applied of one year in which you had the opportunity to earn the $15,000 when those who live in what is now termed as ‘inner regional’ do not.

It is extraordinarily important for our future and for the ability of regional Australia to stand on its own two feet and not to have up to 45 per cent of our doctors foreigners brought in; not to have professionals from outside; and not to have to go away when you need to get a medical service done.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you just heard my colleague make comments about thanking people for what they do. I remember when the original Senate inquiry was held; four students from Orange and Cowra gave evidence to that Senate inquiry. They had never done anything like that before, and these were kids who were still at school. I have never seen a school community—teachers, parents and students, including ones who had already left school—combine on an issue like it in my life. I have never had so many calls on an issue from desperate and frightened parents in my life. The need for their children, and for their own community, to get that extra education, university opportunity or whatever is just enormous. I keep coming back to the fact that if you have to leave home then you have to leave home. Quite correctly, outer regional areas have that ability now to have the one-year gap and not to lose their places as the two-year gap does, making it almost impossible for them.

I am totally puzzled as to how any bureaucrat or politician could sit there and say, ‘The outer regional people have to leave home but the inner regional people do not’—of course they have to leave home. It is a very real and serious matter. It is not as though most of them can leave home and go to the regional universities that are easier and cheaper to live in; to do things like medicine there is absolutely impossible. They have to go to the metropolitan areas.

I think this is simply an issue of fairness. The cost of children going that distance is just prohibitive. Australia needs the people who probably have the best work ethic of any young people in the whole country. They come from an area where they totally know and expect it—as most do. In country Australia it is just accepted that that is what you do. We should give those people the opportunity to have the education to be whatever we and their communities need them to be. I always say when I go to schools, ‘Go away, as you have to finish your education and your training—but come home to practise it.’ It is the kids who are born out there who will come home to practise it, but mostly they cannot obtain the qualification that they need, that we need, that the community needs, that regional Australia needs and that the whole of Australia needs them to have.

It is an issue about the future of regional Australia. It is an issue of justice. I can only say to the previous Minister for Education, the current Prime Minister, that this is not something that will go away. It is not something that all those people who believe so strongly in it will let die. It is something that is incredibly necessary. Please think about this from the point of view of the people who live out there.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the election campaign this government made a number of significant commitments to better support older pensioners who work, families with teenagers in full-time secondary study and families with new babies. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 delivers on these commitments. The seniors work bonus is expanded by this bill, so an age pensioner or service pensioner of qualifying age will be able to earn $250 per fortnight without any of those earnings affecting their pension entitlements. A pensioner will also be able to bank unused amounts of their work bonus, up to a maximum of $6,500. These banked amounts can be used to offset income that is earned in a later period. These changes will provide additional support to age pensioners and service pensioners who work, particularly those who undertake part-time or occasional work.

This bill also makes changes to the family assistance law to help families with teenagers in secondary study or a vocational education equivalent. From 1 January 2012, the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A for teenagers age 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary study and under the primary care of their family will increase to $214 per fortnight, bringing it into line with the rate for teenagers aged 13 to 16. In addition, these changes will extend rent assistance to families with children aged 16 to 19 who receive more than the base rate of the family tax benefit part A. This additional financial assistance will help families support their teenagers’ continued participation in secondary education or a vocational education equivalent.

This bill also improves the delivery of the baby bonus, providing for parents of new babies who are eligible for the baby bonus to receive more of their payment up front. In 2011-12, the up-front amount will be $500 in addition to a regular fortnightly instalment. This will assist families with meeting the initial costs of welcoming a new baby into their family.

This bill also exempts annuities paid by the Thalidomide Australia Fixed Trust from income tax and from social security and veterans’ affairs income tests. These annuities are paid to people who have been affected by the morning sickness drug thalidomide. This bill ensures that these annuities are not taken into account as income in the hands of the beneficiaries.

Finally, the bill makes some minor amendments to the income management arrangements. Amongst other things, the start date of a savings period for the matched savings payment scheme is clarified so that people can begin saving as soon as they register for an approved course.

This bill delivers on a number of important government election commitments that will benefit families and pensioners. On behalf of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs I want to thank speakers for their contributions to the debate. Disappointingly, for the opposition even these important measures for pensioners and families are not above political games. Instead of supporting this bill and supporting measures to assist Australian families and seniors, the opposition has once again employed its customary cheap ambush tactic and moved amendments that could jeopardise the passage of an important bill. As those opposite will know, the government has brought forward a legislative comprehensive review of student income support with a particular focus on the capacity of rural and regional students to access higher education. But the opposition continues to wreak havoc, pull down and play games with the Australian people. While they put politics above policy, the Gillard government is getting on with the job of delivering on our election commitments and delivering for Australian families and seniors. Accordingly, the government will oppose the opposition’s amendments and commends the bill to the House in its current form.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133(b) the division is deferred until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.