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

I am continuing my remarks on the legislative changes for student support that the government is now putting forward. This is a very successful student support assistance package that has seen a massive increase in the number of students taking up tertiary education options and students coming from regional and outer parts of Australia.

My speech was rudely interrupted last time the parliament sat. The opposition attempted to gag me from speaking in an attempt to play games in this House, which they have been doing all year in their fit of not being successful in forming government. I do not want that type of episode to interfere with what is the announcement of some very good news. I can understand why the opposition spokesperson on education wanted to interrupt my speech which is to demonstrate the good news that is part and parcel of this additional $265 million financial commitment to assisting students and their families access higher education in our nation, especially in a region such as my own.

All of my electorate was effectively deemed outer regional, except for two centres, Latrobe and Devonport, which were deemed to be inner regional. Those two inner regional centres now will be deemed to be the same and equivalent to outer regional areas and will be eligible for this increased assistance, if they were not eligible beforehand. Labor's changes mean that students from inner regional areas will have additional avenues to demonstrate independence and therefore qualify for independent youth allowance. It expands the options available to inner regional students to access this youth allowance. The maximum rate of independent youth allowance, for the record, is $388.70 a fortnight—that is, if you are 18 years old or more, living away from home with no children. But in order to further support regional students who have to move away from home to study—both of my children, Julian and William, have had to move away from home, and it is a struggle—this scheme is designed to assist a lot more families.

If you have to move away from home and you are from regional areas, the government is also increasing the value of what we call the Relocation Scholarship for eligible students from regional areas. That means, for example, that 15,300 regional students will receive a higher regional Relocation Scholarship amount each year. That is 15,300 of our students and their families who will benefit. From 1 January 2012 eligible regional students will receive a Relocation Scholarship of $4,000 for the first year of study to help them establish themselves when moving away from home and with all the rigmarole and anxiety that goes with that. It is $2,000 for each of the second and third years and $1,000 for subsequent years. There are a lot of things at play in determining those figures but that is calibrated and calculated to be the most essential type of support during those years.

Over a three-year degree, the Relocation Scholarship will increase from the current total of $6,186 to $8,000 from January next year. It is never enough, particularly with the financial burdens that many people from regional areas experience living away from home and the costs associated with that, but it is certainly a great increase on the past and will be greatly beneficial to many families. In the meantime with the changes that we have announced in this legislation we have decided to make it easier for regional students who may have missed out in 2009 and 2010 to access the independent youth allowance. This was during the period of review. The report of that review was handed down recently. The new rules will come into effect from 1 January 2012. I point out for the record that any employment undertaken since the student left school will be counted towards the independence test even if that work was done prior to 1 January 2012. We are trying to take into account the period between the initial announcement of the financial support scheme and the review that was recently handed down.

The review considered the impact of student income support arrangements implemented under the package on equity, with a particular focus on the impact on rural and regional students and their capacity to access higher education. The chair of the review Professor Kwong Lee Dow conducted discussions in both metropolitan areas and rural and regional areas in each state and territory. He handed down the report. The government's legislation before us is in response to that report's recommendations.

This year total support for Youth Allowance for higher education will exceed $1.25 billion. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent, something which if known by those on the other side is not mentioned by them. That is a 50 per cent increase on the $800 million outlay in the last year of the former coalition government. We are proud that more students than ever before are going to university. This government is proud that more students are receiving the support they need to attend university. This government is very proud that support is being targeted to those students who need it most. The review and consequent legislation, and prior to that our former scheme, are designed to support those families who need that support the most. We have succeeded in doing that. We have massively increased participation rates, particularly from rural and regional Australia. After a decade of stagnation under the former government we are delivering support that Australian students need to assist them to get through university.

The $265 million new package of support that I mentioned earlier will be fully funded. New expenditure will be offset from within the current program or the previous program. That means winding up the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund, deferring the measure to increase youth allowance eligibility for masters by coursework students from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2014, reducing the start-up scholarship to $2,050 from 1 January 2012, and reducing the Relocation Scholarship for non-regional students to $4,000 from 1 January 2012.

I have said before that we have opened the doors to Australia's universities. Students across the nation have taken up the opportunity to further their tertiary education. They have responded strongly to the new opportunities to access youth allowance. We have delivered major increases in funding to assist those students. For example, in just over a year we have seen an extra 25,000 students receiving youth allowance and many of these students are from low- and middle-income families. Many more low- and middle-income families are taking advantage of the lowering of the age of independence from 25 to 23. That is a massive change and has financial implications both for the benefit of those who are receiving it and increasing the cost of the scheme. There has been an increase of 29,441 students just with a change to the lowering of the age of independence. Fewer students are accessing youth allowance through the independent workforce criterion. That is a decrease of 26,141 students. So more are eligible and more are taking up that opportunity. As I was saying before, many more low- and middle-income students are accessing independent youth allowance, an increase of 21,342 students.

So overall the number of students accessing youth allowance is up from 135,000 to 160,000. That is an increase of 18 per cent in just more than a year. There have been more students in rural areas, particularly in my own area and that of the member for Lyne, who has spent a long time trying to hone this scheme and make it even more beneficial for rural and regional students. I thank him for that. I was really happy to work with him to keep on keeping on to make these changes.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011 proposes that from 1 January 2012 changes be made to the criteria under which youth allowance recipients from inner regional Australia are considered to be independent. It adjust the amount of the Relocation Scholarship to eligible higher education students from regional or remote areas who are required to live away from home to study and it reduces the amount of the Student Start-Up Scholarship to $2,050 for eligible students. This bill will also introduce a feasibility study into the merits of an income contingent loan scheme to help students who have to live away from home during clinical and practical placements. As well, it will establish triennial reviews of student income support reforms to gauge their effectiveness in reducing financial barriers to education for students in need and also provide an educational strategy to ensure students and their families are aware of the financial assistance available for tertiary education. As a member of parliament I am regularly confronted by constituents who are struggling and in need and are not aware that there are government schemes to assist them, so this awareness will be welcomed by many. Today we are debating proposed amendments to finally make independent youth allowance provisions fair for inner regional students. This comes after two years of lobbying by students, parents and education stakeholders—from all groups who are affected by this legislation. These stakeholders have been calling for a reversal of the changes that this Labor government made to the original legislation that made the system unfair to inner regional students by removing the 30-hour work week rule, and finally the government has realised the error it made in subjecting these students to this requirement in the first place.

This realisation is important, as by introducing the necessity for inner regional students to work 30 hours a week in order to be eligible for youth allowance, the government made the arrogant assumption that inner regional students have the same access to opportunities as students from metropolitan areas and that their costs of relocation for university study are somehow less than those of anyone else who has had to move. It was an unfair provision that the government introduced in the first place. The reversal of the government's extra provision, however, comes at a cost. It is yet another blow-out for taxpayers and there are flow-on effects for other students who are eligible for youth allowance.

The package that has been announced is costing $265 million. That is $265 million to make changes to a program that the government themselves changed in the first place—not a terribly flattering reflection on this government's economic management. Neither is it a particularly flattering reflection on this government's management of education, which so many members claim to hold close to their hearts. The coalition has tried to right this wrong many times before now, yet previous attempts have fallen upon deaf ears and have been blocked in debate by members of the Labor Party and, at times, by Independent members representing regional areas.

Last October—more than 12 months ago—the coalition introduced a notice of motion to the House of Representatives to make independent youth allowance fair for inner regional students by reinstating the same fair criteria that apply to other regional students. Whilst this was supported by Independent members, it was blocked by Labor members of parliament. In February this year, the coalition introduced a bill into the House of Representatives which sought to reinstate the same fair criteria to inner regional students as other regional students. Debate was disallowed by Labor members as well as the member for New England and the member for Lyne. It is curious that the same members are now supporting these legislative changes—now that they have been proposed by their side of the House.

The bill before us today brings fairness back to inner regional students. This is so important, as the Bradley report found that students from regional and remote areas are one of just three groups that are significantly underrepresented at university. Although 27.9 per cent of the population aged between 15 and 64 live in regional or remote areas, only 19 per cent of university students indicate that they are from these areas. Furthermore, the higher education participation rate of this group has deteriorated over the past five years. It is interesting that, despite this deterioration in participation rates, the government introduced further barriers to regional students through more restrictive criteria for youth allowance. The government cannot try to claim ignorance of what was going on. It ignored multiple attempts by the coalition to address the issue sooner. Additionally, the government announced their ambition that, by 2014, 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds will hold a bachelor's degree and, by 2020, 20 per cent of undergraduate higher education enrolments will be students from a remote or regional background. Again it is surprising that, considering these targets, the government added an extra barrier for regional students.

These statistics alone give weight to the importance of increasing participation rates of students from regional and remote backgrounds. Further to this, however, offer rates to those from regional and remote areas who apply to attend university are equal to or better than offers to students from metropolitan and urban areas. So the question is why participation rates are lower. It is commonly regarded that students from a regional or remote background face higher initial costs, as they often must move away from home to study. A report by the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations notes that access is closely linked to the costs of attending university, and the further a person lives away from the campus the more likely it is that there will be additional costs to study—such as transport expenses. Furthermore, it has been shown that regional and remote students have a perception that costs will be higher and therefore they are discouraged from the beginning.

With the University of Queensland located in my electorate of Ryan, I have seen evidence of this in St Lucia, Toowong, Taringa and surrounding suburbs. Students come to study at the University of Queensland from all over the state and, indeed, from around Australia. Every January, demand for rental housing by students—new and current—is overwhelming as students try to find somewhere to live during the semester. I know the stress that this causes students. Although the University of Queensland has 10 residential colleges, demand for these facilities is so high that literally hundreds of students miss out every year, but whether students utilise university or private accommodation, the cost to those who have to relocate to attend university is phenomenal. Students must find a way to fund these costs, with many working part-time to help with the burden. However, with the admirable target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds holding a bachelor's degree by 2014, and 20 per cent regional and remote student participation by 2020, measures must be taken to support students while they study.

Delivering higher education to a dispersed population such as ours in Australia is a difficult task. Research shows that those from regional and remote areas suffer from the tyranny of distance much more than their metropolitan counterparts, with a 10 per cent lower participation rate for the 19- to 21-year-old age group. Much of this barrier is due to cost, plain and simple. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations report estimated that the annual cost for regional students to study away from home is approximately $15,000 to $20,000 per year. The report states that, on top of this, many students cannot access youth allowance due to tight eligibility criteria. Keep in mind that this report was commissioned after the government's changes and, even amongst those who can access youth allowance, the amount provided was considered inadequate to cover the living, social and travel costs for young regional people. This finding does not bode well for those students whose scholarships will be cut due to the costs involved with the mismanagement of this program and its changes.

The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations report states that regional students are most worried about the cost of tertiary education. Sadly, but understandably, students are focused on the immediate costs they face, rather than on the lifelong benefits and increased earning capacity higher education can bring. The report says that many regional students recognised that university study would require significant financial resources and that this would often mean that students would be heavily reliant on their parents if they chose to study at university. Studies have found that students were reluctant to become overreliant on their parents, and so upfront cost considerations affected their decision to participate in higher education. Of course, there are many families in which a student's parents would willingly cover the costs involved with their children receiving a tertiary education but they simply cannot afford it.

I highlight these cost concerns as they are an obvious barrier to regional student participation in higher education and we have a duty to address the discrepancies between metropolitan and regional student participation rates. Youth allowance is one way we can support regional students to close this gap, and it must be utilised effectively to ensure that regional students have access to these funds fairly, regardless of whether they are from an inner regional or outer regional background. The relocation costs and costs of studying away from home are basically the same, regardless of whether you need to relocate 100 kilometres or 500 kilometres, and inner regional students should be subject to the same conditions as other regional students, not metropolitan students.

The legislation before us today shows that the government have finally sat up and listened to those who have been affected by their changes. It is a shame that their delayed response has come with a $265 million price tag and will be to the detriment of other students currently receiving youth allowance. It is also a shame that, despite evidence showing that regional students already have a lower participation rate in higher education, the government imposed this extra barrier in front of inner regional students in the first place.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite what the other place is debating right now in regard to climate change, despite what previous prime ministers have said about 'the moral challenges of our time', it is my view that climate change is not the moral challenge of our time; nor is it the economic challenge of our time. As I have previously stated quite publically, I think the moral and economic challenge of our time is access and participation rates in education. That is what makes this Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011 and work done in the area of access and participation rates so vitally important for the future of so many individuals—the families and communities of Australia—and, indeed, for Australia more generally.

This bill is also pleasing because it is a clear demonstration of the actions of the 43rd Parliament in direct comparison with the actions of the 42nd Parliament. This is delivering the outcome that should have been delivered for regional and rural students with respect to access and participation in education and better outcomes in regard to youth allowance. As many previous speakers have said, the 42nd Parliament dogged this reform. There was an attempt to make some substantial changes to student income support. Conceptually, all of those were fine; however, in negotiating in the Senate, between the major parties, it went wrong. A scheme based on a GP medical scheme became the circuit breaker between a Labor government and a Liberal-National opposition that could not reach agreement. Potentially all of the reforms were going to fall over and potentially all students would have been denied youth allowance for higher learning, as a consequence of party politics gone wrong.

As a consequence an inner versus outer regional scheme was the circuit breaker. In communities such as mine and in many communities around Australia, lines were drawn down the middle of electorates. This meant that some students received entitlements that other students did not. This created enormous confusion on the ground, inequity and plenty of politics. On the back of that, it has been fascinating to watch those same major parties who dogged it on the negotiations in the Senate in the last parliament suddenly scramble to try and do some sort of mea culpa and claim moral high ground—that they either were not involved at all or that they had some sort of wonderful solution.

In this parliament it has been resolved. This is an important package for access and participation rates in education and it will make a significant difference to the many challenges that Australia faces. I am personally thankful that the Prime Minister was willing to negotiate on this issue and that she has delivered on those negotiations. In February this year, through personal negotiation directly with her, an agreement was reached that the review required by the Social Security Act would be brought forward by 12 months to report by 1 July this year. The review was to consider the impact of the then recent reforms, including their impact on the capacity of regional students to access higher education and appropriate savings that could be made to pay for extensions in eligibility for youth allowance. The government, informed by the findings of this review, was to present legislation to parliament this year with a view to implementing the new eligibility arrangements from 1 January 2012. The government was to ensure that these new eligibility arrangements eliminated the distinction between inner regional and outer regional students. The solution needed to be evidence based, financially responsible and sustainable in the long term, and, given the tough budget environment, any new spending needed to be offset by savings.

It is worth going back to February this year, because around that time there were plenty of doubting Thomases saying that all this would never happen, and there were plenty saying for their own political reasons or their own political gain that it was some sort of dirty deal which would not deliver results for students in regional and remote communities. But every one of the issues that were negotiated is being delivered upon in this legislation. I thank the Prime Minister for both having the desire to negotiate on better youth allowance outcomes and, via this legislation, delivering on the negotiations. It is appreciated and important, because this is both the moral and the economic challenge of our time.

I hope that now some of the politics can be put behind us, but I gather from some of the things that have been said already that that may not be the case. There seems to be some attempt to enter into mythology that what happened in February this year was not unconstitutional and that instead there was some sort of giving up on students in regional areas, particularly by regional Independents but also by other members of this chamber who represent regional communities.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just heard an interjection to say, 'That is right.' Let us do a direct comparison between the two options that have come before the House, one now and the other in February. The one we are looking at now, which will hopefully have the support of both all members in this chamber and those in the other place, has $265 million of outcomes and removes the inner regional versus outer regional dog of a deal that was done in the last Senate—that is, in the 42nd Parliament. It is a real result with real outcomes which have been achieved without bagging anyone, without accusations, without smears. Compare that to February—no result and no real outcomes but unconstitutional and with plenty of bagging, lots of accusations and lots of smears. I would say that for everyone the choice between the two options is pretty clear: $265 million versus zero. If you are a student who is thinking about their university options from 1 January next year, I would hope you would much prefer a result that mattered and that was achieved via negotiation—or via whatever means through the political process—to the smear, the accusations and the baggings that went with zero results in real terms for students in low-income areas, in regional communities and among communities of Aboriginal descent: the three standout areas in Australia of low access and low participation in higher learning.

It is a shameful failure of policy by this parliament and so-called public policy leaders that it is the case that low-income, Indigenous and regional and rural students are up to 30 per cent less likely to be in higher learning when we have skills shortage in this country. It says that public policy has been all too comfortable leaving people behind. I do not want to be in a parliament that does that. I do not think that is the Australian way. This legislation is one important contribution that says that we do not leave people behind and that we do all that we can to bring less affluent, Indigenous and regional and rural people—all of them potentially students—to a situation where they can be valuable contributors to the Australia of the future.

This legislation matters. It has had one ugly birth through a political process that goes back to the last Senate. The major parties both should be condemned for a dirty deal gone wrong, but I am pleased that this parliament has now negotiated an outcome that cleans that up and delivers a very real result that will matter for the long-term national interest of this country.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011. I can understand why the previous speaker, the member for Lyne, was so shrill in defence of his actions. I think he stands condemned and should be ashamed for his blocking and cutting down of debate on this legislation the last time it was before the parliament. It was because of his seriously misplaced sense of his own importance that we were not able to debate this bill.

This bill is one of the most significant ever to come before the House in terms of impact on the younger people—the next generation—of my electorate of Murray. We in my electorate have one of the lowest levels of formal educational attainment in Australia. We have generations of farm families who have learned on the job and are excellent at what they do, but they have typically not had access to tertiary education. Of course, times have changed, and now most families aspire to have their young ones move beyond secondary education to either an apprenticeship or a university course. Unfortunately we have very few tertiary course offerings nearby or in the electorate, although the number of these courses has improved since I was elected in 1996. The reality is that for the vast majority of school leavers who aspire to a university education they or their families will have to find some way to pay the roughly $20,000 per annum for their living away from home to study expenses.

In northern Victoria and Murray, we have just come through 10 years of drought and then the floods. The prospect of the Gillard-Brown carbon tax is already biting, with the extra costs to our energy-intensive export-exposed food manufacturing driving factory closures and job losses. Never has there been a more important time for us to have higher education alternatives for our next generation of young people.

Can you imagine the distress when at the height of the drought the Rudd government decided that their mounting debt and program disasters and their outrageous costs could be trimmed a little be squeezing country kids out of eligibility for independent youth allowance? Their crude strategy was effective. The Labor government simply took the most densely populated parts of regional Australia where they could expect most of the independent youth allowance applications to come from and ring-fenced these off in a zone they called 'inner regional'. Can you imagine the horror when parents in Deniliquin and Echuca realised the con?

This involved applying conditions for eligibility for the allowance that were impossible for students to meet. Students were required to work 15 hours a week for at least two years after completing secondary education. This meant a deferral of at least two years from courses, which universities virtually always denied. The alternative was to work for at least 18 months where you earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum Commonwealth training award payment or around $19,532.

Again, in my small and large rural communities, the door-knocking and desperate requests of teenagers seeking full-time jobs with wages with only year-12 qualifications and no work experience virtually always ended in those students being turned away. They could not get the work. They could not leave home to find the work. It was a disaster. As expected, many of the students simply had to let their higher education aspirations go. Families who were looking forward with pride to the first of their family ever to gain a university qualification were suddenly confronted with the reality that they could not afford to pay their students' living costs, and the Labor government did not want to know about it or they simply did not care.

We had rally after rally in Murray; we had thousands of petitions signed; we had deputations and begging letters to ministers, with parents and grandparents joining with their students. We pleaded with the Rudd and then the Gillard government to relent and give rural students a fair go. After all, we know that country born and bred professionals are much more likely to take up their careers in their home or like communities. They go back to the bush.

Country raised and educated professionals are not afraid of the long distances, the dusty travel, the small populations, the droughts, fires, floods and pestilence that colour the lives of rural communities. With fewer country educated graduates, we will be exacerbating the next generation of rural skills shortages that are already a feature of Australia's two-speed economy. Again, this government does not seem to know or care. For any government to deliberately target cost-cutting measures to impair the skills development of the next generation simply beggars belief. I think it will go down as one of the darkest decisions to be made by any government ever.

Finally, in a face-saving episode, the Gillard government asked Professor Kwong Lee Dow to review the situation. I know Professor Kwong Lee Dow very well. I knew that he would provide the right outcome, and this government was shamed into a backflip. But it is too late, let me say, tragically for too many of my families.

I want to give you some statistics because this government is very fond of giving statistics, and previous speakers have done this from the other side making it look as if the damage was contained. But let me quote you the real statistics—that is if the minister is to be believed when he supplied these answers to questions on notice that I put to him some time ago. I asked for him to tell me how many youth allowances, independent youth allowances and rent assistance packages had been allocated to my electorate of Murray—bearing in mind that only half of the electorate, the less populated half, was affected or allowed to continue with the old coalition policies. It was my inner regional half that was caught up in this scam.

In 2007, during the height of the drought but under the coalition, 400 students applied for a tertiary youth allowance. In 2011, under Labor's new cost-cutting measures with the inner regional definitions and hopeless and impossible criteria designed to squeeze country students out of the budget, they had the desired outcome: only 247, or nearly half the students, applied in 2011 compared to 2007; only 66 actually received the full rate of the youth allowance in 2011 compared to 235 who received the full youth allowance under the Howard government in 2007. These are disgraceful figures.

Let's look at the independent youth allowance: in 2007, 137 received the independent youth allowance; in 2011, to June, only 48—48 compared to 137. These are the statistics out of the minister's own portfolio. I think they are a disgrace and they indicate a serious crisis for my electorate of Murray in terms of its potential to have its own skilled people trained at tertiary education facilities in the future.

Let's look at rent assistance: in 2007, 3,185 of my students received rent assistance; in 2011, to June, only 1,742—so just over half again. I think those statistics are incredibly damning. I think they are from a government which really has some reckoning to do. How can any government say that in order to introduce cost-cutting measures it will continue with pink batts, dodgy solar panels, set-top boxes, grocery watches, fuel watches and all sorts of extraordinary expenditures while it cuts the capacity of country students to realise their dreams of a university education?

It is not just the dream that individuals have had dashed; as I said before, these rural communities and economies are already suffering as a result of these reductions and worse is to come. At Echuca College, where years 11 and 12 students are just now contemplating their futures and, for year 12s, university places are being applied for, this year less than half of the Echuca year-12 students have applied for a tertiary place. That is a condemnation on this government's head, and I am ashamed that this government thinks that this bill, which finally puts the show right, will be enough. We will have to have a lot of compensatory support to look after that lost generation of students who could not access tertiary education because this government was inept and did not care.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to extend my support to the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011. Born and raised, as I was, in Australia, I am proud to have gone through one of the best education systems in the world. Regrettably, I could probably have used it more efficiently as I was growing up, but these things do fall to the individual. Nevertheless, the system was available. Not only do all Australians have the right to an education, but, through the hard work and dedication of our teachers, we are fortunate enough to attend teaching institutions that the OECD ranks in the top 10 in the world. I am very proud of our teaching institutions.

As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, my daughter Elizabeth is a high school teacher. I recently attended a school and was talking with the kids about occupations that make a difference. I indicated to them my view that one of the few occupations that makes a genuine difference in our community is teaching. Without our teachers, we would not be able to motivate people to become doctors, tradespeople, engineers, builders, carpenters or, indeed, lawyers. So I take the opportunity to extend my thanks to all those dedicated teachers out there. I acknowledge the powerful work they do in shaping our future.

That Australia's teaching institutions are ranked by the OECD in the top 10 in the world is significant. The fact that thousands of international students flock to our shores every year gives some proof to the standard of our education system and how it is viewed on the world scene. This is not to say that continual improvements must not be made. The government is committed to ensuring that every single Australian has the opportunity to undertake further education as it seeks to improve access to the system.

The bill before the House focuses on our regional students. As we have heard from previous speakers, the bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 by extending special workforce participation independence arrangements, changing the value and distribution of the relocation scholarship and changing the value of the Student Start-up Scholarship. This bill also corrects some drafting oversights in the Families, Housing, Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Act (No. 1) 2011 and the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Act 2010.

Many regional students must leave their homes to study after they complete secondary school. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are provided ample assistance during this time. It is with that in mind that the government proposes what it regards as necessary reforms. Following extensive consultation with Professor Kwong Lee Dow AM, a man with an impressive record in and knowledge of the higher education system, the main challenge that was identified was the additional costs that are incurred through the relocation process. In line with this government's commitment to a stronger, fairer and more productive nation, and in response to this review, I am pleased to rise to support this package of amendments. Under the proposed amendments, we will see changes to the independence criteria for youth from inner regional Australia and improved support for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

In 2010 the government introduced similar reforms to this aspect of the social security system, and since this time the number of independent youth allowance recipients has increased by 29,000. That means that over 160,000 students are now accessing youth allowance. Though we are delighted by the impact of these reforms, we are disappointed to see that regional participation rates still lag behind the numbers in metropolitan areas. We hope that these 2011 changes will be the catalyst for improving this disparity and giving further opportunity for young people in regional areas. We believe that, by allowing for increase in the inner regional student workforce participation that is already available to outer regional and remote students, some of the financial burden will be alleviated. It is expected that an additional 5,500 young people will have access to payments under this new scheme.

By chance I had a conversation with a young lady who is attending the Australian National University. She grew up in inner regional New South Wales and had to relocate to Canberra to undertake her degree. She is the eldest of five kids and, under the current legislation, she is ineligible to receive youth allowance payments. Not only faced with the costs of relocation, for the past four years she has faced the financial strain that comes with being a university student, including paying for textbooks, rent and living expenses. In having to undertake 30 hours per week of paid work to cover these costs, this student told me that she felt that her legal studies have suffered as a result.

The changes to the system proposed in these amendments will directly affect this young lady and thousands like her by allowing them the opportunity to fully engage in their tertiary education. Apart from being of specific value to individuals, these changes will have value to the community. We not only want people commencing studies—in the case of this young woman, her law degree—we want them completing their studies in an appropriate period of time. That is good for the community.

Further changes will be made to the value of relocation scholarships for eligible dependent students and some small numbers of independent students disadvantaged by their personal circumstances. From January next year, 15,000 regional students will receive $4,000 in their first year, $2,000 in each of their second and third years and $1,000 in subsequent years.

I would also like to mention the non-legislative improvements that the government are targeting. We are undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of an income-contingent loan scheme for those students who must live away from home for clinical placement and other formal practicum periods as part of their course requirement. I saw firsthand the need for that when I recently visited the UWS medical school and saw a number of young people who were attracted to studying there. The practice of that medical school allocating out young people during the course of their studies to work in various areas in the community was raised with me, so this is an improvement that will have material benefit. Also, there will be reviews of the effectiveness of income support in reducing financial barriers to student participation and the formation of an education strategy to ensure that young regional Australians are aware of their options for financial assistance. In its entirety the bill represents no additional cost to the Australian taxpayer and, consequently, it would be utterly beyond belief if the amendments are not passed by the House.

Every young person is an asset to this nation. We need to facilitate knowledge development by engaging in continual revision of our education system and the support networks that underpin that. Australian businesses already know the value of our human capital and that it is paramount. It is worth investing in, not just for here and now but for the long term. The government are in agreement. We are committed to removing the distinction between students based on their location and upbringing. All young people have the right to a bright future and we must ensure that financial barriers do not stand in their way as they try to realise their dreams and aspirations.

Australia has always prided itself on its reputation for giving every individual, through hard work and dedication, the opportunity to elevate their economic and social status through participation. The government are proud to represent such a community and we want to give all young people that opportunity. We want to help them step up in order to meet their dreams and aspirations. I hope that those on the other side similarly support these amendments as this legislation is not just about an investment in the individuals concerned but about a real investment in Australia's future. I commend the bill to the House.

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

It has taken 2½ years for this government to finally end its discrimination against students and families in regional and rural areas, including students and families in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's original intention in 2009, as the then Minister for Education, was to totally strip away independent youth allowance for every student in Australia in a perverse form of cost saving, which was confirmed in Senate estimates. This is from a government that was in the throes of wasting billions of taxpayers' funds on pink batts, green loans and overpriced school buildings. The government has been absolutely determined to make rural and regional students pay for its waste and mismanagement through changes to youth allowance—basically, as one parent said, condemning students on the basis of where they live. It is the government's postcode method of discrimination. What an appalling decision it was and what dreadful trauma, stress and pressure it has caused. I have seen it almost on a daily basis throughout my electorate.

In giving evidence, Shelley O'Brien, from the Injury Control Council of WA, said:

These financial pressures, we understand from mental health, lead to family disharmony; increased levels of mental ill-health and depression; pressures on other family members and risks to younger siblings; increases in domestic violence; potential loss of family home or car; family discussions about financial prioritising; feelings of discrimination; and, in small communities, the fears of shame leading onto isolation are real pressures.

Why would the Prime Minister do this? Why would she penalise families when we know categorically that Australia's geography and demography pose significant challenges for regional families, especially when young students move beyond the educational experience offered by country schools to secondary or tertiary education in larger cities?

Many regional students have no choice but to relocate to study, like the young people in my electorate. They and their families face a significant increase in their cost of living due to living away from home, as well as many social and personal challenges. Students from regional areas are less likely to finish year 12 than their metropolitan counterparts and are significantly underrepresented in tertiary education. Fifty-five per cent of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared to 33 per cent of students from regional areas. Evidence has shown that it is the financial barrier of the cost of relocation that prevents more regional students from undertaking tertiary study. In Western Australia, 14.9 per cent of students whose home is located outside the capital city defer their studies. Literature suggests that this is due to the need to accumulate financial resources to be able to study at university.

In spite of these statistics, in early 2010 the Labor government altered the eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance as a cost-saving measure, as I said. Under the new system, students from areas that the government identified as inner regional were required to work more hours for longer than other students before being considered independent. Students mapped as outer regional could be classed as independent if they had been out of school for 18 months and had earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under the wage level A in that 18-month period. This meant they could basically take one year off, earning a wage to allow them to meet the income requirement within that one year. They could then enrol in their preferred tertiary course the next year and wait out the remaining six months while studying before claiming independent youth allowance.

But if you are a student from the south-west, in an area described by the government as 'inner regional', you could not access the same criteria. Inner regional students were forced to work an average of 30 hours a week for a minimum of 18 months out of two years. This meant that these same inner regional students had to take at least 18 months off, and for courses that are set and which do not have a midyear intake like medicine, law, vet science and others they had to take two years away from study. Two years is an awfully long time and, unfortunately, many students from inner regional areas do not come back to their study.

The practical result of this was that while outer regional, remote and very remote students found it possible to qualify for independent status while taking off only one year—their gap year—inner regional students could not. This was a discrimination against these students. The Labor Party's changes to youth allowance slashed the tertiary education opportunities for the regional or rural students right across this nation. Their changes to the legislation just discriminated against regional students' access to independent youth allowance, and that was just through those arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

The amount of emails, phone calls, visits and petitions—everything that we did to bring the damage this was doing to the attention of the government—were where from day one we worked overtime to change this decision and to bring this to the government's attention on a daily basis, where possible. Both this House and the Senate sent clear messages to the government that rural and regional students and their families should be given a fair go. The government has had the opportunity to do this previously. They did not have to wait this amount of time. Young people and their families could have been accessing this a long time ago. Both houses passed motions to this effect a full year ago, in October 2010. The government's response to that at the time was not to fix the problem but just to initiate another review: to stall, to obfuscate and, ultimately, to try to avoid admitting that they got it wrong. They did get it wrong.

But nothing could ultimately hide the fact—the truth—that the Prime Minister, in particular, got this so horribly wrong as the minister for education. This was wrong. This discriminated against rural and regional students. It was really plain to all fair minded people that the government policy was discriminatory, and basically a direct attack on those aspirations of regional students and their families. As a result we have the government dragged kicking and screaming to the table by an opposition campaign for fairness to fix the appalling mess that the government created.

I believe the government will try to put their usual spin on it. I note that in response to a dorothy dix question from the member for New England on 19 September this year the Prime Minister said:

Because of the advocacy of Labor members, the member for New England and the member for Lyne, in the last parliament the government acted to create a better and fairer system of youth allowance for Australian students generally and particularly for country students.

But Australian families know exactly who has been working constantly for the unfair and discriminatory changes to be scrapped. People in my electorate know very well. They have been with me every step of the way on this. They know exactly who was responsible, and they know who has been working tirelessly to get this fixed. It was certainly not the members of the Labor Party.

Let us refer to debate on the motion I moved in this House a year ago calling for fairness and an end to the discrimination. This motion was framed to require the government:

(a) 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

(b) to appropriate funds necessary to meet the additional cost to write a daily limit and give expanding the criteria for participation, with the funds to come from the Education Investment Fund; and

(2) to send a message to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and request that it concur.

In the debate I asked:

… the Prime Minister and all parliamentarians for fairness and equity of access for the thousands of regional students who have to relocate to attend tertiary education who are currently classified as ‘inner regional’.

I said to this House:

Put simply, I am asking whether members of this parliament believe in a fair go for rural and regional students and their families or whether this parliament will continue to discriminate against these same students and families.

That is what I asked for. And how did members of the Labor Party respond? They opposed the motion, and in doing so opposed a fair deal for regional students. And certainly a lot sooner than this.

I note that the member for Hunter said on that day:

Yes, there will be losers. There have been losers in my electorate and I have spoken to many of them. I sympathise with them, but the government has to make tough decisions.

Yes, there were many losers under that Labor government policy—many students from inner regional areas who had to take two gap years off, not one, and many young students that we cannot fix the problem for now, even with this legislation. In the meantime they deliberately chose to change what they were doing in years 11 and 12 because they knew they would not qualify for youth allowance, and they knew that their families could not afford to send them. So they have already made this decision, and this has had an impact on their education and their opportunities. I have spoken to those students, and that is what this did to those families.

In the debate on the motion, Labor members pointed out that the government had a limited bucket of money and they were simply changing who they were going to give it to. So they decided that young people in inner regional areas did not have a right to that opportunity for higher education. Instead of funding fair and equitable access to tertiary education for all of those students who needed it, this government picked winners and losers, based on their postcodes. So many great young people and great families in my electorate were the losers.

They talk to me on a regular basis. I have spoken to the parents who have had to take a second job and I have spoken to families that have been so distressed and distraught by this. On Saturday at the Brunswick Show parent after parent came up and asked me if this is going to be changed and when it is going to be changed. This is critical: how could the government get it so wrong? How could you get it so wrong?

So we—not the other side of the House—fought the fight for fairness and equity in independent youth allowance. On this side of the House we moved motions, we sought to amend bills, we developed and tabled petitions and we encouraged the community to put their case to the committee. They wrote letters; they wrote emails. The thousands of people who were left devastated by this government's actions were supported by coalition members in their fight for equality—and still are to this day.

The coalition got behind the regional families because we were hearing them and we understood. We get it; we live there. We understand what people go through and how important education is to young people in regional areas. They need that education and we need those great young people back in our part of the world. We got behind them, and we understand the issues facing parents and students who are struggling financially to cover the costs of having young people living away from home to study. We were hearing stories of students who could not afford to get a tertiary education and so were opting out.

As I said, these young Australians were abandoning their educational dreams and aspirations. We were hearing of parents having to choose which one of their children they could afford to send to university. That has been one of the results of this in the last couple of years. The changes in this bill will remove some of the bias and discrimination imposed by the government's last bill, and I really want to thank the hundreds of families from the south-west who have not only contacted my office and me personally but have prepared submissions for inquiries, fronted up to Professor Kwong Lee Dow's meeting in my electorate and appeared in person before committees to outline the inequality of the government's criteria for independent youth allowance.

While we have had some success, I am determined to keep up the fight on behalf of south-west students and families until they have an equal chance of fulfilling their educational aspirations. But the discrimination continues. Another result is that none of those same students on independent youth allowance will have access to relocation scholarships. So, for me, the fight continues, and I fight on behalf of those young people, those families and their opportunities for education. I note the government have claimed that the number of regional students receiving youth allowance has increased, but they fail to say how many are actually receiving independent youth allowance compared to those on dependent youth allowance. Nor do they mention how many students receiving independent youth allowance are only receiving a part rate of the payment.

I want to thank all of my colleagues on this side of the House who, from the time that this government changed this legislation, stood with us, particularly those of us who are regional and rural members—those who understood and respected the fact that young people in rural and regional areas must have equity of access to education. It is the best opportunity not only for the young people and for the communities they will come back to and serve but for the future of this nation. Young people are always our future. The education they receive is a critical part of that.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am more than pleased to speak on this very important bill, the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011. This is a good reform that is timely and something that this Labor government is very proud of. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to implement policy announcements by the government on 14 September this year following consideration of the recommendations of the Review of Student Income Support Reforms. These amendments remove the distinctions between inner regional and other regional and remote students for independent youth allowance, as well as providing additional support for students from regional Australia who need to relocate to study. It is not just about getting the reforms right in terms of who gets what money and where. It is also an additional support—an increase in funding, recognising that it is not just about who gets it but also that they actually need more funding.

Labor has a very long and proud tradition of supporting not only students but also the education system. You can see this whether you look back in history at the Whitlam years and the great legacy in higher education that has been left from that era, or at today, from Building the Education Revolution building new classrooms and new schools and adding school halls, to the national curriculum, to reforming school funding, which is in desperate need of change, and to the increasing of the funding that is available to not only schools but also teachers and the education system as a whole.

This bill has three key principle measures. The first measure changes the criteria under which youth allowance recipients from inner regional Australia are considered to be independent. The rate of youth allowance for independent recipients is not subject to a test for parental income, family means or family assets. The arrangements for independence through the part-time and earnings workforce participation criteria available to young people for outer regional, remote and very remote Australia will also be extended to young people from inner regional Australia. This is about extending the reach and it is about increasing that extension as well. No person who is currently independent because of the existing workforce participation criteria will be affected by this change. In addition, transitional or retrospective arrangements will be in place for young people who left secondary school in 2009-10, so they will not be left out either.

The second, very important, measure is about the adjustment of the amount of the relocation scholarship to provide additional assistance in the second and third years to eligible higher education students from regional and remote areas who are required to live away from home to study. This is in recognition of the multiple barriers and high costs faced by this group. We all recognise that in this place, and you would not have to travel too far to any electorate in this country to find people who are directly impacted by this. I know that Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore would have people in her electorate that are directly affected, as are people in the western corridor of Brisbane and Ipswich. This is for a whole range of reasons in students trying to access higher education facilities, whether they are in Brisbane or whether they have to travel further to gain that higher education. We know that the associated costs are high and that everyone ought to have good access. That is what the bill does and what this government has recognised. It has made the required changes and increased the amount of funding that is available.

This amendment resets relocation scholarship values from next year, 2012. For eligible students from regional areas, the 2012 values will be $4,000 in the first year of living away, $2,000 in each of the second and third years and then $1,000 in any subsequent years of study. For eligible students from major cities, the 2012 values will be $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 in subsequent years of study. From 2013, indexation will apply annually as per the current arrangements. There is no change to the eligibility criteria for the relocation scholarship either. I note that the 2011 values for the relocation scholarship were $4,124 in the first year and $1,031 in subsequent years for eligible students. The third important measure also changes the amount of the Student Start-Up Scholarships for eligible students. This amendment resets that start-up scholarship value in 2012 to $1,025 per half-year payment. This amount will be indexed each year from 2013 as well, and there is no change to eligibility criteria for Student Start-Up Scholarships. So it is an easy process and a good transition, not only an increase but a resetting of the capacity for people to apply as well.

The bill brings forward by 18 months the cessation of the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund, which provides a one-off payment of $3,000 under the grants based scheme in the first year that a higher education student from a regional or remote area is required to live away from home. The $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund will cease from 2012, and the savings from that fund will form part of the offsets for the package of reforms that we are introducing today. This is an important change and does rebalance the funding and mechanism of funding for students who are in need of government assistance. The result of our changes is that 5½ thousand inner regional students will be able either to access independent youth allowance payments or to receive a higher rate of payment.

From 1 January 2012, to be eligible for independent youth allowance under the workforce participation criteria regional students will need to satisfy one of the following three elements. The will have to be either working full time for an average of at least 30 hours a week for at least 18 months in a two-year period or working part time for at least 15 hours a week for two years since leaving school. Provided that they need to relocate to study and their combined parental income is less than $150,000 a year, that will apply. The third element is about earning, where in an 18-month period since leaving school an amount is earned equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under the appropriate national training wage award rate or the varied rate as it applies. Again, this is as long as combined parental income is less than $150,000 per annum.

Under the current scheme, inner regional students can only qualify under the first of these three elements to be eligible for independent youth allowance. Labor's changes mean that students from inner regional areas will have additional avenues to demonstrate independence and, therefore, qualify for the independent youth allowance. It expands the options available to inner regional students to access youth allowance. The maximum rate of independent youth allowance is $388.70 a fortnight for an 18 year old away from home with no children. To further support regional students who have to move away from home to study, the government is also increasing the value of relocation scholarships for eligible students from regional areas. Labor's changes mean that 15,300 regional students will receive higher relocation scholarship amounts each year. From 1 January next year eligible regional students will receive scholarships of $4,000 for the first year, $2,000 for each of the second and third years and $1,000 for the subsequent years. Over a three-year degree the relocation scholarship will increase from the current total of $6,186 to $8,000 from January next year. It is a good increase, a good transitional mechanism and more money for students in their pockets. We have decided to make it easier for regional students to access independent youth allowance, and the new rules will come into effect 1 January 2012. We are proud that more students will be able to receive that support and we are proud of the way we are being able to deliver it as well.

Under this review and the review of student reforms, in March 2010 last year the government introduced reforms to student income support following an agreement between the government and the coalition. Under the current legislation a review of the student income package was to be commenced in June of next year, but in February of this year the government brought forward the review by 12 months with a commitment to eliminating regional eligibility distinctions for youth allowance, effective 1 January 2012. So we have brought that forward. We have made it happen quicker. We have accepted the need for it to take place. But, rather than wait and take it through to its full extent, we brought it forward by a significant amount of time, and that was the right thing to do. The review reported back to government on 8 July this year and considered the impact on student income support arrangements that were implemented under the package on equity grounds, with a particular focus on the impact on rural and regional students and their capacity to access higher education. So the changes have been made. They are good changes. It means that there is more support, there are more eligible students and there is more money available.

This year the total support for youth allowance for higher education will exceed $1.25 billion—an increase of more than 50 per cent on the $800 million outlay in the last year of the former coalition government. I think it is a little bit disingenuous when coalition members come in here and talk about all the severe cuts and all the people in their electorates who miss out when, in reality, we have more than doubled the amount of funding that is available and now have actually increased the number of people who are eligible to receive that funding. We are proud that more students than ever before are going to go to university as a result of these very good changes. What this means for a range of students in this area is that they get new access. It is a recognition by government of that need and that we live in a changing world where we need to recognise that family circumstances are not the same in all parts of the country; that access to higher education is difficult for certain students depending on where they live and that family arrangements are not always equal; and, therefore, that it was not just a recognition of having an increased number of students who could access it but also an increased amount of funding to recognise cost-of-living pressures. So we are very proud that more students are receiving that funding and will now be able to attend university.

We have gone further than this package. This is just one measure. There have been a lot of other things this government has done, and I am particularly proud of the increased funding and recognition of regional universities themselves and their capacity to deliver higher education for students right across the country. There was an enormous demand and need for a very long time to recognise the good work that regional universities do. For me, in the western corridor, in Brisbane and Ipswich, the University of Southern Queensland is one of those great universities that is delivering new, innovative courses and whose student numbers have been increasing at a growing rate. In fact, not only have they fulfilled all of the requirements under their charter, constructed a building and filled it with students, but within a short few years they have had to fund and are in the process of building another large complex to house the growing number of students that require their services.

These are the sorts of outcomes you get when you have a government that recognises the importance of higher education right across the board. It recognises the number of students who should gain access and are eligible, and it also recognises the amount of funding that goes to each of those students. It also recognises the amount of funding that goes to regional universities themselves. There is no point just talking about how much the students get if they do not have a university to go to in the first place. What this government has made is a holistic package. It is a package for students and a package for universities as well.

It is easy when you are in opposition to talk about funding everything, but you have to be able to fund it from somewhere. This new $265 million support package will cost extra money and will be fully funded by this government. New expenditure will be offset from within the program through a range of things. We will be winding up the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund and putting that money into better areas to make sure that more students have access to higher education. We will be deferring the measure to increase youth allowance eligibility from masters by coursework students from 1 January next year to 1 January 2014. We will also be reducing the reallocation scholarships for non-regional students to $4,000 per year from 1 January next year. In all it is a good set of measures and a good package with increased funding when you look at it right across the board.

As I said earlier, there is the great tradition, the great history and the great legacy that Labor governments have left for many years in higher education. Now it is right across the whole education spectrum, whether it is something like a new school hall, computers in schools, new science labs or new classrooms. This Labor government has been dealing with the tough issues of a national curriculum through equalising, across the country, the standard of education so that any child can have an equal beginning and, we all hope, will have an equal opportunity after 12 years in the education system.

Regardless of whether they are from rural or regional Queensland, regional Victoria, rural New South Wales, the West, or wherever a student in this country has an opportunity to grow through the education system, then they should have that opportunity fully realised because we all understand the value of education. As many people have said in the past, 'Education is a passport'. It is a passport to prosperity; it is a passport from wherever you are to wherever you want to be and whomever you want to be. That is what Labor has always not only believed in but supported through funding, through action, through real money and through real programs that make real differences to students. Whether they are city students, country students, regional students, remote students, students in rich electorates or students in poor electorates, it has always been a matter to recognise the impact that we, the government, can have by providing a rich educational environment. No country in the world is better positioned to deliver it than Australia and no government is better positioned to deliver it. (Time expired)

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

It was, I guess, not just with a sense of 'About time,' but with a sense of huge relief that we speak on this bill at this time, particularly those of us who are responsible for regional Australia in an ongoing and serious sense. The Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011 is desperately needed to bring some equity and fairness into the youth allowance system for tertiary students, particularly in the electorate of Calare. This amendment could have been avoided had Labor not made unnecessary changes to the eligibility criteria for youth allowance two years ago. The current Prime Minister when minister for education said when introducing the changes:

The changes will make a real difference for families trying to send their kids to university and will help ease the cost of living pressures that university can place on students and their families.

Fast forward to today, and the Prime Minister has performed yet another backflip reminiscent of the spectacular, 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' move. Changes to the youth allowance system disadvantaged many tertiary students in my electorate as the vast majority of the Calare electorate is deemed to be inner regional. Students were not entitled to the same living away from home benefits as those in regional, remote and very remote areas. Having spent most of my political career in remote and very remote areas, I know how much they needed the living away from home allowance. Having also always had what is deemed inner regional—almost my whole electorate, with the exception of Forbes and Parkes, is inner regional—I realise that inner regional students, in the main, also have to leave home to get a tertiary education.

Thanks to the hard work of the students, parents, teachers and my colleagues on this side of the House we have succeeded in achieving changes to the Prime Minister's ridiculous legislation from when she was the minister for education. I would like to thank those students, parents and teachers who took part in the independent Review of Student Income Support Reforms and who helped to ensure that future groups did not suffer the same injustice.

Going to university is not cheap but it is exceptionally difficult for students in the bush. This is a concept that was clearly lost upon a city-centric Prime Minister, then education minister, and a city-centric Labor government. I remember the students—three from Orange and one from Cowra—who came to the Senate hearing. They were put under incredible pressure by senior members of the government about what their parents had and what they did not have. Those students represented themselves and regional students from the whole of Australia, including Calare, and they did it with guts and in a very articulate way under intense pressure from people who should have known better.

I would like to quote a mother from Laffing Waters near Bathurst:

My daughter is one of the unlucky children leaving school in 2009 therefore, not able to claim independent youth allowance. She had to relocate to start her degree and with the workload is unable to work. The new laws surrounding inner regional areas are unjust to say the least. If you have to relocate 4 hours away from home to study your chosen course these children should be entitled to some assistance.

This is from a concerned mother of three near Orange who contacted me when the Prime Minister changed the youth allowance scheme:

The recent passing of the amended bill does not address the key issues for many students, most particularly those who must relocate to study. Why not acknowledge the financial penalties for country families with children studying at metropolitan universities? Why not supplement their living away from home allowances, rather than removing them?

Thanks to the communities, the Nationals and the coalition, common sense has prevailed. As of 1 January 2012, tertiary students considered to be living in the inner regional areas will be able to access independent youth allowance under the same rules that apply to students from outer regional, remote and very remote areas. Relocation scholarships will increase from $1,000 a year to $2,000 a year for the second and third years of study. There will be a feasibility study into the establishment of an income contingent loans scheme to help students who have to move away for practical placements in their chosen professions.

This is good news for hopeful tertiary students in the Orange, Blayney, Bathurst, Oberon and Lithgow local government areas, as well as those from east of Molong in Cabonne who are looking to attend university in 2012. Students who began university in 2010-11 have had to suffer at the hands of a government with bad plans and bad policies. The government have only recently discovered how bad their mistakes can be for regional people.

Taxpayers now have to foot the bill to re-introduce changes and essentially to clean up Labor's mess. Had this government listened to the coalition in the first place, listened to the students, listened to the mothers or listened to the teachers, much of this problem could have been avoided. We as an opposition have raised this issue numerous times in parliament. We have moved motion after motion and introduced amendment after amendment trying to rectify the Labor government's destruction of the youth allowance scheme. All attempts were blocked—rejected by members opposite, mostly with the help of two independent MPs who are supposed to be in this place to stick up for regional Australia.

I find it quite incredible that the government are standing up in an apologetic way almost trying to skite about all they have done when the same part of the legislation which was taken away and is now being returned could have been returned at numerous times when the coalition's Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill sought to reinstate the same fair criteria that apply to other regional students, but it was disallowed by Labor with the help of the independent members for Lyne and for New England. An amendment to appropriation legislation in early March would have done the same thing, but it was defeated by Labor with the support of the members for Lyne and for New England. When a similar amendment to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs legislation was introduced in March, it was again defeated by Labor with the support of the members for New England and for Lyne, although it was attempting to reinstate the same issue. A similar notice of motion in the House of Representatives in June this year was again defeated by Labor with the support of the members for Lyne and for New England—those same two independent members who now stand in the House saying how great this is. I guess only they and their electorates can figure that out, although perhaps their electorates are somewhat puzzled as well.

When I think of the need that regional Australia, our communities and sections of them—and I speak as a member with a large percentage of Aboriginal or Indigenous people in my electorate—have for Aboriginal nurses, teachers and, in particular, police officers, who mostly need tertiary or university education to achieve those aims, I ask: why would you want to discourage that? Why in heaven's name would you want to make a hard pathway even harder?

The previous speaker talked about how proud he was of his government's record of looking at regional universities. We all know the best way to have trained and professional people in your regional communities is to train your own. I say to the previous speaker and his government, especially the ministers for education, employment and workplace relations and the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government that if they want to do something for regional universities, they should listen very carefully to the application by CSU in Bathurst to start up a medical school in Orange. That would make it one heck of a lot easier for country kids to be trained in regional Australia.

I did not go to university. I would always use experience before I would use education when employing somebody. But I do realise just how important it is. I do realise that, in this day and age, if you want to have a registered nurse or a teacher, or a policeman or woman who is going to get far in the police force, they have to go to university. Regional Australia needs these places and these people more than anyone. I will probably never be able to comprehend why people come to this place and say, 'We're here to get a decent deal for regional Australia, because those who profess to aren't,' stand in this place and numerous times vote against their own people with this Labor government. That is something I cannot and will never understand. I am quite sure I am in good company with all their constituents.

This is something that we stood by. This is something that the kids, the students, the parents and the teachers have to be congratulated for not backing down on. My colleagues did not back down on it. Thank heaven that finally the former minister who brought this problem forward has backed down as Prime Minister and that now, as of 1 January next year, kids can get back that which they had before and regional Australia can perhaps look forward to a few more nurses, a few more teachers and a few more good police officers.

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

I too rise this afternoon to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011. While it is with some degree of satisfaction that I rise to acknowledge that this bill will correct an anomaly in delivering outcomes for regional students, it is very frustrating that it has taken two years to get to this point. It has probably been the single issue that has carried the highest level of interest from my electorate for the last two years, because I think education is the basic fundamental that people in Australia strive for for their children. Education is the pathway to cure most of the other problems that we deal with in Australia, particularly in regional Australia; education gives people a pathway to provide better health; education gives people a better understanding with regard to lawlessness; education is the tool that enables people to gain employment; and regional Australia has been taking second fiddle to the metropolitan areas. Even as I stand here today, a student in regional Australia has about half as much chance of completing their tertiary education as their city counterparts.

One of the great frustrations is that this was obvious two years ago. This was pointed out when the current Prime Minister was Minister for Education, and it was only through pig-headedness and stubbornness that this situation was not fixed some time ago. It was brought about by a basic lack of understanding of how regional Australia is different from the cities. You cannot live at home with your parents in regional Australia and attend a university, except on very rare occasions. So the campaign has carried on.

There was a change about 12 months ago that changed it for outer regional students, which did encompass a lot of the students in my electorate, but the towns of Mudgee and Dubbo until now have missed out. People think of students from regional Australia and they think they may be from far-flung properties or remote villages, but 84 per cent of the people in my electorate, one of the most regional electorates in Australia, are urban dwellers. So it was the students that were living in Dubbo and Mudgee—the sons and daughters of schoolteachers, police officers, council workers and all those people that are vital to provide services in those larger regional towns—who were being disadvantaged. I had parents come and see me during the last two-year period saying they had got to the point where they would have to decide as a family which of their children they thought had the aptitude for a tertiary education and which of them did not. Then they would put the resources of that family into one of their children and not the other. In 2011, I think that is an absolute disgrace.

I find it very frustrating that, at various opportunities we have had in the last two years to rectify this problem, we have not got the support. We have had regional members on the side of the government that would understand the problem but were not prepared to speak out against their leader. We have had behind me here the so-called Independents who are so glued to their coalition partners that, every time this opportunity came up, they supported the government in this. I think it is to their everlasting shame that they did not stand up for the students in their electorates.

One of the problems with this is that this is not the perfect system for funding regional students. I actually believe this parliament can do better for regional students. I think there is a case to be argued for a regional access allowance so that all students that do not live near a university have the same opportunities as those that do. So I do not think this is the perfect fix, but it is not a bad system. This is for a couple of reasons.

What was happening—and students will be able to do it now with this change—was that students would leave school and go and get a job for 12 months. After 18 months—six months into their university course—they would be eligible for independent youth allowance and the payments would come through. In a city area, those students could probably get a regular job where they could go and work their 30 hours a week to earn that money and still be eligible, but in the country a lot of the work is seasonal. So these young adults were leaving school and going off and picking grapes or other fruit, driving a header during the harvest season or working in abattoirs stacking meat—a whole range of seasonal-type work. So, in that period of time, they not only got to learn the value of a hard day's work but also got the opportunity to have a few bob that they had earnt in their pocket and become independent, as this says. Also, quite often I found that during that 12-month period they would reassess where their priorities lay. I know some students, after working for 12 months, would then chart a different course and go into a different line of study.

So it has worked quite effectively, and it is good to see this returned. It has not returned in its original form. There still are issues with an income cap on parents and on two working parents in an inner regional area. That is a problem.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member for Parkes will have the opportunity to continue his remarks.