Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Social Services Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015 and to offer Labor's support for this bill. I have to say, it is a very rare day that we see this government seeking to make income support payments more generous or to provide extra support to ordinary Australians. Indeed, in the two years of this Abbott-Turnbull government, this may well be the first time a bill has come before the House that seeks to make life easier for Australian families. Such is the legacy of this government.

So, before I go into the details of the bill, I want to spend just a moment or two reflecting on the legacy of this government and the impact they would want to have on pensioners, families and young people in our community. It is a legacy of cuts to income support the likes of which this country has never seen before—unfortunately a legacy that in some cases is likely to continue, because, despite what could only be described as a brutal change in leadership, there does not seem to have been much of a change in direction. And I guess you could ask, why would we expect there to be? The new Prime Minister has been just as much of a player in the decisions of the government as when Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister was at the cabinet table when the 2014 budget was drawn up. He would have supported, around that cabinet table—in fact, he said so publicly—all the cuts in the 2014 budget, including the cuts to indexation of the pension, cuts that we now know would have seen every single one of Australia's four million pensioners left with $80 less pension a week over the next 10 years. The new Prime Minister also supported and voted in this place for the second round of pension cuts in this year's budget—cuts that will leave 330,000 pensioners worse off in 2017.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order on relevance: I ask that you draw the member's attention to the topic that is currently under debate, which is the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

Well, I argue that the member is not visiting this bill at all but rather the budget.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Murray to resume her seat. There is no point of order. But, before I give the call to the member for Jagajaga, I will just say that you would expect some ranging, but I do remind the member to stay within the subject matter of the bill. Thank you.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated at the start of my remarks, the Labor opposition will be supporting this more generous indexation of youth payments. But what is important to families is of course to know the whole context of what this government is doing to family budgets. I was just talking about the impact of the government's cuts on pensioners. Some single pensioners will lose $8,000 a year as a result of the government's pension cuts, and some couples will lose up to $14,000 a year.

We also know that there are very significant cuts in the 2014 budget to family tax benefits. Today we have seen some signs that the government is considering retreating from these very unfair cuts, at least in part, and I think we can expect to see the detail of that. The government has insisted for the past two years that Australian families should just accept these cuts to family tax benefits, should accept that families should, apparently, pay the price of fiscal repair. But Labor does not see it that way. We have argued long and hard for the past 18 months that the cuts from this government have unfairly targeted low- and middle-income earners. It now seems that families will be protected from some of these cuts and Labor are very, very pleased to have fought the hard fight for those families. We will continue to fight this Liberal government's cuts to paid parental leave—another cut to families, cuts that 80,000 new parents each and every year will feel. These cuts are just as savage today as they were when they were introduced.

As this legislation specifically focuses on young people, I will draw the parliament's attention to two attempted cuts to young job seekers. This Prime Minister sat around the cabinet table as every single Liberal-National Party member in this parliament agreed to what I consider to be the toughest cuts of all, the cruellest cuts of all, which would have left young people under the age of 30 with absolutely nothing to live on for six months. I am pleased to say that that got defeated with Labor's hard campaigning. But we are now seeing the next iteration of this cruel cut. Now, young people will face a one-month wait for any income support, and that is for young job seekers under the age of 25.

If this new Prime Minister gets his way, young people on income support will be left with nothing to live on for a month, and we should not forget that. Even as we consider this bill, we have to remember that there is another group of young people who are going to be harshly impacted by this government's cruel measures.

Another very harsh measure for young people on income support between the ages of 22 and 24 would see a cut to their income support of around $46 a week. That is around $2,400 a year. We saw just a few weeks ago that this government has reintroduced this bill that would see these cuts implemented. That was one of the first acts of the new Prime Minister—to reintroduce the same unfair cuts to young Australians as Mr Abbott had attempted to do. These measures have already been defeated in the Senate and, of course, Labor will do everything in its power to try to defeat them again. It does seem that the new Prime Minister is still going to pursue these very, very harsh measures.

You would have to wonder what liberalism actually means in the face of these very harsh cuts. I do not think any of us here today should pretend that we have a government that have the interests of our young people at heart. These cuts that are currently before this parliament are very harsh indeed and the government have relentlessly pursued them. They have tried to demonise young people, calling them the leaners of Australian society. The argument from the government was that all of this was to be done to improve the budget. In fact, the government have achieved the remarkable, simultaneously cutting into the incomes of pensioners, families and young people while, at the same time, doubling the deficit. Unemployment is up, growth has slowed and, at the same time, they have this legacy of cuts—all supposedly geared to improving the state of the economy, all of that demonstrably false. None of us should ever forget any of that. All of this pain would have been on pensioners, families and young people yet, at the same time, amazingly, the government have doubled the deficit.

Tonight like every single night, we should never forget this government's attitude to the most needy members of our society and we should also, at the same time, never forget that these cuts have failed to achieve the stated objective of budget repair. The sum total of this government's record on social policy is to demonise the vulnerable for absolutely no gain. This is why the bill before the chamber tonight is a surprise.

There are four main components to the bill. The first, commencing from 1 January next year, will see a removal of the family assets test and the family actual means test from the youth allowance parental means test arrangements. Removal of the family assets test will see around 4,100 additional dependent youth allowance claimants qualify for the first time, accessing average annual payments of $7,000 a year. Removing the family actual means test will see around 1,200 more people receiving youth allowance for the first time, as well as increasing payments for around 4,860 existing students by approximately $2,000 a year.

The bill also aligns the parental income test exemptions for youth allowance with existing arrangements for family tax benefit part A; removes the maintenance income from the youth allowance parental income test assessment; and applies a separate maintenance income test for the treatment of child support like that currently applying to family tax benefit part A. Also, where a family has a dependent child who receives an individual youth payment that is parentally income-tested and younger siblings who qualify for family tax benefit, the family pool for the youth parental income test will include all FTB children. They are all positive measures.

According to the minister's second-reading speech, including all FTB children in the family pool for the youth parental income test will allow around 13,700 families with dependent children in both the family tax benefit A and youth streams to become eligible for an average increase in payment of around $1,100 a year. Around 5,800 families who currently miss out on payments due to the combined high-taper rates will also become eligible for an average payment of around $1,300 per year. According to that same material, the changes will reduce the regulatory burden on around 30,000 families subject to the family actual means test and around 200,000 families subjected to the family assets test.

For these reasons, Labor will support the bill.

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

I rise today in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015. I welcome the support from the member for Jagajaga and the Labor Party for this bill. It does go part way to rectifying the damage done to youth allowance by the Rudd government in 2010.

I first want to thank the Hon. Scott Morrison, the former Minister for Social Services, for introducing this amendment bill after listening to the pleas from regional backbenchers such as myself and my colleague the member for Murray and also from Senator Bridget McKenzie, Chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, when we appealed for more equitable access to higher education opportunities for the youth of regional, rural and remote Australia.

I thank Senator McKenzie and her panel of representatives from the education and social services departments who recently conducted over 14 regional education forums across the country, including one in Albany in my electorate of O'Connor. These forums were an opportunity to hear firsthand the experience of families and students when trying to access higher education in regional, rural and remote Australia. The information collected at these forums will be collated into a final report to be presented to the new ministers, my dear friend the Hon. Christian Porter, the new Minister for Social Services, and Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the Minister for Education and Training, for their consideration in November to help shape further changes to accessibility for youth payments going forward.

In Albany, over 65 people attended our forum, including parents and grandparents, university, high school and gap year students, educational professionals and others concerned by the barriers country kids are experiencing in obtaining tertiary education. I commend the attendees for sharing their personal and often heart-rending stories and I acknowledge their well-considered recommendations on how the federal government can address the obstacles they have encountered. Together we heard of the emotional as well as financial cost for regional students having to leave home and the security of family, friends and mentors to set up a life in the city, taking full responsibility for the daily necessities of feeding, clothing and transporting themselves as well as securing a job while maintaining their studies. Many are ineligible for any form of government financial assistance.

Youth allowance is the main benefit these students seek to access to allow them to live guilt-free of the financial burden incurred by their parents, many of whom are supporting other siblings at school and university. I myself was once one such student. I was the youngest of six children. My mother was a widow working as a nursing sister to support my four older sisters as they pursued their university studies. My brother, Allan, and I remained at home, working on the farm after graduation from high school. I worked for two years to attain independent status for youth allowance and was able to move away to the Muresk campus of Curtin University and pursue my agribusiness degree. I am eternally grateful for the support that allowed me the opportunity to be the person I am today.

Now, some 30 years later, I see country kids just like me struggling with a system that is complicated to negotiate and, for some, impossible to gain any benefit through. Attendees at the recent higher education forum described the onerous application process for youth allowance, with one highly educated parent clocking up 80 hours helping their child fill out the necessary documentation.

Those from farms spoke of issues regarding the family asset test, where, even with the substantial discount applied, they still exceeded the threshold for youth allowance eligibility. In addition, farmers made the point that in this current economic climate you cannot just liquidate a farm asset overnight and, even if it were possible to do so, you would simultaneously lose your main income source. With respect to the family actual means test, I have met constituents who found the whole process so onerous they simply gave up.

This amendment to remove the family assets test and family actual means test from the parental income test will base the assessment of a young person's eligibility for youth allowance on a much fairer measure of their family income than the current system. I believe removing the family assets test will see around 4,100 additional dependent students qualify for the first time, accessing payments of more than $7,000 a year. The passage of this bill will significantly reduce the regulatory burden on around 200,000 families subject to the family assets test. Removing the family actual means test will see an additional 1,200 students receive youth allowance for the first time, and some 4,800 existing students will see their payments rise by approximately $2,000 a year. The passage of this bill will reduce the regulatory burden on around 30,000 families subject to the family actual means test. I therefore heartily welcome the plan to scrap the family assets test and family actual means test from the youth allowance eligibility and calculation criteria. I foresee this leading to tremendous improvements in access to youth allowance payments for the farming families of O'Connor.

This brings me to another issue raised at the forum by those with large families and multiple children studying. These parents find their children are ineligible for youth allowance due to them exceeding the parental income thresholds, yet they say there is inadequate consideration of the immense financial burden of supporting each of these children's individual education and accommodation needs. Many parents at our forum described paying living expenses of $17,000 to $25,000 per year per child attending university and only marginally less for children boarding for secondary school. One parent at the forum had put four children through higher education and another had spent $250,000 on higher education over the past 10 years.

It is for this reason that I welcome the amendments to change the youth allowance parental income testing arrangements to include all family tax benefit children in the family pool. Currently only children over 16 years of age are included in this test. These changes to the family pool for the youth parental income test will allow around 13,700 families with dependent children in both the family tax benefit part A and the youth systems to become eligible for an average increase in payment of around $1,100 per annum. Around 5,800 families who currently miss out on payments due to the combined high taper rates will become eligible for payments of around $1,300 per year. The changes in this amendment bill will soften the reductions in the dependent child's youth allowance payment as the family's income increases. I look forward to the changes this bill will introduce as a first step in a process that requires a major revamp. These changes to the current legislation will facilitate fairer access to dependent youth allowance for rural, regional and remote students.

But how many of these kids are truly dependent? Most cannot remain living at home to complete their studies. In Western Australia, unlike in our eastern neighbour states, we do not have regional universities. In some large regional centres, such as Albany, we are blessed to have satellite campuses of metropolitan universities such as the University of Western Australia. In Kalgoorlie we have the Western Australian School of Mines campus of Curtin University. Albany's Great Southern Institute of Technology hopes to soon offer degree programs in nursing and other in-demand qualifications through university partnerships so local students can be educated in situ and, hopefully, graduate to contribute to our much needed regional professional workforce. The City of Albany is actively trying to grow Albany as a tertiary education destination, and I strongly endorse the efforts of Mayor Dennis Wellington and his deputy, Greg Stocks.

Most of all, I acknowledge the quality of our country students. They are distinguished by excellent academic achievement, qualifying for university places only to be hampered in their aspirations for their desired courses by the tyranny of distance and the inherent financial barriers to obtaining self-sufficiency. Secondary school principals who attended the think tank I convened after the regional higher education forum confirmed up to 80 per cent of their graduates in 2014 qualified for university entrance, yet some 97 per cent of those would take a gap year, driven largely by financial considerations. It is important to note at this point that deferral from university only holds a place for 12 months, yet students have to take 12 to 24 months to qualify for youth allowance under various different criteria. Those who take time out are often lost to the temptations of a regular disposable income and peer group pressure. One principal stated over 33 per cent of their students taking a gap year would not proceed to university.

Although there are concerted attempts to offer educational opportunities in the regions so students have the opportunity to study in situ with the support of their friends, family and greater community, the undeniable fact is that most of our country kids have no choice but to move to the city for all of their studies. These kids leave home, often relocating many hundreds of kilometres, to set themselves up in halls of residence or rental digs where they have to largely fend for themselves. Although they have access to various support networks, there is nothing like the comfort of coming home to a warm hug or a home-cooked meal. I applaud the young people of my electorate who successfully make this transition to university life and work hard at their studies whilst also holding down jobs to support themselves.

At this juncture, I digress to congratulate three innovative Albany siblings, twins Caitlin and Damien and big brother Joshua Boccamazzo, all of whom are living away from home to complete degrees in Perth. Together they have drawn on their collective experience to create a website for country students, called City & Beyond, which aims to help country students like themselves in the transition to city and university life. Their website details the pitfalls and perils associated with accessing rental accommodation, negotiating the job market and applying for scholarships and benefits like youth allowance. I met with the Boccamazzo twins recently and was gobsmacked to hear that despite their identical education and employment histories they had both failed eligibility for youth allowance on different criteria. I think this anomaly is symptomatic of the broken vehicle this vital benefit had become under the previous government, and I challenge Minister Porter to fix this trusty old wreck one piece at a time.

For my electorate, the biggest constituent issue is actually eligibility for youth allowance under the independence criteria. For general independence eligibility, any student anywhere in Australia must prove they have supported themselves by working full-time for 18 months in a two-year period. This is not an easy feat in regional and rural areas where jobs may be seasonal, inconsistent or non-existent. I have met many students who have failed to meet these criteria due to situations beyond their control, such as illness, the seasonal nature of farm labour force requirements and competition from younger, cheaper labour during school holidays. A failure to meet these eligibility requirements often means abandoning their plans to study. For the special regional and remote criteria, a country student can be assessed as independent if they have received at least 75 per cent of wage level A of the National Training Wage Schedule in an 18-month period or have worked part-time for at least 15 hours a week for at least two years.

In addition, their parents must also have earned less than $150,000 in the most recent tax year. I have encountered countless constituents whose children have worked hard for the requisite period to prove their independence only to find they fail eligibility under the parental income criterion. Many parents cited the parental threshold of $150,000 as inadequately low when taking into account double-income families and those supporting other truly dependent children. I have also heard of cases where changes in parental circumstances have resulted in previously eligible kids losing their benefits part-way through their degrees and having to drop out. I therefore hope there is scope for reviewing youth allowance independence criteria in the near future.

All in all, I anticipate Ministers Porter and Birmingham will take the information gleaned from these Australia-wide regional higher education forums, together with the thoughtfully penned individual submissions of parents and students, teachers and mentors—all reflecting on the barriers to accessing higher education for country kids—and consider their constructive suggestions moving forward. It is my sincere hope that together they can shape a great youth allowance of the future, one that is equitable for all students—remote, rural, regional and metropolitan—and is based on their individual needs, so that we can nurture and encourage our youth to pursue a higher education.

I thank the former Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Scott Morrison, for the well-constructed amendment bill before us for debate today. It fulfils a budget promise to provide more generous and consistent support for families with dependent students who qualify for certain youth income support payments. I thank the government for their commitment of over $262 million over the forward estimates to bring extra support to some 30,000 families. In particular, I reiterate that this bill will benefit the many families in my electorate of O'Connor who have children wishing to pursue studies beyond year 12. These children are our future community leaders. They deserve access to the same education as their metropolitan cousins so they can become the best they can possibly be, irrespective of their postcode. I commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is not opposed by Labor, but I did want to put on the record the experience of regional students when it comes to this government. As the previous contributors to the debate on this side of the House have said, we do not oppose this bill. We do support it because we do believe we need to support students when they are at university. But this government's track record of support for students is shocking, and through this debate I do want to highlight some of the examples of how shocking it is when it comes to supporting regional university students and regional families.

It is interesting that the previous contributor to the debate brought up the regional forums that they have been holding. When they were talking about this issue, I hope that they had more people attending the regional forum organised by the government in the member's electorate than attended the regional forum that they held at the La Trobe University at Bendigo. Not one student turned up. I should take that back. Not one student who was not involved in the Labor Party turned up to their forum. The student who did turn up was a member of the Labor Party, and he turned up to challenge the government about why they were introducing $100,000 degrees.

So, even when it comes to talking about a bill that should be positive, that should be about saying to families in regional areas, 'We're actually going to help more students come to university,' this government fails to get out and articulate and engage people. If it did, it would learn very quickly how upset regional students are about this government's plan for higher education, its proposal to introduce $100,000 degrees. The deregulation of university degrees has gone down like a lead balloon. It is not popular in the regions because it will be a barrier to so many people in regional Australia being able to attend university.

What the regions also do not like about what this government is doing to universities is the massive funding cuts that it introduced in its first budget, including for La Trobe University and the campus in my electorate. It was $40 million that this government cut. That meant that students, to obtain the same qualifications, have the same experience, would either have to pay more for their course materials or they would have less time at university. As a result of this government's cuts to higher education, university students at La Trobe—whom this government claims to support in this bill before us—have less time with their tutors, less time with their lecturers, less time on campus. The bill before us, whilst it will help a few, will not help the majority of university students. It is a piece of window-dressing by this government to distract people by saying, 'We'll help some of you,' and meanwhile trashing the rest of them when it comes to higher education.

This bill makes changes to the means-testing for youth payments. It will mean extra support for young people living in families with higher levels of assets, by removing certain means-testing provisions, including the family assets test, for youth allowance. So, as other people have mentioned, it does help regional families, particularly, whether they work in small businesses, whether they be farmers or whether they be, as we say, asset rich but cash poor. It does help some families in that way to support their young people when they go to university. It means that more young people living in families with higher assets will now have access to youth allowance.

Of course Labor wants to see extra support for young people from youth allowance, because we understand how expensive life has become for students—and not just students. Life in general has become expensive. I was looking just today at reports released by Domain.com.au and Realestate.com.au on average rents and how rents have increased in places like Melbourne, Sydney and even regional centres like Bendigo. Rents are going up by a ridiculous percentage, so any support from youth allowance will help keep young people at university. Of course Labor wants to see the support come for young people, but we need to acknowledge that it is only a small number of young people who will receive support. This is not the silver bullet to ensure that young people stay at university.

In relation to this bill, we want to point out the hypocrisy at the heart of the government's agenda. Whilst it supports some people going to university, these are the same families that it is going after with changes to other areas, whether it be the family tax benefit or the Medicare system. This government takes with one hand and gives with the other. This is a simple move that does not really help many, and it tries to disguise what is actually going on in many of our regional communities when it comes to the cost of study and the cost of living.

Just last week the government voted to put through legislation which would see young people left with nothing to live on for a month. To young people who finish university, they are saying, 'Too bad; we're not going to help you.' If you don't get a job within the first two days of your graduation, you are not going to get help. If you have been made redundant, if you have lost your job, you are not going to get help for the first four weeks. But this is after their proposal to leave young people without any support for six months.

The government are so selective about which young people they will help. This bill is a demonstration that they are being selective in the young people that they will help. If you are a young farming kid who wants go to university: 'Sure, we'll lend a hand, change the means-testing and help you.' But, if you are a young farming kid who wants to start working and moves to a city like Bendigo and starts seeking help: 'We're not going to help you; we're going to keep you on nothing to live on for six months'—and these days they are saying that it is nothing to live on for four weeks. If you are a young person going to TAFE, the same applies. If you are a young person who finishes university and struggles to get that job interview, struggles to get that first job opportunity—because there is a lack of entry-level jobs today—then: 'We're not going to help you.'

This is another attempt by this government at window-dressing—to pretend to constituents in the bush, in the regions: 'We really do care about you.' Quite frankly, the regions are not buying it. They do not believe that this bill is enough to support and encourage more young people to go to university. As I have said, one of the major barriers to going to university is upheaval that the government have introduced to the higher education sector. Will there be $100,000 degrees? Will there be fee deregulation? Will we actually see the cost of education go so high that a number of people in the regions say, 'I just can't afford it; I'm not going to try'?

I thought it was important just to mention a few local examples—people I spoke to about what their experience of getting some youth allowance has been. These are students from La Trobe University who did not attend the forum that was put on by the government but who spoke to me, when I was at the campus, about their experience when it came to youth allowance. Jack Cullen, who is an outdoor education student, gets some youth allowance, and these are his comments on what it is like to study at the moment: 'It costs me about $110 for food, not including rent, which is huge'—about $280 a week. 'I only get $170 in youth allowance, so I have to budget everything to make sure I get through.' He attends any event on campus that involves food—that sounds like a few staffers we have here, in this place! Any event there is food, he will pop along. That is one less meal he has to pay for.

Youth allowance simply does not stretch as far today as it did when people in this place went to university. Jessica Hill, an event management and business student, gets no youth allowance. She said, 'University life is definitely not like breezing through. If your parents don't support you and you don't work, you won't be able to stay at university; no way.' Jemma, an education student, gets no youth allowance: 'You really have to think hard about where you shop. One of the firsts things you learn at uni is to survive on a budget, eat less and definitely not buy big-brand stuff.' These are people we want to excel in their studies. They currently live in poverty.

These are people who—because of other things this government has failed to tackle—are struggling. Rents are going up because we have not tackled housing affordability. Despite the government's rhetoric about lowering energy bills, they are higher today than they have ever been under any Labor government. If the government pretend they are not, they have their heads in the sand. Energy bills are up. Water bills are up. These are some of the cost pressures on students today—not just on university students but on everybody in our community.

Jack is studying arts. He gets some youth allowance. He said, 'It's not enough to cover expenses. I live at home, at the moment. If I moved out, I wouldn't be able to afford rent or food not to mention bills and text books. The price of food has gone up. It's very hard if you want to eat a balanced diet, which is what I need to do in order to be a healthy human being.' It means the idea of students eating two-minute noodles is a cold, hard reality. I know that some people like to joke about their days as a student when they tried to survive on two-minute noodles. But is it something we should be aiming for, for our young people?

Tim is an arts student too and gets some youth allowance. He has moved to live on campus, at the university, in my electorate. He said, 'I've already had tonsillitis three times this year because of the stress and have no sleep from having to manage working in fast food while getting study done.' He works at McDonald's and studies full time. There are lots of pressures in trying to keep up full-time work and full-time study. He continued: 'Youth allowance helps but it definitely isn't enough. When you get to the checkout at the supermarket there is always a tense moment waiting to see if the transaction is approved. It's like living on a tightrope.'

What this government fails to realise is that students are already doing it tough. The measures in this bill will help some access youth allowance, but they do not go to tackling the broader issues we have facing higher education. It is an attempt by this government to pretend they are helping students. It is only some students they are helping. That is why Labor supports this bill before the House—any support for young people in this space should be given.

The government is kidding itself if it thinks this is a silver bullet that will help all students. For all the speakers on this list—and I note there is a long list of speakers compared to the other debates today—they were not speaking about the fact they want to see them have less in their superannuation. They were not speaking on other bills that would have helped young people. Very few of them spoke about the fact they are going to introduce changes to Newstart, which would see them on no income.

This government and its backbenchers are selective about what they will stand up and speak about in this House. They are in hiding from the truth. They are not standing up and saying, 'Whilst we will give some the opportunity to youth allowance, we have cut funding to universities. We will introduce up-front fees. We will regulate universities that see, in some places, a quadrupling of fees, which will become a barrier. We are doing very little to tackle the cost-of-living pressures. Once these people leave university, we will do very little to help them enter meaningful employment.' This government has no jobs plan for young people. For all their rhetoric, they do very little to help them after they get their education. A clear example of their failure to help people with graduate entry-level jobs is the lack of graduate jobs this government offered to university students finishing last year and this year.

If this government were serious about supporting young people and those who want a higher education, they would do more than what is in this bill. They would stop cutting funding to university; in fact, they would restore it. They would make sure our university campuses were strong and the centre of the university's focus. They would also drop their ridiculous package of $100,000 degrees, which are a real barrier for university students. And they would more than just 'help' some students who do not have access to youth allowance—they would do more. They would ensure they had decent university support services on campus so that students' experiences I shared with you today are in the past and not the future.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015. I commend to you the contribution made prior to the member for Bendigo's contribution—which I will get to—that is, the one by the member for O'Connor. It was both considered and positive.

With respect, I think I had better run out and get some Prozac after listening to the member for Bendigo, because that was one of the most depressing presentations I have heard. If anyone wants to know why, perhaps, the fortunes of this government have turned for the good, it is because we are focusing on hope and not despair. Maybe the member for Bendigo could reflect on that while she returns to her room and considers what she does just before we adjourn.

This bill will implement the government's 2015 budget measures to provide more consistent and more targeted support for families with dependent young people who qualify for certain youth income support payments. In doing so, it honours the original policy intent of youth allowance. I am especially supportive of this bill, as it offers better support for rural, regional and remote families in transitioning their children from school to further study.

A significant proportion of the families in my electorate are engaged in agriculture, forestry or the fishing sector. Some 20,000 of my constituents are employed directly in these sectors, and whilst there are significant employment opportunities for young people within Barker, and whilst Barker now proudly provides tertiary opportunities to constituents through UniSA in Mount Gambier and the Flinders University Rural Clinical School in Renmark and Mount Gambier, a significant number of young people wishing to pursue further study are often challenged by the costs associated with moving to undertake that study.

I have reflected on this challenge previously in this chamber. Many of the constituents I have spoken to who are facing this cost challenge also face significant and arbitrary regulatory provisions which exclude their children from receiving assistance. In the coalition we understand the requirements of Australia's rural, regional and remote families.

During the debate on our university reforms, those opposite were fixated on absurd claims regarding $100,000 degrees. I remind those opposite that for many people out there, especially rural families, getting to university is the real challenge—perhaps that is something that the member for Bendigo can reflect on as well. That is because the Higher Education Loan Program meets the tertiary costs associated with tuition but does not meet the costs associated with living away from home. That is why we proposed reforms to the tertiary sector which would meet this shortfall. But, sadly, those opposite and those on the crossbench in the other place rejected those considered reforms.

That is why we have taken these steps to enable those families to send their children to tertiary education. I am proud to say that this bill will have a positive impact on rural, remote and regional families. The measures taken in this bill are a direct response to the government's understanding of these challenges and those challenges faced by these constituents. This bill recognises the need for a simpler, fairer youth income support system. This government has consistently removed unnecessary regulation, and this is true of the social security sector also.

In this bill we are squarely focused on better targeting youth income support. This government is delivering a more efficient use of taxpayer funds across the social services sector. We have taken steps to deliver stronger compliance frameworks and we have taken steps to curb unnecessary costs in the area of administration of social services. The myGov one-stop shop is an example of this simplification. And yet whilst it too often falls to coalition governments to tighten loose spending by Labor governments, this bill is an opportunity for the government to deliver our resources more effectively and in a more thoughtful and targeted way.

This government does not engage in generosity for generosity's sake. Government should approach each spending commitment with 20/20 vision, focused on policy integrity. This bill is not a ploy to gain some hollow popularity. It is a bill which delivers better outcomes by recalibrating youth income support, with a focus, as I have said, on the original policy intent.

While those opposite remove accountability mechanisms and weaken job seeker compliance frameworks, we have tightened our requirements. Having done so, we have the capacity to deliver more support where it is needed in a way that will provide a significant return on investment to the Commonwealth. This government understands that there is a finite pool of government revenue. We understand that each and every measure must be accurately costed and ultimately paid for by the taxpayer. We take our obligation to the taxpayer seriously, and understand that Australians provide tax revenue to us on trust, to expend in a cautious and effective manner.

Whilst this bill involves a cost to the taxpayer, I believe deeply that it is an investment that will yield handsome dividends into the future. In many cases, the measures in this bill will enable families who would otherwise not be able to send their children to further education to pursue that transformative opportunity. Could there be a better example of a hand up?

Importantly, this is delivered not through manipulating the means test but through bringing that means test back to reality. The coalition believes that we should take a broader focus on families when it comes to assessing youth income support. We are focusing on families who need assistance, particularly those in rural, regional and remote areas who face the higher costs of supporting their children to pursue post-secondary study because of the need to move away from home.

This bill simplifies the rules by more closely aligning parental means test assessments for youth payments with family tax benefit part A. Family tax benefit A is subject only to an income test based on adjusted taxable income, and has no family asset test or family actual means test. Many farming families, as you know well, Madam Deputy Speaker Landy, are asset rich but income poor. With drought now taking hold in much of my electorate, I fear that this may become increasingly the case. It is absolutely critical that we give our young rural, regional and remote Australians the widest scope of opportunities possible. This bill maximises that spectrum of opportunity.

The current arrangement is simply inadequate in this space. It highlights a misperception of agriculture and agribusiness within our social services legislation. Around 1,200 families from rural, remote and regional areas will be eligible for an increase in payment from the removal of the family actual means test, and they are also expected to benefit from the removal of the family asset test.

The changes also mean that farming families will not have farm assets included when assessing eligibility for the youth allowance.

Debate interrupted.