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

Prior to the adjournment yesterday evening, I was indicating that the proposed changes in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill mean that farming families will not have farm assets included when eligibility for youth allowance is being assessed. This brings the means test into line with the reality facing rural families. Rural families often struggle with cash flow, especially when facing drought—as they are in much of Australia today. I am glad to see this bill moves us to a fairer position regarding the assessment of eligibility for youth allowance.

All families currently subject to the family assets test and the family actual means test will benefit from a reduced regulatory burden. This government is delivering on its commitment to reduce that regulatory burden on families. The changes will also reduce sudden drops in family assistance as young people move from family tax benefit part A to youth allowance, Abstudy or the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme additional boarding allowance. In addition, children from rural, regional and remote areas often face higher costs of further study due to the need to move away from home. These students will benefit through increases in their rate of youth allowance, while others will qualify for youth allowance for the first time, meaning that they may be able to access payments of more than $7,000 a year.

This government is committed to giving young people from rural, regional and remote Australia a hand up and to unlocking their potential. This bill delivers on that commitment. Whilst we acknowledge that all additional government expenditure must be carefully considered, it is our position that the current arrangement did not adequately deliver on the original policy intent. The youth allowance parental income-testing arrangements will also be changed to include all family tax benefit children in the family pool. The current test only includes children over 16 years of age. Counting all children will soften reductions in the youth allowance as family income increases.

The bill was introduced following the examination of these issues by an interdepartmental committee on access to higher education for rural, regional and remote students. This was done at the urging of Senator Bridget McKenzie, Chief Government Whip Nola Marino and backbench colleagues from across the width and breadth of regional Australian who have been pressing this government to do more to improve access to education for rural students. This is a government which understands the pressures facing rural families and the challenges facing country kids. I myself grew up in regional South Australia and completed my secondary studies in Mount Gambier. I unfortunately had to travel to pursue my tertiary studies, so I have personal experience of how hard it is to do that. Whilst I acknowledge that that avenue was not then—and is not now—open to every individual, what I welcome is that these changes open up this option for a wider cohort of young Australians.

Removing complex and unnecessary means tests and improving the operation of the parental income test is a first and good step in responding to the concerns with parental means testing and with the level of the student assistance available that were identified as part of the interdepartmental committee's interim advice.

These changes are great news for rural, remote and regional families. These measures will boost the number of families the government provides assistance to, and will lift the level of that assistance. Therefore, these reforms will encourage more young people to access the transformative effect of tertiary education. This will help develop economic opportunities for our nation and strengthen our economy. Tertiary education of course is so often a gateway to long-term rewarding and prosperous careers.

On this side of the House, we continue to champion the cause of rural, regional and remote Australians. This bill is evidence of that and I commend the bill to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill introduces more generous means testing for youth payments by removing certain testing provisions.

As we have heard from speakers on this side of the House, we do support this legislation. We have made that very clear. We have also made clear that while we do support it we do have concerns in other policy areas and how they have particularly impacted on younger people. This is especially seen in regional areas, indeed, regional areas such as my electorate of Richmond on the New South Wales North Coast. I will certainly outline later some of those other concerns we have in terms of the impacts on younger people—some of the government's other policy areas are quite devastating. In my area, we do hold the National Party responsible. In fact, it is those National Party choices that do hurt people in regional areas, particularly the cuts to education and health.

The changes in this bill mean that young people living in families with higher assets will receive increased access to youth allowance. As we have said, we support these changes. Labor have consistently demonstrated our commitment to supporting the maintenance of young people in this country and that is why we welcome these proposed changes, especially for students in regional areas who receive benefits from these changes.

In the current system, people aged under 22 who are considered dependent on their parents financially have both their own means as well as their families means assessed to determine if they are eligible for payments such as youth allowance. The family means-testing system includes a parental income test, a family asset test and, in some circumstances, a family actual means test. They are each formulated to assess the resources of a family which could be utilised in supporting their dependent children. When measured over a certain level, assets, income or means can result in a reduction or a potential ineligibility for income support.

This bill introduces a 2015 budget measure to provide more generous and consistent support for families with dependent young people who qualify for certain youth income support payments. The bill proposes that in January 2016 the family assets test and the family actual means test will be removed as factors in assessing eligibility for youth allowance. This will allow around 5,300 potential claimants to qualify for youth allowance for the first time, as well as increasing payments for existing students by approximately $2,000 a year.

This means that income will become the only method of assessment for eligibility for income support. This may mean, for example when we look at regional and rural areas, that some farming families perhaps will not have farm assets counted in the means test for their dependent children with regard to youth allowance. This is an important measure, particularly in reflecting the needs of people in regional and rural Australia which, as has been pointed out many times, are often very different for those in the urban areas. I think that this is an important measure, to make sure that these are recognised—particularly when people from regional areas do have many issues associated with accessing higher education. It is estimated that by excluding the family actual means test 30,000 families will receive direct extra support as a result of this bill and that a further 200,000 families stand to be better off due to the changes.

The parental income test evaluates how many other dependent children are supported by their parent's income. The more children assessed as eligible then the less a young person's rate is reduced as a result of their parent's income. Currently, some other children in receipt of income support are eligible for inclusion in this group. However, from 1 July 2016 the family pool for the youth parental income test will be expanded to include all eligible children who qualify under the family tax benefit. This will allow around 13,700 families with dependents to become eligible for an increase in payments of around $1,100 a year. And a further 5,800 families who currently miss out on payments will also become eligible for support totalling around $1,300 a year.

From 1 January 2016 the bill will allow youth payments which are subject to parental income testing to be subject only to one test, rather than to multiple assessments. Of course, this is a good measure—particularly through the reduction of more administrative work. It is certainly good that there will only be that one application. Additionally, this will also remove maintenance income from the parental income test assessment on 1 January 2017 and will in fact apply a separate maintenance income test for the treatment of child support, similar to the family tax benefit.

These changes will also provide additional assistance to families to support their children in that transition from school on to further studies. As I have said, that is particularly important for people from regional and rural areas, such as in my electorate of Richmond, who do often face higher costs associated with further study—and many other issues, which I will turn to, in their ability to access higher education. As I have said, whilst we support this measure there are some other measures that many in the government have brought in that do make it difficult in many ways for younger people from regional areas to access further education. I will discuss those shortly. But, as I have said, Labor supports this policy and the changes being made to ensure that we can provide that support for younger people.

Whilst I have said that we support the measure regarding youth payments, we do have many concerns that so many cuts from this government can be particularly harsh for younger people. We especially feel those harsh cuts in regional areas. As I said initially, people in my area certainly hold the National Party responsible for those cuts. The fact is that National Party choices really do hurt people from regional areas, whether those are the cuts to health, or to education or the $100,000 university degrees. There are many cuts that hurt younger people and their families.

Especially, we are talking about young people accessing further opportunities and study. This is really highlighted by this government's plans to cut university funding, and especially their plans for $100,000 university degrees. I have been approached by so many families who simply say that university is just not possible for their children now. In no way can they access it. When we look at what those cuts mean for regional universities in my area—the wonderful Southern Cross University is looking at cuts of more than $64 million—of course that will result in a massive increase in fees. This means that younger people just cannot get access to it.

We have also seen the government bring in many cuts to training and to TAFE. We have seen them cut support programs for younger people—again, all just limiting their opportunities. So there are so many concerns about this government's action. At the state level too, we have seen in my area the Liberal-National government moving to close TAFEs. It is just devastating for young people and their future opportunities. There is also a lot of worry about the government's plan to cut penalty rates. This will affect many young people, just as it will also impact on many working families who rely on penalty rates.

I will always stand up for local families against the National Party's plan to cut penalty rates, which directly threatens the living standards of many workers, their families and, especially, our young people—indeed, of our local community and our local economies as well. When we talk about the impacts on some of our younger people, who can forget the government's rather heartless attempt to ram through legislation that would have left young people without any support for a month? Of course, this second version of the policy was aimed at leaving those most in need with nothing to live on. Labor stands with the community and will continue to reject many of this government's cruel and unfair measures. When they tried to force young job seekers to live on nothing for up to six months, we stood with the community in rejecting what was essentially a very bad and unfair policy.

Despite this defeat, the government persisted in pressing their ideological attack on young people, this time trying to force them to go without any payment for a month. Again that was rejected. With complete disregard for public sentiment on this issue, the then minister—after the Senate had rejected these changes—said the government was 'absolutely committed' to pushing its policy through. One thing is very clear: they certainly did not get the message. The same legislation even proposed cuts, totalling around $46 a week, to income support for young people between the ages of 22 and 24. Labor will continue to resist any attempt to take away from those who can least afford such a loss—particularly the targeting of young people.

We constantly see unfair cuts and tax increases from this government. I tell people in my electorate that I am fighting hard against the unfair cuts of this Prime Minister and the National Party, whether they be to the age pension, to health services or to education. They are really hurting people in my area on the New South Wales North Coast. It is a magnificent region with great potential, but every school and every hospital in my region is worse off because of the National Party's cuts to health and education. That is the reality. We have seen so many cuts from this government.

I understand the minister introduced some legislation this morning—we will be looking at the detail—to water down some of the savage cuts to family tax benefits. This is in response to community concerns. Families and community members right across my electorate raised their concerns about these very harsh cuts to family tax benefits. The government will try to take credit for watering down their cuts a bit, but they have only done so in response to widespread community concern about how severely those cuts would impact families.

This government's cuts to paid parental leave are also unfair and cruel. We know how important paid parental leave is, but up to 80,000 women a year will lose as much as $11,800 because of the government's cuts. Those cuts will hit the lowest paid female workers, which is particularly unfair. Labor introduced Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme, set at the minimum wage, for parents earning less than $150,000—a scheme that has benefited around 500,000 Australian mothers since it was introduced in 2011. That shows that we on this side of the House understand how important it is to have an effective paid parental leave system in place. Indeed we understand the importance of providing effective support and services for families right across the board. During the paid parental leave debate, it was insulting how many government ministers had the gall to suggest that parents negotiating additional paid parental leave were somehow 'rorters' or 'fraudsters'. I think many people found that offensive. We will continue to stand up for Australian families. We know how important paid parental leave is.

I have listed all the reasons we support the bill before the House and why we see it as beneficial to younger people and to those from regional and rural areas. But we must remain mindful of how so many of this government's policies are detrimental to those very same people. Whilst we support the bill, we cannot ever step back from the grave concerns we have, particularly about the $50 billion in cuts to health and education. Their Medicare rebate cuts, a GP tax by stealth, are a huge concern to people in regional areas; their cuts to the age pension severely impact areas like mine that have a high proportion of older people; and we continue to have concerns about the family tax benefit cuts. As I said, apparently those family tax benefit cuts are being watered down, which is good, but we will look at the detail of that. We have concerns about their harsh treatment of young job seekers, who will be left without any payments for a period of time. This is at a time when youth unemployment, particularly in regional areas, is very high: as high as one in four. And at the same time we have a government that has cut most of the training—TAFE and apprenticeships—for those young job seekers. We have seen them looking to move to bring in $100,000 university degrees. We have seen a lot of programs that provided a good transition for younger people from school to study or work cancelled as well. This government has had a whole suite of measures that have made it very difficult for younger people, and I have grave concerns also about some of their plans to abolish penalty rates. That will indeed make it very hard as well for younger people

In conclusion, Labor does support this bill, but at the same time we are very mindful of the fact that there are so many other government policies that continue to impact younger people severely and also impact their families. We will always continue to raise those concerns. We do have instances where we see a benefit, such as this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015, where we see a benefit of the more generous means testing for youth payments. We think it is important that those testing provisions are removed. We indeed support this bill.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull government understands the need for a simpler and fairer youth income support system that focuses on young Australians who need it most. I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015, which will ensure that those who really need the support will receive it.

This side of the chamber understands that low-income families were disadvantaged under the previous income means-testing arrangements, due to duplication and multiple tests being applied simultaneously. The measures that we are discussing today aim to more closely align the parental means-testing arrangements for youth allowance with the arrangements for family tax benefit A. Only the Turnbull government can drive growth and jobs creation while also building a strong, prosperous and innovative economy. Part of this commitment is to ensure that Australia has a simple and fairer youth income support system for the future leaders of tomorrow. But, most importantly, this bill improves access for regional students to higher education. These measures simplify and improve the complex parental means test for youth payments. This bill will reduce sudden drops in assistance when dependent children moved from family tax benefit A to the youth income support system. This bill will better align means test arrangements for children in school and postsecondary education. This bill will benefit families with dependent younger children and youth payment recipients.

Helping those in regional, rural and remote Australia is not just a Liberal Party value; it is in our DNA. The bill will assist regional students not just in my vast electorate of Durack but throughout regional Australia. I am pleased to say that families in Durack will be eligible for an increase in payment due to the removal of the family actual means test and that they are also expected to benefit from the removal of the family assets test, which is expected to assist around 1,200 families across Australia. Under this bill, farming families will not have farm assets counted towards testing for their children to access youth allowance. In many cases, and we hear this all the time, farming families are asset rich but, regrettably, they live off a modest income. So what we are discussing today is a much needed overhaul of the system. Students in both secondary and higher education who face higher costs of study, due to the need to move away from home most often, and more often in Western Australia, will benefit from an increase in the rate of youth allowance for the first time, with some accessing payments of more than $7,000 a year. This bill will benefit families with youth allowance children, who are currently penalised by double counting the contribution of non-resident parents through child support in some circumstances. Similar changes will be made to the ABSTUDY living allowance parental means test, and that also will be very welcome to many families in regional and remote Durack.

This bill encourages more young people not just to continue studying but to continue with their education. The relevant statistics, however, are alarming, and we see more and more young people from the bush deferring their university education. In most cases this is because of the added strain that further education would place on the purse strings of the family. Sadly, we know that once higher education is deferred it is a monumental effort to commence a tertiary education at a later stage.

The Turnbull government remains committed to higher education reform. Our proposal to expand the demand driven funding system allows universities to offer more subsidised places in higher education—diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees—enabling more opportunities for kids from the bush. In addition to providing pathways to higher degrees, many sub-bachelor qualifications are a ticket to a job in their own right. They provide training for engineers, technologists, construction managers, aged-care professionals et cetera. The government already provides relocation and student start-up scholarships to eligible regional students in higher education to assist with the costs associated with moving away from home to attend university.

Being a born and bred proud country girl—and I see that the member for Indi is here; she is also a proud country girl—I am only too aware that students from regional and remote areas can face a range of additional barriers in accessing higher education. Children leaving regional, rural and remote areas face difficulties that are not experienced by those in the city who are embarking on higher education. Students in my electorate and their parents deserve a fair go and an equal opportunity. It is with sadness I say that many families choose to leave country WA to move to the city so that they can provide accommodation for their children to access higher education. Sadly, they are also leaving much sooner than at tertiary education level.

Yet we understand that one of the big problems in the bush is attracting qualified workers, including a range of professionals. These days professionals, in particular healthcare workers, such as nurses and doctors, are being sourced from agencies. They fly in and out of regional WA because we cannot attract the professionals to reside in regional areas. We note that those who are brought up in regional Australia love it—don't they, member for Indi? They know the bush and they are our best ambassadors. Yet they are the ones who are financially prevented from attending tertiary institutions, acquiring their professional qualifications and returning to their home.

The higher education forum I hosted in Moora in August with Senator Bridget McKenzie is yet another example of not just the government's but by my particular interest in getting more students from regional Australia into higher education. The Department of Education and Training and the Department of Social Services are co-chairing an interdepartmental committee that is looking at the barriers to accessing higher education for regional and remote students. The feedback from the forum plus similar forums that were held around Australia will be included in the final report of the interdepartmental committee. The government will consider how it responds to these issues once it receives this final report. My expectation is that the result will be a further overhaul of youth allowance. But, for now, this bill is a good step in the right direction and I know it will be welcomed by hundreds of Durack families.

We all know so well, as demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition's appalling east-coast-centric and city-centric infrastructure announcement a fortnight ago, that only this side of the chamber knows and understands regional Australia. As I said at the beginning of this contribution, this bill will ensure those who need the support will receive it. This bill is about a key value of mine and I know of many other regional members in this House, and that is improving access to education for kids from the bush. It will improve access to education for regional students, especially higher education. I commend this bill to the House.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Durack on that excellent speech in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015 and the way she explained how the changes are going to make such a difference. I would like to build on those comments to do three things. I want to acknowledge and say to the government, well done. You have done a really good job on this one; thank you.

I now want to say, let's get serious: if we can do this bit well, let's tackle the really big issue, which is picking up on what the member for Durack said. Let's have a policy that actually addresses education and higher education in rural and regional Australia. Let's all of us put our shoulders to the wheel. Let's really deliver on this, because it is too important not to.

Thirdly, I would actually like to talk about what the ingredients of a policy would be. So I have three things to say today: I want to acknowledge and talk about the good work that has been done; I want to talk about the research that has been undertaken on the issues and what a policy would look like; and I want to finish off on a call to action to my colleagues opposite, particularly to the National Party, to say, 'Show us seriously—let's go to the next election with a higher education policy and an architecture that actually addresses the issues that my colleagues have been talking about today.'

Let's get underway. Why is this so important? This bit of legislation is so important because the process has been good; with the senator and the committee, the work has been done. We have had a need; we have listened to our community; we have consulted—we have gone out to community groups; we have set up an interdepartmental committee on access to higher education for rural and regional students; and we have had hearings all around the country, including in my community of Wangaratta. This legislation is a direct result of all that. So—well done government! You can do things when you apply your mind to it—you can do good work. I just want to see more of it in this place. I particularly want to see more of it in this topic of higher education.

Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Because I know that already in rural and regional Australia we do not have a comprehensive policy to address the issue. We have significant underrepresentation by regional students in higher education, we have lower levels of higher education attainment in our regions and we have this enormous unfulfilled potential for developing regional Australia if we can get the education, if we can get the skills and if we can get it working properly?

I am particularly concerned because in my electorate of Indi only 57 per cent of the 20 to 24-year-olds finish year 12. Only 57 per cent finish year 12, compared with 78 per cent in Melbourne. And only 19 per cent of those between 20 and 39 years of age hold a bachelor degree or higher compared to 31 per cent across Australia. Sixty-three per cent of people in Indi are in the bottom half of the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage. And many young people in my community move away from home to study. In my home shire of Indigo, there are 420 people aged between 17 and 18, but just 200 aged between 21 and 22. The young people go. The saddest thing that I can see is that our biggest export from rural and regional Australia is our young people. The major way that I can see us getting them back and holding them is by having quality education and addressing the many barriers that we know to having that.

I would like to introduce to the House three reports that have recently been done covering this topic. The first report I would like to talk about is a study of four towns undertaken by Ballarat university and commissioned by Regional Development Australia Hume and supported by Regional Development Victoria and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. This report tells us of four towns in my electorate—the towns of Wangaratta, Mansfield, Myrtleford and Benalla. And under the Australian Standard Geographical Classification system, they are all rated as RA4—remote Australia.

The Hume region has consistently lower retention rates for years 7 to 12 than for nonmetropolitan areas. As I said, 22 per cent of young people leave school through years 10 to 12, compared with 15 per cent for metropolitan Melbourne. And compared with the state-wide average of 30.4 per cent, the percentage of the Hume population aged between 24 to 34 with a bachelor degree or higher was recorded as substantially lower at 17.35 per cent. So my own electorate is particularly disadvantaged, and we absolutely need to take some action on this.

The research shows the major barriers: economic barriers, geographical barriers, information barriers and what the researchers call 'class' barriers. We know what the issues are, and it is really clear that we know what to do. I will not bore the House by going through all the recommendations—I will just say that they are here and in the report. We need to have better information; we need to have more flexible delivery; we absolutely need to work with local, state and federal governments to develop economies and to have the jobs there; and we absolutely need to lobby government to have a holistic approach to solving this issue. The recommendations are there in great detail and, as I said, to be looked at.

The second thing that I would really like to make mention of is what my colleague, the member for Durack, asks about, 'What happens in rural and regional Australia when you do not have enough money, you get into uni and then you defer?'

This idea of deferring is really important. It is a good thing to do, at some levels, but the latest available data for Victoria says that 16.5 per cent of non-metropolitan school completers and 8.1 per cent of metropolitan school leavers defer. So 16 per cent of our rural kids who finish year 12 defer but only eight per cent do so in Melbourne. What is going on? Why would that happen? What does it tell us? Further, we know that three years out from school a little over two-thirds of regional deferrers in this study ended up at university. It is good that two-thirds did, but it means that one-third never took up the offer or dropped out soon after doing so. The reasons are related to financial stress and travel related factors. The biggest issue seems to be in picking yourself up and getting to Melbourne once you have deferred. It is no easy task, as members of this parliament who live in country areas have done and know. It is a huge social adjustment, it is an enormous financial cost and you need to actually study on top of everything else you do.

The work has been done, we know what the problems are and we know what the solutions are. I particularly want to talk to the work that deals with the problems and solutions for young people. The third area I would like to deal with is the problem of funding universities. There has been some excellent work done in this area as well. The Australian government's former Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations did a review of regional loading and presented a very worthwhile, well-researched report. The report tells us that we know how to solve this problem. We know what the issues are, we know what the policy impediments are and we know what needs to be done. The thing we are lacking is the political will for both sides of parliament to come to the party and do what needs to be done.

I would like to pick up on some of the higher education issues that are mentioned in this Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations report. The current regional loading formula is not appropriate for the needs of regional higher education. The cost of regional higher education provision is greater than the funding provided. Regional higher education faces significant economic disincentives. There is a need for much greater cooperation between all institutions. There are huge economies of scale that we could achieve. There is a low participation rate of regional students, as I have talked about, and the deferral rate is a real problem. The report proposes that regional higher education differs from metropolitan areas in the following key ways: participation rates are lower; completers of year 12 are less likely to go to university; students face greater disincentives to study; students are more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; students are more likely to be female, to be older and to be caring for dependents than their metropolitan counterparts; students are more likely to be enrolled in enabling courses and less likely to be enrolled in research doctorates or masters coursework; students are more likely to study part-time and via distance; and, once graduates in regional areas get through, they tend to stay in regional areas.

The report makes a very strong case for why it is important for the nation to invest in a regional higher education infrastructure or architecture. There are external benefits. We make significant contributions to our community. There is a market failure in rural and regional Australia. And surely it is a matter of equity. Students, wherever they are, deserve access to quality education. The policy objectives outlined in this report are really important to bring before the House today. Regarding the major contributory outcomes, we need to increase participation rates, we need to address the low SES and Indigenous participation rates, we need to meet regional workforce needs, we need to improve the sustainability and quality of regional higher education and we need to address regional social and economic development. There is a clear policy framework that needs to be addressed.

There is much more in this report, and I commend the authors of it. They have done a fantastic job. The arguments have been made. But, in bringing my talk to a conclusion and again acknowledging the work that has already being done, I really call on my colleagues opposite. You know how to do this work. You absolutely know how to work collaboratively. We have worked with the budget. We know how to address some of these problems. We have done the baby steps. Now we have actually got to tackle the real problem. The real issue is how to have a regional higher education policy that actually does the things that we need it to do that have been outlined.

In bringing my comments to a close, I say to my colleagues opposite, this issue is about infrastructure. This issue is about nation building. This issue is about innovation and creativity. This issue is about equity and about outcomes. If we truly want Australia to be the great place that our new Prime Minister is telling us it can be, if we truly want to take up the opportunities of living in the best time in Australia's history, then we cannot afford to leave the young people of rural and regional Australia behind.

We cannot afford to say, 'Yeah, we knew about the problem, but we didn't have the political will to act.' So I call on my colleagues opposite, particularly the National Party, 'Go to your Liberal Party colleagues.' I call on the member for Durack: 'You are a good Liberal woman. Go to your colleagues. Go to the party meetings.' I call on the member for Richmond, who is a really good member of the Labor Party and an excellent member of the opposition. I say to all: 'Go to your party rooms and argue the case for the infrastructure and the architecture, so we are not having a debate in this House in five years time about disadvantage in rural and regional Australia.'

Clearly, one size does not fit all. Clearly, we need special consideration for rural and regional young people. To Senator McKenzie, you and your committee have done a great job and you have begun the process. Do not stop there. Work in a cooperative bipartisan approach so that all the people across rural and regional Australia get the education they deserve in the way that they deserve, so they too can be part of this great nation and bring their intellectual capacity to bear on the many problems we face. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. I welcome the chance to support this bill and look forward to the many bills that will follow in consequence.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015 is a really important bill for the people of my electorate, an electorate not dissimilar to Indi or Farrer, and I see that the member for Farrer has just come into the chamber. These are rambling, rural communities with small towns, away from the higher education institutions, where so many young people aspire to go to further their opportunities in life.

Before I speak to the detail of the bill before the House, I want to comment on the member for Bendigo's contribution last night, which I had the displeasure of hearing. It was literally a rant with mistruths and misrepresentations. I understand the Labor Party are going to support these amendments and, rightly, they should. But this contribution had one misinformed scare campaign after the other. It started with $100,000 degrees.

The member for Bendigo should know that in that important discussion we had around how to fund universities into the future, a number of institutions did come out at that time, including the Australian Catholic University, a Victorian institution, saying their fees would not change. The University of Western Australia, one of the nation's top universities talked about a four-year bachelor degree costing in the order of $50,000, not $100,000. So the misinformation that was being peddled from the other side about impediments to students from all around the place was disingenuous and was really an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia. I think they are over it and that they have had enough. I think Australians want a more mature discussion around what the real issues are.

One of the real issues is not the cost of education because nobody, from whatever background or wherever they live in Australia, has to pay a cent up-front. The cost of tuition is not the issue. The issue for young people from regional and rural Australia is that they have to travel because they have to live away from home. They do not have the luxury of having the family home to stay in and, therefore, the associated reduced costs.

I do not want to dwell on this because it is going into the distant past, but I want to briefly talk about my own circumstance, having grown up in Tasmania. When I finally decided on where I wanted to head in life, I took myself off to Geelong. At the time, I remember there was state government assistance which was $30 a week. I was fortunate to get loan from my father. The miserable fellow would not do anything other than give me a loan! And for years after he reminded me of it. He sadly died in 1989 and I do not know whether I ended paying it all back or not. It was as much a lesson about the reality of life, that we often forget now in this place where we always have our hand out.

A few mates and I bought a few sheep and leased a few sheep down on the Bellarine Peninsula. We did a little shearing on weekends and some crutching for people—probably under the designated rate that the unions were suggesting at the time would have been appropriate. Nevertheless, we managed to get through. We all have our stories. It is difficult when you are living away from home and you are going on to study. It is no different today really than it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago. We have to manage.

What we should have in this country is equal opportunity to study. You can never contrive outcomes, but we should allow young people from wherever they are in Australia, whether they live in Campbell Town in my electorate of Lyons, or up the Derwent Valley in towns like Ouse or Bothwell in the central highlands, or they come from the member for Farrer's electorate at Broken Hill, to have equal opportunity to study. It should not matter what your postcode is, where you come from in Australia, to go on and get a higher education. That is what this bill intends to do.

It introduces a 2015 budget measure to provide more generous and consistent support for families with dependent young people who quality for certain youth income support payments. It has the following elements. From 1 January 2016, it will remove the family assets test and family actual means test for the youth allowance parental means-test arrangements. From 1 January 2016, it will align parental income test exemptions for youth allowance with existing arrangements for family tax benefit part A. From 1 January 2016, it will remove maintenance income from the youth allowance parental income test assessment. From 1 January 2017, it will instead apply a separate maintenance income test for the treatment of child support like that currently applying to family tax benefit part A.

From 1 July 2016, where a family has a dependent child who receives an individual youth payment that is parentally income tested and has younger siblings who qualify for the family tax benefit, the family pool for the youth parental income test will include all children who qualify for the family tax benefit. This is important, as I mentioned, for families and communities around my electorate, all of whom have to travel away from home to get higher education. It is important for the children of farmers, where it is often the case—and this is true all around Australia, as it is in Tasmania—that families have assets but having available cash is problematic for them. These changes recognise that circumstance. Small business people in regional Australia will often be in a similar situation. I will refer a little bit to Senator McKenzie's good work in this area. I have been involved in her group, along with the member for Durack and others. I will touch on that in a second.

We also have had specific challenges in Tasmania. For many years, high schools have only gone through to year 10. Thanks to the good work of Minister Jeremy Rockliff, the Tasmanian Minister for Education and Training, that is changing. There is a process in place now where regional high schools will, like the rest of the country, be going through to year 12. The dropout rate of students at year 10 is just simply unacceptably high. It is one of the things that I believe is really holding our state back. This change is one of the things that the state government, supported by the work we are doing here, is doing to help students in regional areas have the same opportunities as their urban cousins.

The measures outlined in this bill aim to align more closely the parental means test arrangements for youth allowance with the arrangements for family tax benefit part A. The bill will improve and amend the social security law to simplify and improve the complex parental means tests for youth payments and more closely align them with the family tax benefit part A means test in the family assistance law. It will include siblings eligible for the family tax benefit in the family pool for the youth parental income test from 1 July 2016, which will mean an easing of the income test taper and an increase in the income test cut-outs. These changes will allow some dependent young people who are currently not entitled to receive youth allowance or other youth payments to receive them.

Last month my electorate, along with a number of other electorates around the country, very gladly hosted a forum. We held it in the most central place that we could find—Campbell Town in the northern midlands of Tasmania. We were very pleased to welcome Senator Bridget McKenzie, who has lead the federal government's higher education reform forums around the country. Indeed, Senator McKenzie has just completed a series of regional higher education forums to discuss access to higher education and the initiatives in the 2015 budget.

Feedback from the forums, including from the people at our forum at Campbell Town, will provide input to the final report of the interdepartmental committee due in November this year. 'Interdepartmental' refers to the fact that there were representatives from one of the largest policy departments, the Department of Social Services, but also from the Department of Education. It was fantastic to have not only Senator Bridget McKenzie there but also, as I said, representatives from both of those departments.

We had more than 50 educators and parents at the forum. It was during the middle of the day so that is something that indicates the importance of this issue, as people lead busy lives. They came from across my electorate and around Tasmania—from my colleague the member for Bass's electorate, the member for Braddon's electorate and also from the electorate of Franklin. People also came from Tasmania's leading higher education institutions. We had: Sue Kilpatrick and Merran Rogers from the University of Tasmania; Frans Ammerlaan from Vocational Language Learning Centres; Shelly Barnett, a teacher from Hobart's Rosny College; Stephen Norris, the headmaster of Launceston Church Grammar School—my old school; Keith Wenn, the principal at Launceston College; Jane Teniswood from the East Coast Network Group based in Triabunna; Rick Birch, who is the coordinator of the South East Trade Training Centre at Sorell; and Kate Thompson and Emily Gardner from the Isolated Children's Parents' Association.

There was a broad discussion about the challenges that Tasmania uniquely faces. We think of Tasmania as a relatively small place and, yes, you could fit Tasmania into the member for Durack's electorate. Nevertheless, accessibility to higher education is just as much an issue for Tasmanians as it is for people living in remote areas of WA. As I said before, it should not matter what your postcode is when it comes to the opportunities you have to participate in higher education. I think that is an aspiration that all of us in this place share and would support.

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate the trend unemployment rate for Tasmania is falling. That is a fantastic thing, but youth unemployment is still too high. The proportion of those not engaged in higher education is higher in Tasmania than it is nationally. If I do nothing else during my time in this place, I am determined to do everything I can in conjunction with my state colleagues to improve this. That is why I am so pleased to be able to speak on this legislation, which will address that challenge. About 49.5 per cent of Tasmanians aged 15 to 24 attend full-time education compared to 52.3 per cent of young people nationally. Doing whatever we can to improve these rates is necessary and important.

Removing the family actual means test will see around 1,200 more people receiving youth allowance for the first time as well as increase payments for about 4,860 existing students by approximately $2,000 per year. It is a significant amount of money that helps with those costs of living, be it accommodation or other things when we have to live away from home. The changes mean farming families, who are very well represented in my electorate of Lyons, and others as well, will not have farm assets counted towards the means test for their dependent children when they are claiming youth allowance.

This, indeed, is an important reform, especially for the people of my rural communities in Lyons. It is not so much about the actual cost of education, as I highlighted before, particularly in the case of university, and the reforms that were proposed would also have been expanded to those sub-bachelor courses and those associate diplomas. So the benefits of HECS and HELP loans that are available to people doing bachelor degrees would have been expanded to those pathway courses through the reforms that were proposed, and that certainly would have provided a huge opportunity and been of huge benefit. It is something that I know the University of Tasmania has been advocating for a very long time, and many of the students that participate in those associate degrees, for which they have to pay up front, would have been included if those reforms had been successful and would have had the same advantages that people going on to do degrees have had.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I do not think there is anything more important that we can do in this place than to support our young people to have equal opportunity in this great country—not equal outcomes, because we will never be able to achieve that, and that is not the society I want to live in. I want to see people who work hard, people who are smart, being able to take advantage of that opportunity. We will never be able to control those things, but one of the things we can control in this place is giving people from regional Australia the same opportunities as people who live in urban areas.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to talk about this particular bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015, because it harks back to something that I raised in my maiden speech. We spend a lot of time talking about the economy and how the economy needs to balance the books—and we do need to spend less money than we get in taxpayer revenue, if we can. But the economy is simply the engine room for us to build the society that we want.

What constitutes a great society? A great society is one that rewards personal endeavour. A great society is one that rewards risk. A great society is one that looks after our senior Australians. A great society is one that looks after our health needs. But a great society is also one that invests significantly in our future and in our children, and if you look at regional Australians, there are some disadvantages to living in the regions. I would also argue there are some great advantages to living in the regions. Of course, the air is fresher, the food is better, the lifestyle is better and the houses are cheaper. So, if you are thinking about a great place to come and live, certainly consider regional Australia.

But one of the disadvantages is that there are sometimes limited opportunities for higher education for our children. People in my electorate do not have the advantage of being able to catch a tram to their university. They do not have the advantage of being able to go to a university which is close, because in a lot of cases they are required to travel to pursue the educational opportunities they want. This is always a challenge.

People talk about the impacts of the HELP loans scheme. They talk about what the impact of their student fees is going to be and how they are going to pay those back. But often the impact for regional Australians, and for their parents, when they are considering how they can access higher education is the living-away-from-home costs. They simply are substantially more costly than the HECS loans are.

I know examples of that. A farmer said to me once that it cost $20,000 a year for his son to be at university. I still remember him showing me something. It was something that we take a granted, that little white card that we all carry around: a business card. This farmer said to me, 'Look at this. My son has a business card. The first person in our family to have a university education. It came at a significant cost to us.' But he was so proud that his son had a business card. The farmer was a guy called Frank Padula, a wine grape grower in my area.

The issue was the substantial costs of a student, their child, having to live away from home. Even though they may not make much money, many of our farming families are not eligible for youth allowance on the grounds that they have too many assets. The very nature of agriculture is that you have to have assets. It is very hard to produce a crop if you do not have a paddock to produce a crop on. It is very hard to grow some vines if you do not have a vineyard.

The great saying always is that people involved in rural industries are often asset rich but cashflow poor. This becomes a real challenge for these people living in the regional areas because they are asset rich but cash flow poor. An asset is not something you can realise until you are actually exiting the industry. Through your agricultural career you are growing your business. But you are also trying to grow the educational opportunities for your children, you are trying to buy a new kitchen for your wife, if you can, and occasionally you get a new ute—and that is pretty much how it works.

What we have done here is address one of the things that I raised in my maiden speech: how we ensure that we create educational opportunities for our children. This bill will particularly benefit rural and regional families whose children continue to study beyond year 12 by removing the asset test and looking at their income. I think that is a very sound principle. What the family actually is getting in income gives them a definition of whether they can actually afford to support their child. The asset of the farm does not become income until the sale of the farm. This means that we can ensure that our farmers and other people with substantial assets that are not income earning are still able to provide educational opportunities for our children.

In the electorate of Mallee, the rate of university completion is only about 26 per cent. We need to get that number up—and we need to get it up not just for the children's benefit but for the growth of regional Australia. If anyone is travelling in the congestion in the cities and listening to this on the radio, they will know that our cities are becoming more congested. But our country towns also need to grow. If we can move people out to the regions, we will essentially make a better standard of living for every Australian.

But the challenge for growing regional Australia is to diversify our economy. If we can do more things in regional Australia, we can have a more vibrant regional Australia, we can have more jobs in regional Australia and we can have more people live in regional Australia. The only way we are really going to do that, if you look statistically, is to educate regional Australians, who will go to the cities, get their education and then come back and contribute to their community. There have been all the studies about how to attract rural doctors. The best way we actually did it was to train rural people, because, frankly, when you know what is out there and you have seen what is out there and you go to the smog-infested, congested, expensive city, you realise that it actually is better back where we live.

I look out my front door—and I know a few members here are from regional Australia, but I am just going to make the rest of you envious—and I look across four kilometres of vineyard, from a house that I bought for under $500,000, with nice green lawns, whilst you are in your little unit, breathing in the smog and having to try and work out how you are going to pay off your million-dollar mortgage. All you have got to do is come out to our place, sunshine, and you will see what living is really about! You can grab your boat and go fishing. You can enjoy life. But we want to attract people to regional Australia. We need health professionals, engineers and people who are going to do other things than just service industry and agriculture. We want to have high-end manufacturing. We want to have a real vision for regional Australia. It all starts with educating regional Australians. It all starts with small policy changes like this that translate to really beneficial outcomes.

There was a saying that you could give an Australian a piece of fencing wire and they could fix almost anything. That is probably an exaggeration, but it does recognise that we have got a long heritage in Australia of ingenuity, of 'can do' and of inventiveness about how we do things. In encouraging more people to have higher education, we can enhance our wealth and our manufacturing sector. I still have a strong belief that we have got a bright future in this country. Sure, the world is changing. Sure, we have got some challenges. But I still reckon Australians are pretty smart. I can see the kids in the gallery, and I reckon they are pretty smart and I hope they are learning about their Australian parliament. What I want to say to you is: we want to create for you an opportunity to become a great citizen. We want to create opportunities for you to pursue your hopes and dreams. Essentially, in doing that, you will then, in many ways, contribute to Australia being a great country.

The world has moved into high-end manufacturing. We may not be making cars as we have been in the past, but we are certainly making components. Look at the F35 fighter jets that are getting made. The tail assemblies of those are getting built in Melbourne. The opportunities for high-end manufacturing are going to be there. I still think if you can take country kids and help them get to education, they will go back to those regional areas and do start-ups and do some of those businesses. For example, I went to a business the other day in Mildura that is making spray units. 'How hard can it be?' you would think. You essentially put together water, chemical and jets of air and you spray it on horticultural products. But they have done all this aerodynamic testing and, out of that, they are now exporting all across the world—just from a little shed. I did not even know it was there. They said, 'Come and have a look at it.' I went in there, and they were employing a heap of people and they are exporting all across the world. But they need to be able to attract engineers, and they struggle to attract them. We have got to sell the story of why we can bring people out to regional Australia.

So this bill is particularly important. It all starts with education. It all starts with making education affordable. If we can do this, it will go towards lifting aspiration. I said to a few year 11s and year 12s at one of the schools I visited, 'Who wants to go and further yourself in higher education?' Only about half the hands went up. My fear is that, if we lower aspiration, people then will not aspire. So we need to make things more affordable. Children are very smart. They will know if it is unaffordable for the family to be able to do higher education. They will say to their parents, 'No, I don't really want to go,' when in fact they do not want to shame their parents into addressing the fact that it is something that the family cannot afford. I hope that this measure makes things more affordable, which then translates to lifting aspiration.

The bill will, from 1 January 2016, remove the family asset test and the family actual means test from the youth allowance parental means test arrangements. From 1 January 2016, it will align parental income tax exemptions for youth allowance with existing arrangements for family tax benefit part A. And, from 1 January 2016, it will remove maintenance income from the youth allowance parental income test assessment. This is a good bill. This is a bill that should be supported by all people in the parliament. Essentially, if we can create educational opportunities for our children, we can diversify the economy of regional Australia and we can grow our country into being a better country. This is a bill that I am very happy to talk about in this parliament.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the major impediments for young people wanting to further their studies after finishing high school is the cost of living away from home, particularly if you live in a regional area. In my electorate of Hinkler, youth unemployment is extremely high, and the median weekly family income is just $832. For many young people, their parents do not earn enough to support them through university but they exceed the asset test thresholds for receiving government assistance through Centrelink. They may be the eldest child and their parents are still caring for another two school-aged children at home. They could get a part-time job. But, depending on the course they want to undertake, their study requirements may prevent them from working enough hours to cover even the basic costs of rent, food, transport and utilities. Personally, when I finished school I delayed going to university because I knew the costs would have made things difficult for my parents, my three younger brothers and their family business. Instead, I opted to apply for an electrical apprenticeship—probably the best four years of my life. It was a great opportunity to gain a trade. I saved enough money during those four years to move to Brisbane to study engineering at the Queensland University of Technology, and I worked part time as a lifeguard and on the tools through those four years—on weekends and holidays—to help get me through university. So I am exceptionally pleased to be standing in this place, today, speaking on this bill.

This legislation introduces more generous means-testing arrangements for youth payments to help support regional children who are transitioning from school to tertiary education. We are removing the family asset test and family actual means test from the youth allowance parental income test. It will base the assessment of a young person's access to youth allowance on a fairer measure of family income.

Removing the asset test will enable around 4,100 dependent Australians to qualify for youth allowance for the first time, accessing average annual payments of more than $7,000 a year. The removal of the means test will see a further 1,200 people receive youth allowance, for the first time, as well as increase payments for around 4,860 existing students by about $2,000 a year. Importantly, the changes will mean farming families will not have farm assets counted toward the test for their children accessing youth allowance.

We are also changing the youth allowance parental-income testing arrangements to include all family tax benefit children in the family pool. The current test only includes children over 16. Counting all children will soften reductions in youth allowance as the family's income increases. For example, around 13,700 families with dependent children in both the family tax benefit part A and youth systems will be eligible for an average increase in payment of $43 per fortnight or $1,118 per annum. Around 5,800 families who currently miss out on payments, due to higher taper rates, will be eligible for an average payment of around $50 per fortnight or $1,300 per annum. As a former poor student, I know $50 a fortnight does make a difference.

Simplifying the parental means tests will provide additional assistance for working families to support their children make the transition from school to further study. These changes are great news for Hinkler families. It boosts the number of families we assist and the level of that assistance, and it encourages more young people into study to build their careers, develop economic opportunities and contribute to our economy. Most of these changes will come into effect from 1 January next year, and some on 1 July next year and 1 January 2017. Hinkler residents can get more information and find out whether they are eligible by contacting Centrelink.

Earlier, l mentioned youth unemployment. This government is doing everything it can to help young people gain new skills and find a job. I understand there are several challenges to gaining employment, in the Hinkler electorate, including a lack of job vacancies and a high number of applicants. But I am a firm believer that young people should be earning or learning. Developing skills and qualifications can help job seekers stand out in what is a highly competitive jobs market. Employers who are seeking to fill a specific role say they, typically, have to recruit from outside the region because they cannot find locals with the required skills. That, to me, is deeply disappointing. Other employers say they are willing to train people and give them the skills, but they struggle to find people who show up on time dressed appropriately and willing to live without their smart phones for a few hours.

Through Work for the Dole, the National Work Experience Program and Green Army, job seekers are learning important skills while contributing to their communities. We have reinstated the Howard government's ADF gap year. The number of young Hinkler residents applying to join the Defence Force has increased, significantly, in recent years.

The 2015 budget included $330 million for a youth employment strategy to help young people transition from school to work. Young job seekers who find a job and stay off welfare for 12 months will receive a job commitment bonus of $2,500 and a further $4,000 at 24 months. We are providing concessional trade support loans of up to $20,000 and spending $200 million, each year, to lift apprenticeship completion rates. We are also providing up to $9,000 to help people relocate to take up jobs. I know that young people often have to leave the region to get qualifications, skills and experience. But sometimes the local opportunities are overlooked. I have spoken to vice chancellors of Central Queensland University and the University of the Sunshine Coast who are moving into the region.

In my maiden speech I raised concerns about the exodus of talented young people from regional Australia. This bill will help address those matters, substantially. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.