Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On considering this debate so far, I wonder whether Senator Williams might be contemplating amending the original resolution, so perhaps I will take us back to that point. The MPI reads:

The Rudd government’s ill-considered, ill-conceived and discriminatory changes to the Independent Youth Allowance announced in the Federal Budget.

When I read this when it was first circulated and then withdrawn yesterday, I was anticipating some sort of assessment and critique of the Bradley review. But we have heard none of that. What the government did, after a considered review, was to respond to it in the last budget. I am certainly prepared to accept that there is quite a degree of disquiet about what that might mean for some students currently within what has been termed their gap year. I too have received those emails and I too have raised issues and questions in Senate estimates about the potential impact.

It was suggested that the government was not aware of issues such as university deferral arrangements. It was in fact in my case that we raised this issue in Senate estimates because unfortunately there has been a scare campaign that is informing some of the emails that are now being circulated and that has not been looking at the various options that apply to young people as a result of these budget measures. I commend senators in their discussion in the debate today, because if I look at some of the language, for instance, I see we are talking about young people who feel as if their life has been tipped upside down or who have been effectively caught short. That is reasonable language. But some of the language that has been encouraged in the emails that have been circulating and some of it that came out during the Senate estimates discussion is the result of a scare campaign. When you hear young people saying, ‘My life is at an end, this destroys my future,’ it really is taking this issue well and truly out of perspective.

Senator Hanson-Young selectively picked one other issue where the application of measures in these types of situations needs to look at the application of potential retrospectivity. She chose, I suspect deliberately, to focus on the parliamentary superannuation issue. Senator Sherry quite rightly highlighted that there are many people planning retirement who have had to deal with the issue of goalposts being shifted, not only by the current government but also by the former government and by many governments before that. This issue is not a new issue. In some senses, I have more sympathy for the predicament that people planning for retirement who are at the end of their working life are caught in than I do for young people for whom, at the end of the day, it may simply mean that after exhausting the various options achieving independence is the only realistic option they have left and they may need to spend a further six to 12 months working. I myself worked for two years before I entered university. I know many people who have worked before university, whether it was for 12 months or for 24 months.

I take up Senator Williams’s discussion about what impact that has on whether students will actually enter university. That has not been well explored to date, but I add a new context to that. I want Senator Williams to consider a different issue, which is: why are young people being forced by the system to take a gap year in the first place, and is that, indeed, the best system that we should be encouraging in the future? Is it best for young people to spend 12 months in the workforce before they enter university? If in a policy sense we are encouraging a system which says to young people in rural and regional areas, ‘What you should do is go and work for 12 months and then go to university,’ I am still not convinced that that is the best policy option either. I know many students at university who probably could have benefited from that additional level of maturity rather than flunking their first year at university—and Senator Mason shakes his head in understanding that point.

Also, Senator Williams, I should make a different point to you, which is that you should not make assumptions about the experience of other senators in this chamber. The point I made earlier when you were referring to stereo interjections was in response to Senator Nash, because I said my first paid work was on a farm near Jerilderie in New South Wales. She reflected, ‘Lovely town.’ I responded, ‘Yes.’ So my first paid work was on a farm near Jerilderie doing lamb marking. So, please, keep to the question, keep to the debate and do not insult other senators in the process about what experience they may or may not have had in rural and regional Australia.

Senator Crossin addressed a range of issues and highlighted some of the aspects of the changes and how they will benefit regional Australia. In the limited time I have, I want to respond to some of the other points raised. Senator Hanson-Young also referred to the figure that came out during our estimates discussion indicating that we are looking at around 30,700 young people potentially being affected. But I stress—and she did acknowledge this—that that is an effect. The effect may be positive; the effect may be negative. Unfortunately, at this stage, it is very difficult to assess the net effect—and not because the government is being intransigent; it is because it applies in a very difficult policy area.

We have had some comments about universities. Senator Williams rightly pointed to the article today in the Australian talking about flexibility on gap year deferrals. I have dealt with students who have needed to defer for exceptional circumstances, and they have been able to extend their deferrals. I welcome this statement from Glenn Withers recommending that Australian universities apply flexibility and look at exceptional circumstances for students. But let us look at when we might be dealing with those exceptional circumstances. It will be after individual students assess their circumstances in relation to changed benchmarks. But those changed benchmarks, the retargeting of the system, allow significant improvements in terms of how they might be assessed were they still caught under the dependency criteria in relation to their parental income test and in relation to their personal income test. This package improves the financial wellbeing of students, and in particular those students for whom income support will be the main issue that determines whether they can be at university or not.

But when an individual student then compares their circumstances—how far off they are from achieving independence, what the criteria will mean in terms of their parental income and what the criteria will mean in terms of their potential personal income—they will be in a position to decide whether they still want to strive to be financially independent or whether they accept the alternative options that are still available to them. This is a prospective assessment, and that is why the department cannot say clearly, ‘This is our assessment of the net impact’. Senator Mason knows that, I know that and I suspect Senator Nash really does know that aspect of it too. Were she able to come forward with a couple of examples that could demonstrate severe disadvantage, that might be a different issue. But I have not seen those cases. What I have seen are the cases of people who have yet to be able to assess their circumstances, and I have seen the result of some level of scaremongering where young people are making some pretty extreme statements about what this really means.

I think that is most unfortunate. I know many students who have started out with a view to taking a gap year who have then decided to extend their deferral and still gone on to university. They have had to change their choices because of other shifted goalposts. Goalposts in this area do shift, and that shift may be as a result of government policy or it may be as a result of other life circumstances. Unfortunately, this is what does happen and over time young people will come to terms with the fact that goalposts might shift in the future. As I have said, for students who want to access university, the gap year issue may be considerable, and this is why I have stressed that universities are capable of extending their deferral circumstances. (Time expired)