John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not intend to make a long speech about the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, but it contains issues I am very concerned about. I commend my colleague, Senator Back, for the argument he has put forward about tertiary education and the effect on regional areas in Australia.

It is concerning that 33 per cent of regional students completing year 12 go on to tertiary education, but in the city areas that is 55 per cent. That is a concern in itself. In regional areas we are desperately short of many professional services: doctors, dentists and nurses—these people have to go to university and those people from regional areas who go to university are most likely to return to the regional areas. That is the argument we put forward this evening.

The goal for the government should be to provide opportunities for all Australians. That was the message that Mr Rudd had for the Australian people before the election: the Rudd education revolution. This is wrong, and what concerns me is that those seeking to declare themselves independent from their parents and get the independent youth allowance must look for 30 hours a week work for 18 months. Where are those jobs in those small regional communities? Go out to those regional towns—Bourke in New South Wales, or Gilgandra, Coonamble or Coonabarabran—the jobs are simply not there. On completing year 12, those students will simply take a gap year, which will now have to go to two years, and be forced to go to the cities to seek work and qualify for the independent youth allowance, which I think is $371.40 a fortnight.

To defer for two years is a problem in itself. As Senator Back just said, of those who defer for one year 30 per cent do not go on to tertiary education. If they go on to two years—and many universities will not defer for two years; that is a problem in itself—those people may well lose interest in study. Perhaps they will have a blue-collar job and simply not return to tertiary studies, and we will lose those specialists that we so desperately require. I especially relate those essential services to dentists. In rural and remote areas we only have 17 dentists per 100,000 people, but in the city areas we have 55 dentists per 100,000 people. That is a concern in itself.

I look at the asset test, and it is simply unfair. Many in rural Australia will not get youth allowance because their parents are asset rich and cash poor. Someone might have a thousand acres of land, some machinery and some stock. If they do not owe any money, they can break the threshold of the $2.286 million; hence, there will be no youth allowance for their child. But their income on 1,000 acres may be as low as $30,000 or $40,000. They are not wealthy people. They are wealthy in assets but they do not have cash, and the tens of thousands of dollars that are needed to educate their youngster through a tertiary education are simply not there.

As Mr Pyne said in the other place on 20 October 2009:

Students from farming and small business backgrounds in the country are often ineligible to receive youth allowance as dependants because the value of the average Australian family farm is significantly higher than the level of assets allowed under the test. However, the average Australian farming family cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to support their child’s move and their accommodation and living expenses while studying at university.

If that child were from the city, where they could stay at home to attend uni, but their parents did not have the asset then they would be eligible for the dependent youth allowance. That is simply unfair.

I also want to bring up what the Labor member for Ballarat East, Geoff Howard, said in a Victorian inquiry into youth allowance. He said that he was:

… concerned that the specific circumstances of rural and regional young people still have not been adequately addressed. Already, many such students defer their studies to meet eligibility criteria for income support and this route to financial independence is set to become even more difficult under the new system.

That was a Labor member of the Victorian state parliament who wrote that. It was not a coalition member, but a Labor member who is the chairman of the education and training committee. The committee believes that the removal of the main workforce participation route will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas—and how right they are.

I look forward to the amendments to this legislation proposed by the coalition. The legislation is wrong in itself because it is retrospective. Those who completed year 12 last year, 12 months ago, sought advice from organisations such as Centrelink and people who were giving advice on careers et cetera. They took a gap year believing that the $19½ thousand gross earnings would get them the independent youth allowance, but now those regulations have been changed. The goalposts have been changed halfway through the game. That is wrong, and it affects some 25,000 students currently in their gap year. The government should not introduce retrospective legislation that affects those people. It is going back on what those people genuinely believed in as to what they were doing with their future careers and tertiary educations. To me, that is wrong and should also be amended.

I look forward to the coalition putting forward those amendments to get this legislation right. It is unfair for people, especially in regional and rural Australia, who want their youngsters to get a tertiary education. I have quoted the figures and they are disastrous. There must be a fair and equitable situation in Australia in which our young have the opportunity to get a tertiary education, regardless of where they live in this country, especially so that those from regional areas can return to those areas and deliver vital services that we so desperately need.