Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight I stand to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. I dedicate my address to the Senate tonight to Jess Baikie, Rachael Wilkinson and Hunter Peterson, all students from Launceston College in the city of Launceston, where I reside. I congratulate them and say, ‘Well done,’ to them on their advocacy for and on behalf of their fellow students and those who are adversely impacted by the legislation before us.

This bill as it is currently framed is bad legislation. The students to whom I referred, as I say, are all students at Launceston College, and they have run a campaign to address the concerns set out in this bill. I first met them earlier this year once the legislation became public. They were very active and proactive. They expressed their views not just to me but to their local member, the federal Labor member for Bass, Jodie Campbell, and to their local senators, including Senator O’Brien and others in Northern Tasmania in particular.

They organised a public meeting on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, which was a very successful public meeting. It was a meeting which I attended. Senator Bob Brown attended. Indeed, other federal members of parliament were invited, including, I understand, the federal member for Bass. But, even if she was not invited, it was very much promoted publicly. Unfortunately she was not present and was not available to express her views with respect to this legislation or to receive representations from those three students.

Nevertheless, it was an exciting and very informative and enjoyable public meeting. Those three students I referred to, Jess, Rachael and Hunter, all spoke eloquently and to the point, together with many others, including concerned family members and others in rural, regional and remote Tasmania. I am sure the towns that are going to be disadvantaged by this legislation were represented on that night and in other respects. The families affected come from towns like Longford and Cressy, Flinders Island, King Island, Campbell Town in Northern Tasmania, the east and west coasts of Tasmania, the Central Highlands, the Derwent Valley and no doubt many other rural and remote parts of Tasmania. The sad thing is that it appears that Labor have not listened to the concerns that have been expressed in a very conciliatory, thoughtful and proactive manner not just by the students but by the families as well.

On behalf of the students and that public meeting that night, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, with their concerns and with a summary of all the papers presented that night and a copy of the speeches—the testimonials of the students and parents who attended the Launceston forum. I wrote on 28 July, setting out their concerns. The Deputy Prime Minister kindly responded on 23 September 2009. But the response clearly has not addressed the concerns, as can be seen in the bill before us in the Senate tonight. The Deputy Prime Minister in a barely comprehensive manner in a 1¾-page letter in response trots out the Labor Party line to say that it is fair and reasonable and that it will not be a problem for rural and remote students in Tasmania or elsewhere around Australia. The fact is that it is and will be. Unless this legislation is amended, there will be people who will suffer adversely as a result of this bill. It should be fixed, and I hope the amendments that have been foreshadowed and that will be put forward by the coalition will be accepted because otherwise rural and remote Australia will be adversely affected as a result.

I want to refer in particular to the petition that was prepared by the students at Launceston College. The principal petitioner was Hunter Christian Peterson of 60 Trevallyn Road, Trevallyn, Tasmania. They set out 10 key points as to why they were upset and concerned with the legislation as it was earlier this year, in July. That petition was signed by copious numbers of students, families and members of the public in Northern Tasmania in particular. I thank the shadow minister for education for tabling that petition in the House of Representatives on my behalf and on behalf of those students who pulled that petition together and got all those signatures. I again congratulate those students for the work that they did.

That petition certainly sets out their concerns, but they also wrote to their local members of parliament. They wrote to and had meetings with their local senator, which was good. I respect and thank Senator Kerry O’Brien for meeting with them and listening to their concerns. I cannot say the same for the federal member for Bass. I wish she had more of a listening ear for the concerns of her local constituents and was prepared to stand up for them when she knows what is right, fair and in their best interests. Sometimes you just have to do it. But they have written extensively to me and to others and I have had meetings with them. I would like to also commend Mary Dean from my office, who has been in close contact with them throughout this whole saga.

At this point, I would like to commend and thank Trudi Lister, who is a teacher and facilitator at Launceston College. She has been a tremendous support to the students—Jess, Rachael and Hunter—throughout this campaign that they have waged. In fact, they were teleconferenced into a Senate committee hearing last Thursday, 12 November, when the committee was meeting in Melbourne. That was the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, chaired by Senator Fiona Nash. It was also that committee, of which I was a participating member, that delivered its report in October. That was again chaired by Senator Nash, and I thank her for her leadership and her speech earlier in the day in the Senate commending the coalition amendments and the report that was tabled in October. I note also Senator Bill Heffernan and Senator Julian McGauran, who were active members of the committee, and the other participating members from the coalition were Senator Chris Back from Western Australia and me from Tasmania. I also thank Jeanette Radcliffe, the secretary, and the secretariat for pulling together the Senate report, which is available as a public document.

I would like to commend the coalition amendments to the Senate, to senators and to members of the public. No doubt this campaign will continue in the hours and days ahead until this matter is sorted. Certainly our aim here and the objective behind these amendments is to ensure that students achieve their potential. That is what we want. Surely that is the objective of all members and senators in this federal parliament. We want them to be the best that they can be. This is the sort of message I share with schools and students when I meet with them from time to time as a senator standing up for Tasmania. That is what we want. We want the best. We want them to be the best. We want them to have opportunities, to have a choice, to be the best they can be, to achieve their dreams and to have a go. This legislation will deny students the opportunity to have a go, to express a choice and to participate.

What is most offensive about the government’s legislation is its retrospectivity. This is the thing that really gets my goat, and I know it is the same for others on the coalition side and elsewhere in the community. The fact is that the government has changed the rules partway through. The goalposts have moved. So, in summary, I can say that the amendments that will be put forward will allow all students on youth allowance to be better off, receiving for the first time ever a $1,000 start-up scholarship. Rural and regional students will have a clear route to university available to them.

Those students currently on their gap year preparing to enter university next year and to claim youth allowance will have the rug pulled out from under their feet. It is that latter point that I would like to address in particular. Thousands of students and parents are frankly distraught and very upset. I have had letters from a whole range of them, particularly from Northern Tasmania—people who went to that public meeting in July in Launceston. They are very upset for and on behalf of their children and for and on behalf of themselves, because it has not only a financial consequence but a consequence for their kids in terms of achieving their dreams. Of course they are distraught and concerned. The government’s legislation does make retrospective changes to the youth allowance, meaning that over 25,000 students all around Australia currently undertaking their gap year are set to not receive the youth allowance in 2010. That is wrong. That is unfair. It should be changed by amendments to this bill that are going to be put in the Senate. The retrospective nature of the legislation is a shocking approach to legislation and to good public policy.

The government did try to fix this with a half-baked approach. Initially there were an estimated 30,000 students who would have been affected by this retrospective changing of the goalposts halfway through. Yes, the government have now reduced that from 30,000 to an estimated 25,000 young people who will be affected—people who, in good faith, followed the advice of the Centrelink advisers and followed the advice and guidance of counsellors to defer their studies and to undertake a gap year. We want to make sure those students are not disadvantaged. Exactly how many there are in Tasmania I do not know, but we do know there are an estimated 25,000 around Australia. It is simply wrong. Yes, there was a backflip—but I would call it a half-baked backflip—by the federal minister and Deputy Prime Minister some time ago, but it was not good enough. So, with respect to that, if they have taken their gap year then why change the rules part-way through it? That is wrong.

The legislation will have a start date of 1 January 2010. That means all students currently undertaking a gap year in order to earn the required threshold to demonstrate independence will no longer be eligible as that criterion has been axed under this bill. We know that many of those students undertook a gap year based on advice from their schools, from counsellors and from Centrelink advisers. This is a government department and I do not mean to attribute any offensive cause to them whatsoever in whatever shape or form. They were simply acting on the advice that they had at the time, or the rules that they had at the time, but now that has all been turned on its head. The fact is that not only me but also other coalition members and senators around the country have been inundated with emails, text messages, letters and phone calls from concerned parents and upset students. That is entirely understandable, because the legislation is retrospective, it is wrong and it should be changed.

The government’s plan for scholarships should be supported in its thrust of making sure that those most in need do get support, and of course I would like to express my support for that part of the legislation that determines that those most in need receive that support. But changing the rules part-way through is not on. In terms of the effect on the scholarships, what we do know is that this government has a track record now which is systemic throughout the government—that is, the profligate approach to spending and the profligate approach to managing matters within the government. The waste and mismanagement throughout the government and government departments, one and all, is a shocking record—whether it is in the schools area with the $1.7 billion overrun of the education revolution or whether it is the Abbotsford Public School, which I visited some months ago in Sydney. There the government wanted to spend $2.5 million tearing down four classrooms to rebuild four classrooms. It was absolutely absurd.

I want to put on record my thanks to the parents and citizens association and the school council—including Robert Vellar, his colleagues at the school and the principal as well—for their support and for their efforts on behalf of their students and the families concerned. I know that they have now come to an agreed outcome as a result of lobbying, public pressure and good common sense. It is not ideal, but they have a mutually agreeable outcome. I thank them for the recent response and appreciate their efforts to ensure a good outcome for their students. So I say congratulations to them and well done to them for fighting against the waste and mismanagement of the federal Labor government. I say to them: good on you.

There are some sensible parts of the bill but all in all I simply cannot support the bill as it stands unless these amendments are made. I hope that they are passed together with the support of the Independents and the cross benches. In conclusion I say congratulations and well done to Jess Baikie, Rachael Wilkinson and Hunter Peterson. Thank you for your advocacy and your leadership on behalf of the students and their families in and around Launceston and Northern Tasmania. You have put in a stellar performance. You should be congratulated. You have done the job, and let us see if we can finish the job for you and on your behalf here in the Senate. I thank the Senate.