Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5919 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 20), after “(10B)”, insert “, (10BA)”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 24), after paragraph 1067A(10B), insert:

(10BA)    This subsection applies if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is required to live away from home and has had to relocate a distance of not less than 100 kilometres from their main place of residence to attend a higher education institution.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 4), after “(10B)”, insert “, (10BA)”.

What this does is create a 100 kilometre relocation rule for any kids needing to relocate to get to university in future years. The old rules of getting youth allowance entitlements would apply. So it is a very simple amendment, but it acknowledges, for those kids who need to relocate to get to university, the extra effort, expense and sheer support that they need. The government has had some concerns about supposed rorting of youth allowance and this amendment is, I think, a way of not applying a sledgehammer, as the government has, to youth allowance changes. It provides a fairly simple rule: if someone has to relocate more than 100 kilometres to study, then the old criteria for gaining youth allowance income support still apply.

This was suggested at a roundtable with the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and some students from regional areas. The suggestion to base the entitlement on kilometre relocation is worthy of merit. The government may argue that it will blow out expenditure. The minister should know, and I am sure he does, that among OECD countries Australia is one of the lowest in the provision of income assistance to kids going to university. It is not a matter of these kids being greedy; it is a matter of being fair and reasonable. The government is stingy if it does not support this, if it is only concerned with money. The government and others may also argue, ‘Why 100 kilometres and not 90?’ or ‘Why 100 and not 110 kilometres?’ You have to draw the line somewhere. I will be interested to hear what the minister says about this matter.