Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to indicate the Greens support for this amendment, although I want to put it on the record that we do not agree that we should be paying for it through cutting back the scholarship funds. I think that is a really important thing to maintain.

I would like to see the government think a bit more about the impact that simply removing the workplace participation criteria of eligibility criterion (c) in order to ensure that we replace it with something that is still going to be comparable for those kids from the bush, who do need the extra support to get them to university, as do their families. This is in the same spirit as both the Australian Greens amendment—the one just voted on—and of course Senator Fielding’s amendment. But I understand where the opposition are coming from. The Greens are more than happy to support this amendment because we do think that the government has completely overshot the mark on this issue. It seemed to be a policy that was scribbled on the back of an envelope with very little thought as to what it means for country students.

I understand the need to tighten and retarget youth allowance so that it goes to those most in need—absolutely. But you need to consider the geographical disadvantage of students who have to move out of home in order to go to university—those who have leave their towns, leave their families and of course do not have the other option of simply living down the road and still being able to rely on mum and dad, because the university is not just down the road. The university could be 100 kilometres, 500 kilometres or 1,500 kilometres away from their family home, so they have move. They have got no other choice.

I do not think that saying that it costs too much for the government is really palatable. You are the government that was elected on the back of a promise for an education revolution. You want to be able to encourage more people to go to university yet you are not putting any more funds into the pot in order to support those students. You cannot suggest that 100,000 extra students will be supported without putting any extra money in. Not a single dollar has gone into propping up the student income support in this budget measure. Yet you want to spread the money around another 100,000 people. It means that everybody gets less. That is the mathematics of the issue. The sooner you face those facts the better for rural and regional kids. I support the coalition’s amendment.