Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Williams proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Rudd government’s ill-considered, ill-conceived and discriminatory changes to the independent youth allowance announced in the federal budget.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise to talk about a situation to do with the Rudd government’s changes to youth allowance in the May budget. I can understand where the government were coming from when they first made these changes. The situation was simple. A student completing year 12 and, say, living in Sydney, not far from the university that they wished to attend, could take a gap year. Under the old regulations, they could go out and earn some $19,500. That would then declare their independence from their parents, and hence they would qualify for youth allowance. When you have a situation where a student completes year 12, defers uni for one year, has a gap year and lives at home with their parents—and their parents might be earning $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000 a year—I think it is only right that the government target that situation. Why should taxpayers be supporting that student who is living at home with parents on that sort of money to the tune of some $9,600 a year in youth allowance?

So what the government did was to target this situation—and rightfully so, as I said. Why should a bricklayer or a shearer pay tax each week, only to find that they will probably never set foot on a university campus in their life? They should not be subsidising students in that financial situation. But, in the crossfire, what the government has done is taken out those in rural and regional areas who do not live close to universities—those who have to go off to university, pay for accommodation, and suffer the costs of travel and the standard costs of purchasing books et cetera. The government has done two things that are very wrong. The first thing it has done has had a huge effect, through this policy, on those in their gap year.

I will give you an example. Eli Kimmince is a good young fella. He lives in Inverell, the town I come from. He has taken a gap year and he is working as a manager at McDonald’s in Inverell. Eli comes from a family that I would say does not have much money at all. His parents probably bring in a standard wage; they might earn about $40,000 a year. I am aware of the fact that they earn less than $42,000 because that is the amount below which parents have to earn for their student children to qualify for youth allowance. Eli has deferred university for one year while he is working at McDonald’s, and his goal in life is to next year attend the Australian National University here in Canberra to study a course and then join the Federal Police. What has happened to this young fella? His life has been tipped upside down. Because of the changes to the government’s regulations and the change in the budget, he must now go and work for 18 months. He cannot start university at the start of next year, and he is not one bit impressed, like thousands of others in gap years who are now facing this situation.

They have been held back from university. They will have to work for another six or eight months next year. We have the situation, as I said, that the government has targeted these people who are in cities or who live close to their university and can live at home. It might be in places like Armidale, where we have a reasonable university. We are very proud of it, since it was the Country Party that first got the University of New England on its feet. They can get the youth allowance and perhaps do not deserve it. But those who have to travel away cannot live at home, and we now have these people who are deeply concerned about whether they are going to get to university next year. That is the thing that is so wrong about these changes in the budget.

These people want to be educated. Tell me this: if we do not get them to university, what will we do for doctors, nurses, dentists, lawyers, vets—all the providers of those vital services that regional Australia requires as well as those in the cities? What do we do in the future for those specialist services if we cannot get our students off to universities? That is the problem here, and that is why it is so wrong. I was glad to call a rally recently at the Inverell RSM Club, at which we had 120 people on a Saturday morning. There were teachers, students and concerned parents. Like all parents, all those parents want is the best for their children and to give them a good start in life, and they are very concerned that theirs will not be going to university next year. So that is problem No. 1.

What the government also did in the budget was to make a change such that those who are taking a gap year—instead of working the 12 months, grossing the $19,500 and declaring independence from their parents—now have to work for 18 months. What are the problems with working 18 months? For a start, you have to defer university for two years. What university will defer for two years? The universities have acceded to the situation, which was mentioned in today’s Australian in an article titled ‘Flexible on gap-year deferrals’. It states that, in a move that shields the federal government from a political storm over its changes to youth allowance, the universities are showing some flexibility. But when someone defers for two years, the problem is that they will go and get a job—it might be at McDonald’s, at Coles or at some other supermarket—they will probably get a car, and, if they are young bloke like me, they will probably find a girlfriend. They will probably lose interest in study, and that is the problem. The longer they defer the more likely they are not to actually attend university.

The next point I make is that when students leave year 12 in rural and regional areas—probably out somewhere where you have never visited yourself, Senator Jacinta Collins—where do they find a job? Your forecasts are for 8½ per cent unemployment—one million unemployed next year. Where do they go to get a job for 18 months when the jobs are not there? If they cannot get a job then they cannot qualify for youth allowance. If they cannot qualify for youth allowance then how do they get to university? How do they get through their studies, their tertiary education? How do they qualify to be our nurses, our doctors, our dentists—those vital people who I mentioned earlier on.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

We have got female interjections in stereo, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I will continue. The point I make is this: I can see where the government were coming from in changing these regulations, but in the crossfire they have taken those in regional areas who wish to get a tertiary education right out.

As I said, where do they find the jobs, especially in the smaller country towns—somewhere like Trundle, Gilgandra or Condobolin—when they want to go off to carry out tertiary study and better themselves for the rest of their lives? They are left out of the equation. In fact, Philip Ruddock made the point when we met a week or so ago that he has a constituent in Sydney who wishes to attend the medical school at the University of New England in Armidale—which we were very proud to see kick off two years ago—who faces the same problem, because he will have to move out into the country, find accommodation and face those extra costs. That is where this is so wrong. I am sure Minister Gillard has been bombarded with emails, letters and phone calls. It is certainly the biggest issue that has come to my office in my brief time in the Senate. In almost 12 months, I have never seen an issue that people are so disgruntled and concerned about—that is, the tertiary education of their youngsters and giving them a fair go.

I can say with confidence that, when this legislation comes to the Senate, the Senate will do its job. We know that we have many here in the Senate to support us. We will get this legislation off to a committee. We will see that those people who are on a gap year now, who have had the goalposts changed halfway through the game as the government have done, are able to get to university next February, when they should get there, instead of six or eight months later. The Senate will do its job. Amendments will be put through the Senate to protect the education of our country students who wish to commence a tertiary education. The legislation will then go to the House and, if the government do not accept the amendments, they will live with the consequences. If they bring on an election and the parents, the teachers and the students are as angry as I have seen them in meetings that I have attended, the government will face the consequences. Come election time, there will not be a regional seat in Australia held by the Labor Party if they are going to pull the rug out from under our students and prevent them from undertaking a tertiary education and providing those vital services that we require in rural and regional areas—and I point to the situation with doctors and, especially, nurses. With our ageing population, there is a huge demand for nurses not only in our hospitals but also in our aged-care facilities. We need that service, and we will certainly do our utmost to see that these changes are brought about and that a fair system of youth allowance is in place so that all people in rural and regional areas can get a fair go, can get their tertiary education and are not held back—as the government have certainly done with these changes in the budget.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to provide a contribution in this matter of public importance debate in relation to the changes to the youth allowance, but I want to put this debate in the context of the previous government and of the reforms that we have undertaken since coming to government. I also want to emphasise throughout my contribution, Senator Williams, that it is vitally important—but probably irrelevant to and disregarded by the likes of you and your colleagues—to provide your constituents with an accurate and holistic report of the changes. Once I go through and outline the changes, you will see that there will be a lot of benefits for people who come from rural and regional Australia. In fact, people who have contacted my office, whom we have personally rung and assisted, were not aware of the numerous other changes and benefits that are part of this package. So, if you are going to hold public rallies and answer queries from your constituents, you had better do it on a basis of knowledge—a total knowledge—of the changes and benefits in this package.

But let me put this debate in context. We had 12 long years of a coalition in government who just sat on their hands and took no action when it came to addressing student poverty in this country. That was a government that stood back and did nothing at all while we saw only 15 per cent of university students in this country come from a low SES background. That was a government that failed to act while, under their watch, regional and rural participation in universities actually declined. Yet today we see from the opposition—if I could be so bold as to suggest this as a senator from the Northern Territory—crocodile tears being cried on the other side of the chamber. They are only too happy to complain when we have a reform agenda in front of us, but they do not have—and have never had—a plan for addressing the welfare of our students. They have had no plan for ensuring that students from a low socioeconomic background or those from regional and rural Australia are able to afford to go to university. In comparison, since the election of the Rudd Labor government, we have tackled the issue of student poverty head on in a comprehensive and thorough manner.

Let me take you back in time. In 2005 I participated in the Senate employment, workplace relations and education references committee, and we tabled a report in our inquiry into student support measures. There are those who will remember former Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, who was quite passionate about this issue in relation to university students. In our report we were critical of the inadequacy of student income support. Among other things, the report found fault with the harshness of the youth allowance eligibility criteria, specifically relating to the age of independence and the parental income test threshold—two areas of critical comment by the Senate committee. These failings, the committee argued, both penalised those students who were in most need of financial assistance and had a detrimental impact on these students and their academic participation rates and success. That report was handed down in 2005. There was no response from the previous government—no changes, no action, no change in their policy direction and not even a plan to attempt to change it in the lead-up to the 2007 election. Yet they now have the audacity to sit on the other side of the chamber and complain about the changes that are being undertaken to student youth allowance and the benefits that will bring to students across the country.

The first action that Minister Gillard took when we came to government was to commission an expert panel, headed by Professor Denise Bradley, to undertake a broad review of tertiary education to try to assess the damage that was caused by the 12 years of neglect under the previous government. It is following the provision of this expert advice that we have now acted. The Bradley review, as it has now come to be known, is publicly available. That review exposed the untenable situation that the coalition had created, where those students who needed income support the most did not receive it, while students who did not need the support were receiving the payment.

It was found that the Howard government had created a situation where even students on the maximum benefit reported that the amount available was insufficient to meet basic living expenses. It was found that the purchasing power of student income benefits was almost half of average income support. But we have heard no plan from those opposite about how to fix the situation—not before the last election and not since the election. The level of youth allowance was so inadequate that it drove nearly 71 per cent of full-time domestic undergraduate students to take on work while studying. These students were working, on average, 15 hours a week—one in six full-time undergrads were working more than 20 hours a week on top of their studies. Despite the huge impact this was found to have on learning outcomes and the quality of the student experience, the Howard government had no plan to fix the situation. Bizarrely, while students from low socioeconomic conditions did it tough, the Bradley review found that 36 per cent of students who were living at home and were receiving youth allowance through having been considered ‘independent’ were actually from families with incomes above $100,000 and 10 per cent of those students were from families with incomes above $200,000. The Howard government had no plan at all to redirect student income support from those who had it and did not need it to those who did need it.

The Rudd Labor government, on the other hand, is opposed to the provision of welfare payments for the benefit of those who do not need them. That is why, after a comprehensive review by the expert panel, we have announced that the working eligibility criteria should be tightened to ensure that this sort of abuse of welfare does not continue. In line with the recommendations of the Bradley review, we have tightened the independence criteria so that it is a true measure of independence from parents. It is based on full-time attachment to the labour force—that is, 30 hours per week rather than part-time work over two years or earning around $19,000 over an 18-month period. Be very clear about this: time frame and the number of hours have not changed. There were, in fact, three options in terms of workforce participation criteria, and one of those is there.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, if you want to talk about the change in hours or the length of time, you are wrong. That has not changed. We have invested the savings—$1.8 billion over the next four years—in expanding eligibility by increasing the parental income test. I do not hear you talking about that, Senator Nash—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we are bringing down the age of independence—and you do not talk about that either—and creating new scholarships. That is the third thing that you do not talk about when you try to discuss this issue. You want to focus on one aspect, not four aspects. This will mean that parental income will now be the primary measure for eligibility. So, in fact, what your parents earn and their threshold will be the primary measure. For many students, this means that they will no longer have to prove their eligibility for youth allowance by working. I would have thought that is what you would want to achieve, because more students than ever will be eligible for youth allowance automatically under the raised parental income test.

This reform will allow 67,800 young people to access income youth allowance or ABSTUDY to support their participation in post-compulsory secondary education, vocational education, higher education, Australian Apprenticeships or a combination of activities. In addition, 34,600 existing recipients who currently receive a part payment will receive an increase in their payment—I don’t hear you talking about that either, Senator Nash—often to the full payment rate. Those who have worked full-time and are independent of their parents can still access support in this way.

Under Labor’s system, a family from the bush with two kids at university, who might be aged 17 and 21 and living away from home, will now be able to automatically receive some support if they have a family income up to $139,388. That is up from the previous cut-off, for this type of family, of around $75,324. That is a major increase in the eligibility criteria for parents’ income. But I do not hear the coalition talking about the benefits and gains from increasing the threshold. Under our new system, families who receive one dollar of student income support will be entitled to the entire Student Start-up Scholarship, worth $2,254 for each year—not once but each year—the student is in university and is eligible for student income support. This new scholarship is equivalent to an increase in payments of around $43 per week.

Under existing arrangements, a young person on youth allowance or ABSTUDY is considered to be dependent on their parents until they turn 25, unless they establish their independence through other means. The package of student income support reforms will progressively lower the age of independence to 24 in 2010, 23 in 2011 and 22 in 2012. So we will lower the age of independence to ensure that the age of independence accurately reflects when individuals become independent of their parents.

These reforms are a major achievement. They will increase access to student income support and provide stronger and more equitable assistance for the students who need it most, including students from low-income backgrounds, those from rural and regional areas and, of course, Indigenous students. Of course, what this whole issue does is to remind the electorate what a mess the coalition left us with with regard to student support and tertiary education. You sat on your hands for 12 long years and did nothing to address the situation when it comes to supporting students who try to study.

The Nationals will have you believe that these reforms disadvantage regional and remote students. However, they clearly have not read the detail of the policy. The changes actually provide for more regional and remote students to be able to access Youth Allowance. But the other side does not want to hear about the good news and the positive changes in this. They just want to focus on a single issue without looking at the whole package.

A 75 per cent discount will now be applied to the parental income test when considering business assets, including farm assets. I do not hear them talking about that part of the package. This means that Youth Allowance and Abstudy can be received by dependent young people from small business and farming families with assets up to the value of $2.286 million. In addition, more regional and remote students will now be able to apply for the new relocation scholarship. The relocation scholarship provides $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 in subsequent years. In comparison to the old Commonwealth accommodation scholarship, the relocation scholarship represents a 28 per cent increase in the number of accommodation related scholarships that will be available to students living away from home.

After years of neglect, the coalition have prepared a range of half-baked amendments to our policy before the legislation has even entered the Senate. The coalition aim to delay the implementation of the new saving measures for a year and will pay for this by slashing scholarships for 146,600 needy students. They also want to create a targeted scholarship pool for rural and regional students, whose scholarships would only amount to a small portion of the money they intend to rip out of scholarships for all students, regional and metropolitan alike.

The coalition is leading a concerted misinformation campaign, which has caused much anxiety for students who are undertaking a gap year and their families. They suggested students who are currently working and who might previously have been hoping to access Youth Allowance under old workforce participation criteria—that is, earning about $19,000 over 18 months—will now no longer be able to access Youth Allowance. What you do not tell many of the students is that, in some circumstances, many of those students who are currently in their gap year will not need to work any more, because they will automatically become eligible for Youth Allowance under the changes to the parental income test.

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

I rise today to contribute to this important debate. I must say, I have never seen an issue become so hotly debated in the community so quickly. The budget was handed down on the Tuesday night and by Friday morning my inbox was full and the phones in my electorate office were running hot. I received phone calls from concerned parents, teachers, students and grandparents. These were people who had contacted their local member of parliament and who had definitely never thought of picking up the phone and speaking to their Greens senator. It is an issue which has galvanised the community. The concern is not coming from those people who know that they should not have been twisting the rules to get that money. The government keeps referring to those families on $200,000 to 300,000 a year receiving Youth Allowance and staying at home, but it is not coming from those people; it is coming from people who are halfway through working to earn the required amount of money.

I want to bring the debate back to why this is an issue. The fundamental flaw, despite a whole raft of changes that the government has announced in relation to Youth Allowance—many of which, I must put on the public record, the Greens support—is that there was absolutely no investment in student income support in this budget. There was no extra investment at a time when we know young people are going to have to gain further skills because of job shortages around the country, when the cost of living for students around the country is rising and when, as we know, the rate of Youth Allowance has not risen for the last five or six years. The fundamental problem is that the government has set up a scheme that pays more people but with the same amount of money. It is the same pie; it is just cut differently. Of course, when you do that, people miss out.

The changes that the government announced to the workplace participation criteria have removed the two fundamental ways that young people could meet those independence criteria so that they could get the maximum amount—that is, $371.40 a fortnight. They have removed that option halfway through. Because they are talking about bringing it in on 1 January 2010, those people who are already working to meet the independence criteria are being caught short. Therefore, the legislation, when it comes to the Senate, will effectively be retrospective, which is not a good way to manage public policy. If there was ever a clear example of where politicians did not accept this, it was in 2004 when politician superannuation rates were discussed. The rates for those senators who entered in 2004 were different to those who were here beforehand. There was no argument that the laws for those senators should be retrospective or different from the senators sitting in the chambers here today. It is a classic example of one rule for some and another rule for other people.

The issue facing young people who want to access education is a huge one. I could talk about this issue for a long time, particularly about young people in rural Australia accessing opportunities for higher education. We know that young people in rural and regional Australia have to move and have leave home when they finish their high school certificates if they are to go to university, because there is no university down the street or in the next suburb. The government talks about these changes being targeted to those people most in need. As I have said, there are a number of changes that we do support. I support the idea of bringing the age of independence down. I think it should be coming down to 18, frankly. If you need to move out of home, if you have moved out of home and if you are standing on your own two feet then you should be considered independent.

The government is not introducing that independence rate drop straightaway; it is phasing it in over three or four years. Yet the fundamental change that rips money out of the pockets of students who have earned it and are working desperately towards earning it—and the government’s own figures are that 30,700 students are going to be affected by this—is proposed to happen from 1 January 2010.

The students who are contacting all of us—and I am sure you have all had the same emails, the same letters and the same phone calls from grandparents—are saying, ‘We’re doing this based on the advice that we were given from the government.’ Centrelink went into schools and advised students in year 12 that the best way for them to support themselves when going to university was to take a gap year, earn the $19½ thousand and get the youth allowance. This is young people’s first experience of dealing with a government that has not taken their considerations on board.

I understand the need to target the youth allowance to those in need, but the government has missed the mark. For those who are most in need in terms of income support, absolutely, let us deal with the parental income levels; let us deal with bringing the independence rate down. Let us also not forget the extra disadvantage that young people from rural and regional Australia face if they are to attend university. That is an extra burden that they have to bear.

The government talk about the fact that, because the parental income levels are proposed to be changed, most of these kids are going to be okay. They cannot tell us, however, how many students will get what. They say they have consulted with regional communities but cannot tell us how many students take the gap year in order to qualify for youth allowance. They tell us that they have consulted regional communities, yet they say they do not understand their concerns. They talk about misinformation and miscommunication of the message. I can say that the worst communication of these changes has come from the government themselves—from the minister’s office and from the department. Even the naming of their scholarships does not make sense—an annual scholarship that is called a ‘start-up’ scholarship? The basic misinformation and miscommunication have come from the government themselves.

We can debate all of the other changes, but it is about what we want to prioritise and how much value we think student income support deserves. I think it deserves a whole lot more, which is why I was pushing, before the budget, to see an increase in that pool of money instead of having to spread it more thinly, which is what the government have done. We can debate those things, and obviously the different parties in this chamber will have different opinions about that, but the one part that is indefensible is the retrospective nature of the removal of the workplace participation criteria. It is absolutely indefensible. You do not change the rules halfway, with no consultation, no compromise and absolutely no guarantees that those students will now be able to fund their time at university.

The government talk about a relocation scholarship that will be available to those students who have to move from the country to the city or from, say, Adelaide to Melbourne if they get accepted at Melbourne university for medicine instead of at Flinders. But they cannot tell us what the criteria for that relocation scholarship are. While they say it is available, they cannot tell us who it is available to. I have asked those questions directly of the minister. I have asked the minister’s office. I asked the department during estimates. No-one can tell us what those criteria will be. There is no guarantee for any of these 30,700 students of what level of income support they will get come 1 January 2010.

Before I finish, I want to welcome the strong stance that the coalition have taken in jumping on board and supporting the Greens in moving amendments to this legislation when the legislation comes to the Senate. I am thankful that the coalition have moved beyond their original position of only amending the private healthcare rebate measure, because this measure is just as important. This measure must be amended. It is absolutely indefensible to bring in legislation that is effectively retrospective, with no consultation and an absolute lack of information and advice as to how it is going to affect people for whom you are moving the goalposts halfway through.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the matter of public importance discussion about the youth allowance this afternoon. I do not believe I have ever seen, in recent times, such an example from a Labor government of a complete disconnect with regional communities. It is incredibly apparent, not only with regard to the youth allowance but in a whole range of areas that we have seen, particularly since the last budget, that this government is completely disregarding regional Australia. There are absolutely no two ways about it.

I congratulate my good colleague Senator Williams for putting this MPI forward this afternoon, because this is one of the most important issues to hit rural and regional Australia for years and years. As my other colleagues have already pointed out, we have been inundated by concern from students and families right around the country. These are not form letters or form emails; students and parents are sitting down and taking the time to write incredibly lengthy letters because they are absolutely at their wits’ end to think that this measure is going to be taken away.

There are a lot of measures contained within the package, but the one that is of particular concern is the issue of the students currently doing their gap year. Senator Crossin said earlier that we were being misleading and not talking about the changes properly and that there was still something in place about the 15 hours a week that a student could work over the 18-month period. That in itself is correct, but what the changes do is remove the capacity for a student right now, this year, to earn $19½ thousand before the beginning of next year and then qualify. So all those students who were finishing school at the end of last year and in good faith took advice—from counsellors, from parents, from teachers, from advisers or from Centrelink—that a way that they could qualify for independent youth allowance was to earn $19½ thousand over a 15-month period now simply will not qualify. Just imagine if that were you or if you were a parent of one of those students who have been working incredibly hard since the end of last year—because they want to be able to help; they want to be able to contribute; they do not want to be a burden on their families in asking for assistance to get them to tertiary education.

One of the issues around this that are so important is that regional Australia is doing it incredibly tough. We have had years and years of drought. We have families who are absolutely right against the wall out in regional communities and they still want to do everything they possibly can to get their kids into a decent tertiary education system. A lot of them simply cannot afford it without the assistance from the youth allowance. So what we are seeing is thousands of students being disaffected because of this government’s stupid policy. If I were being kind, I might say it was an unintended consequence. Perhaps the minister should come out tomorrow and say: ‘Actually, that is quite right. This was an unintended consequence. We didn’t intend for this to happen and we are now going to change the arrangement so these students qualify.’ I hope that the minister does, because the hundreds and hundreds of students and families that this is affecting deserve to have the minister come out and give them some comfort so they know that those students will be able to start with the assistance of independent youth allowance next year.

The other requirement that is going to be incredibly burdensome for these families is this issue of having to work 30 hours a week. Senator Crossin referred to this earlier. She has actually been quite misleading, because there is now absolutely no way to qualify for independent youth allowance unless you defer for two years. There is no way at all you can do it. So when you look at that and at the situation where we have students in regional areas who actually want to stay at home while they are doing gap year, or at least stay in the regions, you see that those jobs simply are not going to be there. If the government had any sense whatsoever, they would realise that so much of the work on offer in regional areas is seasonal work. And guess what: they are not allowing students to average out this 30 hours a week component. They have to do 30 hours every single week.

What I find quite extraordinary is the fact that the department could not give us any answers of any great substance during estimates. They did not know about the deferral capacity of universities—whether or not universities would be able to defer or would be inclined to defer for the second year. They said, ‘That is a matter for the universities.’ So we have thousands and thousands of students being affected and they cannot give us an answer. They did not even know the number of students that were going to be affected. There was some wishy-washy figure of 3,000, but we know it is up to 30,000. When asked, ‘How many students do you assess are currently taking a gap year?’ the answer from the secretary was, ‘We would not know.’ So they are making policy around an issue and they simply do not know what the ramifications are.

What is even more worrying is that the Labor government simply do not understand the ramifications of this. Indeed, they are being dismissive of it. In estimates, when I was raising these very serious points that we know are important to regional communities, the minister, Senator Carr, called it political hysteria. I do not see that those thousands of families in regional Australia that are going to be affected by this are being hysterical in any way, shape or form. The minister herself, Minister Gillard, was asked in the House on 25 May: ‘Will the minister guarantee that students currently in their gap year will not be financially penalised under the government’s changes to eligibility criteria for the independent youth allowance?’ The question was asked by my good colleague the member for Gippsland, who is doing a lot of work on this. Guess what Minister Gillard answered: ‘What a very silly question.’ I do not think there is anything silly at all about those families out in regional communities who are so very concerned about this.

The government have been talking about an education revolution, and my very good colleague Senator Mason has been doing a lot of good work on this, saying, ‘What revolution?’ and pointing out the flaws in that term. They say one thing and they do another. Minister Gillard said back in 2007:

What that says is that we value the education of every child and we will continue to do that. We want to make sure kids right across the country, irrespective of what family they’re born into, whether they’re in the centre of the city, in a regional centre or outback Australia, that they all get the support they need for their education.

If she were serious about that, she would be coming out right now and saying: ‘We’re going to change this. I meant what I said and we are going to either change the date or quarantine the arrangement for these gap year students to make sure they have a future.’ She has promised students a bright future in tertiary education and she should simply come out and say that this is going to be changed. It is not fair on regional Australia, it is not right and it is not on.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think all honourable senators do agree that the prospective changes to youth allowance are a very important issue. Senator Collins was quite right—I think all of us in this chamber have received a lot of correspondence about the issue. I have received many emails, and I know all honourable senators have. Senator Collins said something very interesting, and she was dead right. The Bradley review and also the government have spoken about equity and access to tertiary education and higher education. This fundamentally is the point. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Education, has spoken many times about the importance of having more people graduate from Australian universities and attending higher education. Equity and access has been one of the themes of the Deputy Prime Minister’s crusade on higher education. Let me just say that a lot of it I agree with. I think it is a good thing that more people go to university and I think it is a good thing to attract students to higher education from whatever background. Australia should be a meritocracy and certainly people should not be precluded on the basis of coming from a disadvantaged or Indigenous background. But neither should they be disadvantaged or have access reduced by where they happen to live. It was easy for me to go to university because I caught a bus to it. So many students in this country do not have the option of doing that. They live far too far away to even drive to it. So this is a question, as the Deputy Prime Minister likes to say, of equity and access. If that is the fundamental test—and that is the test that Professor Bradley raised in the Bradley review—what about rural students? They are disadvantaged. This is the litmus test. They are disproportionately disadvantaged by the changes to the youth allowance scheme.

I accept what Senator Collins said, that many of these prospective students will not qualify because their parents earn too much. That is true and I accept that. But the bottom line is that these young Australians do not have the option of staying at home to go to university. Their access to university is much less than the vast majority of Australians. That is the fundamental flaw in the government’s position. I have heard so often from the Deputy Prime Minister—indeed, nearly ad nauseam—about equity and access to higher education. I agree with a lot of it. I agree with her on much of that. I think a lot of other honourable senators in the opposition do as well. But you cannot argue that and talk about disadvantaged students and Aboriginal students and then say it does not apply to students living in rural and regional areas. It just does not work and it does not wash.

Secondly, as Senator Nash and Senator Williams have put so eloquently this afternoon, there is a transitional period. I have to agree again with Senator Collins that technically this bill is not retrospective. I accept that. Technically it is not retrospective. Senator Sherry is right to suggest that sometimes goalposts change. But so many prospective students have put their lives on hold on the basis that the rules would be as they are now. What about them? The government intends to introduce this on 1 January next year and again we are going to have tens of thousands of students miss out. It is all very well for the government to talk about equity and access—and, as I say, I agree with a lot of that—but rural students and students undertaking transition will both miss out. It is not fair and it upsets equity and access. The government cannot have it both ways.

The government’s approach to youth allowance is symptomatic of their approach more generally to education. They have big ideas and really lofty rhetoric but they are defeated in detail and often a shambles in implementation. We have heard so much about that in question time today and over the last 18 months since the election. Who could forget the then opposition leader, Mr Rudd, standing there with a laptop computer saying, ‘This is the tool box of the 21st century.’ Eighteen months later only eight per cent of the computers promised have landed on desks. Even then it was underbudgeted by $800 million. It is a shambles in implementation. It is a tool box without any tools. It is an absolute farce. It was great rhetoric, but in implementation it has been a total, unmitigated disaster.

Also, the Prime Minister promised there would be an internet connection, that all these laptop computers would be connected to fibre at 100 kilobytes a second and we would have a great new education system. But there have been no new connections to fibre from the government and when you ask about this at estimates you are told, ‘It is okay. You do not need to worry about it because Senator Conroy has it under control. The National Broadband Network will fix the problem.’ How long will it take? According to Senator Conroy, it will take five to seven years—by which time, I might add, all the laptop computers that the government has promised will be redundant. Not only have the laptops not arrived; when they do arrive they are going to be redundant. It is a total farce.

As we heard today in relation to the Building the Education Revolution and primary schools, the two aims of that project were to provide jobs and to enhance education. We now know the government did not even ask how many jobs would be created when they sought the tenders. So the problem with the youth allowance, as has been put so eloquently by my colleagues, is symptomatic of a broad problem. The broad problem is this: the government is great at rhetoric, is great on spin, has lofty promises but is absolutely woeful on implementation.