Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009.

While I am on my feet I would indicate to the chamber that we have one hour at this point. With the best of intentions, I am hoping that the opposition will agree to try to proceed with the passage of this legislation within that time. I trust that the very best efforts will be taken to secure that. I want to indicate to the chamber that, if that does not occur, at around 6.30 pm I will be seeking leave to move a motion to extend the hours of sitting for this evening to allow this bill to be concluded prior to 9.50 pm. It is, as the opposition have said, an important bill. They have indicated to us in their reasons for the almost unprecedented reorganisation of the government business program that this was a matter that could be resolved quickly. So I look forward to that proposition now being honoured.

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

I note the minister’s comments and simply say that we will debate the list as circulated as quickly as we can. I have always been expeditious in these matters, I am sure you will agree. The opposition will certainly not tarry.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In private conversation I understood, Senator Mason, that you had an interest in moving your amendments as a whole. We are opposing all of them, so we will be able to vote on them as a whole. I do not think the vote will change one bit, but that might be a way of proceeding to speed up processes.

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

In relation to the way we proceed this afternoon, I have had conversations with other senators who wish to go through the list as published, because it will make their cases easier to develop. So I apologise for that, Minister, but we cannot do what you ask. That would prejudice other senators.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now move to the first amendment, which, on my list, is an Australian Greens amendment.

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

This first amendment is pretty straightforward, I think. Both the coalition and the government would agree that, if we are to pass a piece of legislation like this, which includes quite significant reforms in the area of student income support, we need to have a proper review process to ensure we are on the right track and that we are developing a package of support that really supports students and does not undermine their educational outcomes. That is basically what this amendment is about, and my understanding is that both sides have agreed to support it. I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5957:

(2)    Page 3 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert:

3A  Review of impact of student income arrangements

        (1)    The Minister must cause a comprehensive review to be undertaken of the impact of the student income arrangements implemented by this Act on equity, with a particular focus on the impact on rural and regional students.

        (2)    The review must:

             (a)    start not later than 30 June 2012; and

             (b)    be completed within 3 months.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.

        (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will support this amendment.

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

The opposition supports the amendment and congratulates Senator Hanson-Young for the idea.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 6010:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 1, insert:

1A  Paragraph 1067A(10)(a)

Omit “at least 30 hours per week”, substitute “on average 30 hours per week”.

This amendment is quite important. It relates to a number of the issues that were raised by students throughout the review process and the inquiry into this legislation. With the only workplace participation criterion retained being the 30 hours a week over an 18-month period, this means that young people would be required to defer their university studies for two years and secure almost full-time work—at least 30 hours a week—in order to fulfil the eligibility and then, at the end of that, get youth allowance.

We are very concerned that, for many students in rural and regional areas in particular, it is very difficult, as unskilled workers, to find a job with any type of permanent status, let alone 30 hours a week. What we have proposed—and it was something that came out quite strongly through the inquiry—is that, instead of saying ‘at least’ 30 hours per week, we say ‘an average of’ because we know that in these regional areas work is more seasonally based. Students can work more during their holidays and it might be a bit easier for them to secure a job that averages 30 hours over that period of time as opposed to ‘at least’. I think it is something that simply addresses the major concerns of those young people and their families who have been scrutinising this legislation since day one.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is going to oppose this amendment. This would have very serious cost implications for the program and, as a consequence, we cannot support it.

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

The opposition thinks this is a sensible suggestion: to move from ‘30 hours per week’ to substitute ‘an average of 30 hours per week’. It makes allowance for students on seasonal employment and so forth, so the opposition will be supporting the Greens amendment.

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

I acknowledge the coalition support for this amendment. It is something that came out very strongly. I ask the minister: if the government is not able to support it based on the cost, exactly what cost are you talking about? If these students are able to find this work, secure the hours and therefore become eligible for youth allowance, surely the government should see the sense in them being eligible. If the government believes the work is out there, then those students would be eligible for youth allowance anyway and, therefore, there should not be an impact on the budgetary outcomes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not the advice, Senator, that I have received. The costing that the government has proceeded with, based on keeping the program budget neutral, is such that you need to ensure that the working arrangements are across the whole year and not bunched together in any particular time of the year.

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

Perhaps the minister could just expand on that a little more clearly for the chamber because I do not think that he actually addressed Senator Hanson-Young’s concerns very clearly at all. If the Senate is only suggesting changing from a required amount of 30 hours per week to an average per week, it seems that there is absolutely no budgetary impact at all from that. It is extremely difficult to see how there would be any budgetary impact at all, because it is simply changing the mechanism by which the student would be gaining the access. There seems to be no cost to the Commonwealth at all.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the time pressures, I do not think there is much more I can add to what I have already said. The program is calculated on the basis that a person can demonstrate that they have a sustained history of employment. This proposal could see people earning very large sums of money in a very short period of time and not having any additional income thereafter. We are not supporting it because of the cost implications.

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

The only reason I am responding is because I think it needs to be made very clear on the record that this amendment would not have an impact on the budget. This would not make any difference. I understand the minister perhaps does not have his head around the particular amendment and I accept that—that is fine—but, seeing as I have support from the coalition for this, I would like the motion for the amendment to be put.

Question agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. They would have massive budgetary implications. This is not just a question of being stingy. This would have a very dramatic effect on the budget. It would probably cost more than the coalition’s proposal to push back the new workforce criteria for one year. The government cannot accept these amendments because of the enormous implications for the budget.

Family First have no offsetting savings in their proposal. This measure is completely out of step with the direction in which the bill is seeking to go in regard to the better targeting of support for families in need. If there was ever a case of strong advocacy for middle-class welfare, this is an example. This is the sort of sloppy thinking one has come to expect from those who want to appeal to parts of the electorate that believe someone else can always pay for these arrangements.

These amendments seek to provide assistance to families who earn over $200,000 or even $300,000 if it is determined that the students need to move. This is wide open to abuse. The primary beneficiaries of this measure would be students from families above the parental income test. For two children living away from home, it is currently set at $140,729; for one child at home, it is set at $92,447. Under these amendments, it is likely that students would change their course preferences to universities away from their home in order to meet the new criteria, resulting in substantial increases in budgetary liabilities.

The government believe that students who need to move deserve additional support. We acknowledge that. That is why our reforms put in place relocation scholarships and more generous parental income cut-out points for students who need to move to study—that is, $140,729 for two students living away from home or $107,709 for two children at home. The government do not believe in providing support to everybody regardless of how well off they are. We do not believe that that is an appropriate investment of public moneys for people who are very wealthy. Our reforms target the most resources to students from low- and middle-income families. We cannot support amendments that do not target support to those most in need of it.

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

I hear what the minister says about targeting of welfare, and of course he is quite right on some levels. But the minister, and indeed the government, too often make a mistake when they speak about access. The opposition agree about access—access to higher education is critical. Included in access and social inclusion is the idea that Indigenous students or students from low socioeconomic backgrounds should have access to universities. We agree with that and the minister is right. But also, and this is Senator Fielding’s point, kids from rural and regional Australia frequently have to move away to go to university—in fact, nearly always. They are disadvantaged and are part of a disadvantaged community with respect to access to higher education.

I know Senator Fielding was a member of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee that looked at this bill. While not agreeing with the honourable senator’s amendments, the opposition agree with the spirit of the amendments. We think that people who have to move away to go to university should be assisted and should have access. That is what the opposition believe. In particular, we believe in support for students who live in rural and regional Australia. While we agree with the spirit of Senator Fielding’s amendments, we have some problems with their application. We think that the recommendations of the committee that Senator Fielding participated in are better reflected in the opposition’s amendments, which are more flexible. Rather than specifically talking about 100 kilometres, we say that guidelines should be developed by the secretary of the department which are more flexible and which would be audited. For example, if someone had to move just 80 kilometres away rather than 101, they would miss out. We think that is a bit arbitrary. While the opposition agree with the spirit of Senator Fielding’s amendments, we will not be supporting them. However, I foreshadow that the opposition will move amendments in that same spirit.

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

I completely understand where Senator Fielding is coming from with these amendments. I agree that it is young people from rural and regional areas who have an extra barrier to cross in order to get to university and start a university course, and of course the extra burden that puts on their families. You only have to look at the maths on this. To suggest a household in the country on one income can somehow carry the same cost in order to get their children to university as a household in the city on the same income is clearly not right. We know it is upwards of $18,000 or $20,000 per year to send a child from the country to the city to go to university.

Of course many of these students want to be independent. They have finished high school. They have applied themselves. They have got into university, and they see themselves as being able to be independent of their parents. That is why they move out of home. They are young adults. I completely understand where Senator Fielding is coming from, although, similar to the opposition, I believe the Greens amendment in fact deals with this issue in, perhaps, a better way. It applies that criterion to people who, say, do have to move out of home and need to travel X amount—we suggest 90 minutes. Then you should get that youth allowance. Our motion will follow.

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

It seems there are three different approaches trying to solve a problem that the government is in denial of. We will probably, maybe, settle on one out of the three. There is a 100-kilometre rule that Family First have put forward. The Greens have put forward a 90-minute criterion. The opposition have put forward a move-away-from-home type guideline. The interesting fact is that the rest of the chamber, other than the government, believe there is a serious problem here, and the government are in absolute denial. So the arguments they are using here are going to be applied to all three, which is a bit of a worry.

Senator Carr, you may have got your education for free, like I did. I think it is a bit rich to say that this is going to cost a lot. I think the cost is for rural and regional areas and a lot of kids that rely on youth allowance. There are going to be 26,000 worse off and 13,000 getting nothing with regard to youth allowance. You have totally underestimated this, and you are going to find a fairly major concern in rural and regional areas. You stand there and say, ‘It’s because of money.’ I think you are penny-pinching, frankly. Your government have come in here and spent billions and billions of dollars—borrowed it—but you will not take care of our kids that need to get to university.

A clever country would make it easier for our kids to get to university, not harder. Rural and regional areas are already struggling with the professions that require a university degree. You have made some changes to income assistance. Some of them are positive and will help others. But you should not make people worse off, especially when you are prepared to spend billions and billions. When it comes to our kids and their education the Labor government are doing the absolute reverse of what people thought you would do. You are making it harder for a bunch of kids to get to university. You may be helping some others, but you sure as heck are going to deliver a kick in the pants to people from rural and regional areas and treat them as second-rate citizens when it comes to education. That is disgraceful from Labor. It is not a fair go.

You have decided to take a sledgehammer, penny-pinching approach here, when you are prepared to spend billions elsewhere. It is so short-sighted it is not funny. Rural and regional areas will hold this government accountable. This is about education. This is about helping the next generation get ahead. It is about making sure rural and regional areas are not left behind. This is more serious than you are making out to believe. I urge Labor to rethink this and support one of the three amendments being put forward, whether it is the 100-kilometre relocation, 90 minutes or moving away from home. There is a serious issue in that the government have absolutely, categorically, steadfastly refused to admit they have a problem. They have held out and held out. Somewhere along the line they said: ‘Look, we’ll throw a bone. What we’ll do is exempt some of the gap-year students that are currently taking a gap year.’ But you deferred the problem; you did not fix it. You acknowledged there is a bit of a problem but thought: ‘What the hell. We’ll just do that. Maybe that’s enough to camouflage it and get it through.’ You have deferred the problem, not fixed it.

One of these three amendments is going to have to get through, because Family First will not support this legislation. You will say, ‘You’re stopping scholarships.’ Well, you folks have waited until the last week and a half to come in here and face the facts. I said at the time you passed the previous bill which was linked to the scholarships that you should not have these two bills together, so that you would not try and force us into this situation. You are reckless in the way that you have gone about this. You are trying it on. You are trying it on to hold us accountable. Hopefully we will pass one of these three amendments. I am hoping it is Family First’s. One of the three has to get through. We have a serious problem here. You are making it quite clear upfront, using bullyboy tactics again, saying: ‘We’re not going to support any of the changes you do in this regard. That means you’re going to bounce it back up again.’ Let us see what happens the second time around.

It is not on and it is not right and you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed not to acknowledge you have a problem. You have taken a sledgehammer to this problem and you should not have. You should have thought it through a bit more and made sure rural and regional areas are looked after and that those kids that have to relocate are looked after. The relocation money that you have provided elsewhere is just not going to be enough. It is not good enough. So I urge this chamber to support this amendment. If it is not this one then maybe you could support one of the other two. This is an important issue and I urge the chamber to support this amendment.

Question negatived.

There has been a revision to my amendment.

Chair:

It has been circulated.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5921 revised:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 20), omit “or (10C)”, substitute “, (10C) or 10(CA)”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 24), after paragraph 1067A(10C), insert:

(10CA)    This subsection applies to a person if the Secretary is satisfied that:

             (a)    in 2008 the person completed a course of education determined under section 5D of the Student Assistance Act 1973 to be a secondary course for the purposes of that Act; and

             (b)    the person is undertaking full-time study because of his or her enrolment at a higher education institution in a course of education (the chosen course) determined under section 592N to be an approved scholarship course.

Note:   For undertaking full-time study see section 541B.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 4), omit “and (10C)”, substitute “, (10C) and 10(CA)”.

This amendment realises that the government has made some changes to the original legislation that said that gap-year students will be exempt if they have to move away from home. These are students that have finished their studies in 2008 and decided to take a gap year in 2009. The government cheekily, outrageously, tried to change the rules on these people. It was outrageous that they could do that and think they could get away with it. We have got an amendment here for those students that did not take a gap year in 2009—they finished their studies in 2008 and, going on the premise of the existing rules, are working like crazy to try to qualify for youth allowance, or the independence part of it, for the following years.

Most of these students have worked very hard and are studying and doing a job part time, knowing that they could sustain it for a year just to get through. We are saying that the rules should apply to the kids who have not taken a gap year and decided to study on the basis that they were going to earn enough money to qualify for youth allowance, knowing that they could not study or work at the same rate going forward. So this amendment really looks after those people who, in good faith, were working on the basis that the rules were fixed until the end of the year. It takes care of those people who did not take a gap year but studied and also tried to qualify for youth allowance. It means that the old rules will apply for them going forward.

Question negatived.

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

My amendment on sheet 5957 relates to the creation of a new criterion for independence, based on the fact that young people in rural and regional areas need to move out of home. If they need to travel more than 90 minutes and have moved out of home in order to get to university then they would qualify for youth allowance. Thank you to the chamber for allowing me to jump ahead to my amendments. I thought it made more sense, seeing that we had just had the discussion about Senator Fielding’s amendments.

This amendment reflects the feeling within the community from day one, when it was announced on budget night that the workforce participation criterion was going to be removed without any real comparable alternative for those young people in rural and regional areas. Primarily, those young people have gone through their final years of high school knowing that they want to go to university. They were told by their course counsellors and by members of Centrelink who visited their schools, ‘The best way to get yourself to university and have yourself supported is to take a gap year and earn the $19,500 and you will qualify for youth allowance.’ And of course their families have all budgeted on this, as have their brothers and sisters before them—and that is what they were thinking, after them.

This new criterion would allow for those people not to be simply left out in the cold. I do believe it deals with the issues that the government raises in terms of why they wanted to restructure some of those criteria. That was because of some of the ‘rorting’—in the minister’s own words—that was happening. Young people from metropolitan areas were going off, earning $19,500 during a gap year, but staying at home and still getting that maximum rate of $371. Of course we acknowledge that that is not an appropriate use of the youth allowance.

This new criterion would solve that problem because this is only going to be available for people who have moved out of home. They are not going to be sitting in their parents’ houses and ‘rorting the system’, to use the minister’s words. This is about trying to give young people, particularly those from rural, remote and country areas, the same opportunities to access higher education as their city brothers and sisters or cousins. It gives a pathway which, as Senator Fielding has put it, will make going to university easier as opposed to putting up barriers. I move amendment (3) on sheet 5957:

(3)   Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of item 2, add:

Students required to move away from home

   (10D)    A person is independent if the Secretary is satisfied:

             (a)    that the person is required to move away from the family home in order to undertake a course of at a higher eduction institution; and

             (b)    that the time required to travel between the higher education institution and the family home would exceed 90 minutes.

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

Senator Fielding has indicated that there are three amendments circulating—from Family First, from the Australian Greens and from the opposition—that relate in a sense to the same issue. They are all pretty much in the same spirit. I congratulate Senator Hanson-Young. Again, I do not take any issue with the spirit of the amendment. It is just that the opposition believes that its amendments are more in line with the Senate committee and also are sufficiently flexible to better facilitate access to higher education by rural students. I think this does facilitate debate on this issue, so it was a good move by Senator Hanson-Young to insist upon this interposition. We cannot support the Greens amendment but we do support the spirit of the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Hanson-Young’s) be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 5978 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 17 to 20), omit subsection (10A), substitute:

   (10A)    Paragraph (10)(b) does not apply for the purposes of determining whether a person is to be regarded as independent for the purposes of Part 2.11, this Part or section 1070G, unless subsection (10B) or (10C) applies to the person.

(10AA)    Paragraph (10)(c) does not apply for the purposes of determining whether a person is to be regarded as independent for the purposes of Part 2.11, this Part or section 1070G, unless subsection (10B), (10BA) or (10C) applies to the person.

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

(10BA)    This subsection applies to a person if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is required to live away from home to pursue his or her chosen course of education.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of item 2, add:

   (10D)    The regulations may prescribe an audit process to enable the Secretary to verify that a person who is to be regarded as independent for the purposes of Part 2.11, this Part or section 1070G because of subsections (10AA) and (10BA) continues to meet the requirements of those subsections.

    (10E)    Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (10D) may include a requirement that such a person periodically provide relevant information to the Secretary, including evidence capable of satisfying the Secretary that the person continues to live away from home.

    (10F)    If:

             (a)    a person fails to meet a requirement prescribed by regulations made for the purpose of subsection (10D); or

             (b)    the Secretary is no longer satisfied that the person meets the requirements of subsections (10AA) and (10BA);

the Secretary may determine that the person is no longer to be regarded as independent for the purposes of Part 2.11, this Part or section 1070G because of subsections (10AA) and (10BA).

(4)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 4), omit “, (10B)”, substitute “, (10AA), (10B), (10BA)”.

The opposition’s amendments relate clearly to recommendations that came from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s report. I note Senator Nash, who chaired that report, is in the chamber now.

Opposition amendment (1) will retain the workforce participation criteria in section 1067A(10)(c), which relates to the fixed amount earned within 18 months. That will be retained so that students required to leave home to pursue higher education qualify as independent. That reflects recommendation 1 of the committee.

Opposition amendments (2) and (3) reflect recommendation 2 of the committee, relating to the auditing process to ensure that, once students have received independent youth allowance, they do not return to live at home. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations must be satisfied that the student is required to live away from home to pursue his or her chosen course of education. The secretary will be required to develop guidelines to establish the criteria under this legislation and enforce that legislation.

Amendment (4) is simply a consequential amendment relating to recommendation 1 of the committee. That, in a sense, is the opposition remedying the mischief created by the government’s legislation, which Senator Fielding and Senator Hanson-Young have spoken to. I repeat: that is to ensure access for people in rural and regional areas to higher education and social inclusion. That is what the Senate committee recommended, and that is what the opposition’s amendments seek to do.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government strenuously opposes these propositions. The opposition’s measures, if they were accepted by the government, would mean, on indicative estimates calculated by the department, around $750 million over the forward estimates—a $750 million increase in expenditure. This charge, of course, could be offset if the Liberal Party had any sense of economic responsibility, but where are the offsets? Where are the offsets that you are proposing? You want the government to pick up $750 million worth of increased expenditure, and we are not going to do it.

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

I want to specifically address the minister’s concern. That was interesting coming from Senator Carr—fiscal rectitude coming from a party of former economic conservatives. They are not any more, I understand, but they certainly were formerly. As the minister is well aware, today we will be debating in this chamber the savings measure that the opposition has designed, and that is to reduce the start-up allowance from $2,254 to $1,000 per year. That is the measure we will be introducing to pay for this measure, and the minister is very well aware of that.

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

The problem for people in rural and regional Australia is the assets test. Minister Carr is probably not aware that, if you have, in an area of rather reliable rainfall—whether it be the mid-north of South Australia or around Inverell, where I live—1,000 acres, a bit of machinery, a tractor and perhaps a header and you do a bit of contracting, that could be $2.286 million. Even if you are one of the very few fortunate farmers who are debt free, how do you send your children to tertiary education?

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

Sell the paddock!

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

Yes—perhaps sell the tractor or mortgage the farm! This is the reason, Minister Carr, that 33 per cent of people who complete year 12 in regional areas of Australia go on to tertiary education while in the cities the figure is 55 per cent. How do we get professionals in rural and regional areas—doctors, dentists and nurses, who provide those vital services—when you are preventing those students from going to university? This is budgeted, as Senator Mason has pointed out, and it is something that would give those people who want a tertiary education a fair go. You, Minister Carr, would probably expect them to sell a paddock of the farm.

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

I rise to make a few additional comments to those of my colleagues here. It is obvious, and I do understand, that the minister is only the minister representing and probably does not have a very clear view about all of this—and that was also evident through the estimates process. This was a recommendation from the committee. One of the very clear things that came through in the committee process was the existing inequity between rural and regional students and metropolitan students. That is very easily characterised by the financial burden that exists for those families in regional Australia who are required to—make no mistake: this is not a choice—relocate their children for the purposes of attending tertiary education. That has a cost attached to it of around $20,000. There is a very serious inequity there that needs to be addressed.

Further to that, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee are at the moment undergoing a broader inquiry into access for rural and regional students to secondary and tertiary education. We are doing very detailed work on provisions that would address that existing inequity.

In the meantime we have to deal with the legislation as it stands before us. Nowhere in this legislation is the issue of the inequity for rural and regional students addressed, which is why the coalition has moved this amendment. This amendment simply retains one of the existing criteria for the qualification for independent youth allowance criterion (c)—if you like, the gap year. But we are mindful that there were some circumstances around that where people were choosing to live at home and gain the independent rate, which is why we have added the requirement that students must live away from home and, also, the requirement that an audit process must be put in place to ensure that that is indeed the case.

So, while it is not perfect—and I do envisage that the rural and regional committee will come up with a much more comprehensive policy framework to address this inequity—it exists and the coalition is putting this forward simply because no other mechanism exists in this legislation to address the inequity in the financial burden that exists for rural and regional families and students. I commend the amendment to the Senate and I hope that our colleagues here are very much of the same view. I think that the mechanisms by which we want to get to this point may differ slightly, but we are very much of the same view that this has to be passed and has to be in place so that the inequity for rural and regional students and their families can be addressed. We know that those students need the option to get to tertiary education, because they are far more likely to come back to our regions, practise those professions and contribute to the sustainability of those regional communities.

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

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

Family First will support the coalition’s amendment. I would have preferred mine, but I can understand the arguments that have gone around the chamber. As I said before, everybody, except the government, realises they have got a problem. But I suppose that is how it works sometimes.

This is an extremely important amendment. It will ensure that people from rural and regional areas are not treated like second-rate citizens when it comes to education. I believe that the government has got it wrong. I think it is penny-pinching. You are short-changing Australia as a whole. I think you are short-changing future generations. The so-called education revolution is in danger of becoming an education revolt by those people who are really concerned about this.

I want to make it clear that we have to amend this legislation. It will be interesting to see what the government does with this. I think you have seen that this chamber is absolutely dead-set serious about making sure that you soften the blow and make sure that some reasonableness is put into the changes to youth allowance. As I said, you are taking a sledgehammer to it. If you have got some problems with it, by all means address them, but don’t do what you have done. You have got to face the fact that you have underestimated the impact of these changes. I do not want to pre-empt the vote but we have seen an indication from the chamber. I am hoping that the government supports these changes in the lower house and realises that they have got it wrong. I think this amendment should be supported by the government.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the absence of a comprehensive plan by the government to deal with the issue of the geographical discrimination and additional expense that regional students face, I have no choice but to support this amendment. However, I would like to hear from the government about whether they have an alternative approach to deal with this. I am concerned about the budgetary constraints on this issue. We need to be very mindful of that, as are the opposition with their concern about deficit, but I look forward to continuing discussions with the government on whether there is an alternative way through this to address these issues faced by regional students.

Question agreed to.

Progress reported.