Students: Youth Allowance and Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship Scheme

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- I am pleased to speak today on Mr Hall's motion on the federal government's proposed changes to the youth allowance and the commonwealth accommodation scholarship scheme. In early May the federal government announced it would be changing the eligibility criteria for the independent youth allowance by basically implementing the recommendations of the Bradley review committee to scrap two of the three workplace participation criteria required: working for at least 15 hours a week for two years or earning more than $19 000 -- or just under $20 000 -- per year for an 18-month period. The only criteria remaining would be to work for 30 hours a week for 18 months.

According to its budget papers this measure alone will generate a huge saving for the federal government.

Mr Hall mentioned the figure of $1.6 billion, but I have the figure of $1.8 billion in front of me. On any reckoning, it will be a large amount.

As Mr Hall and Ms Lovell have outlined, and I agree with them, the ability for students to pick up 30 hours a week of work consistently over an 18-month period will be difficult, particularly for regional and rural students. They are the students who are most reliant on the independent, living-away-from-home allowance, because they are the most likely to have to travel away from home and live away from home to undertake their tertiary studies. They are not the only students it will impact on, obviously metropolitan students have to do that too; but it will greatly impact on regional and rural students.

The worst part of this change that the federal government seems determined to pursue is that it will apply to students who have already embarked upon a gap year.

Our Greens Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, has been closely following this issue in the federal Parliament. She reports that last year Centrelink officers visited high schools and advised students on how they could apply for independent support. Students were told about the three criteria I just outlined. Suddenly the floor has moved and the rug has been pulled out from under them. There is now only one criterion, which is 30 hours work a week for 18 months in order to qualify for the independent youth allowance.

There is an issue there in that students who took the advice that was given to them in their classrooms now face a change in rules. What is going to happen to those students? We are strongly of the view that this particular measure should be delayed and not take effect from 1 January 2010, as proposed by the federal government. Mr Hall said, in moving his motion, that it is going to affect around 30 000 students, and I have a similar figure.

I have a figure of 30 700 students of whom the plans for undertaking tertiary education will be completely upset by this sudden change.

The Greens have been inundated with letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls about this proposal. We understand the concerns of those students who have contacted us, and in particular Senator Hanson-Young's office, regarding the removal of the two work eligibility criteria. Students and their families have been making their objections known by emailing Senator Hanson-Young's office. One of them, Emily from Linden in New South Wales, says:

It is unfair for the changes to the youth allowance independence criteria to commence in 2010, as many young people like me made plans months ago regarding their future, which will now be ruined. During the past six months I have become financially independent of my parents, I pay for my own entertainment, travelling expenses and bills. I want that to continue.

Youth allowance enables young people like me to work, gain their independence and keep it while they are studying.
Catherine from Northmead in New South Wales says:

Given the policies in place by the government, my son made the considered decision to defer studying this year, join the workforce, pay his taxes, and save money to help fund his education ... With this announcement, my son is now facing the distressing dilemma of not being able to study his chosen field, let alone continue his studies at all. The course, offered at no other university in Australia, is based 21/2 hours away in Sydney. Therefore, for him to undertake this degree, he is not able to live at home and will need to bear not only the costs of attending university, but the basic cost of putting a roof over his head. We are a middle income family and we just do not have the means to provide the necessary funds for him to do this.

Senator Hanson-Young and Independent MPs, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, met with a group of students, mainly young women and their parents, at Parliament House in Canberra to discuss the proposed changes. As I mentioned, the effect that they will particularly have on students who have already embarked upon their gap year on the understanding that the previous criteria would apply is that those students have been left in limbo.

In an article in the Age of 27 May 2009, Bonny Symons-Brown cites the example of:

Canberra resident Amelia Caddy, 18, who recently left school, said she turned down a scholarship at a local university to complete her dream degree in Melbourne next year.

'Now I'm faced with the situation where I can't afford to move to Melbourne without this youth allowance and if I reapply for the course at Canberra University ... I'll no longer be eligible for the scholarship', she said.

'So really I'm in a lose-lose situation'.
As Ms Lovell and Mr Hall pointed out, 18 does not go into 12. With some universities not allowing more than 12 months for a gap year, and with the change to 18 months, that is going to stretch out to two years. It is unusual for students to be able to commence degrees half way through a year -- that is, at the start of the second semester. It is also difficult, as I mentioned before, for them to get the 30 hours of work consistently each week so that is likely to stretch out over two years. The changes are having an enormous impact, and the government needs to completely reconsider its proposal.

Senator Hanson-Young is collecting signatures for a petition to present to the federal Parliament. The goal is 5000 signatures; at the last count they had collected almost 2800, which is about 55 per cent of their goal.
Next week, when federal Parliament resumes, the Greens will be moving for a Senate inquiry into the proposed changes. In a media release of 7 June 2009, Senator Hanson-Young has said that an inquiry is:

... necessary to examine broader issues relating to the obstacles faced by young people in rural and regional Australia in accessing higher education, and the support they need.
She went on to say:

Getting the experiences of rural and regional Australians and the expertise of education providers and student bodies on the public record through a Senate inquiry will pave a better path forward for accessible higher education.
The inquiry will consider the impact of the proposed changes on rural and regional students, access to employment for low-skilled workers, the increasing cost of both living away from home and higher education and the obstacles rural and regional students face in accessing higher education. In the meantime, the Greens in the Senate will continue to question the government over the proposed changes to the youth allowance during the Senate estimates hearings this week.

The Greens have also foreshadowed in the Senate that they will move amendments to the legislation when it arrives, and they welcomed the coalition's support for the setting up of the inquiry in the Senate, which will be set up under a Greens motion, and we will be hoping that any legislative amendments that are required will be supported as well.

The other part of Mr Hall's motion goes to proposed changes to the commonwealth accommodation scholarship scheme, which is going to be renamed the relocation scheme. As Mr Hall outlined, those changes are going to result in a large decrease in the amount of money students will receive from around $13 000 per annum to $4000 in the first year and $1000 in subsequent years. The Greens have asked questions in the federal Parliament regarding the criteria to be eligible for the grant, such as the specific distances people may live from the tertiary institution -- is it 100 kilometres, is it 80 kilometres? No answer is available for that. Are interstate students eligible? No answer is available for that.

The information to answer that and many other questions is not available. The legislation has not been brought into the house yet, so it is probably not going to appear until around August, but it is going to be very interesting to see what appears in the legislation.

I would like to make another point about the commonwealth accommodation scholarship scheme, which is changing its name to the relocation scheme. It may be a good way to support students, but there are ongoing issues with rural and regional students, and that is why the Greens are moving an inquiry into it and the youth allowance charges.

I would like to say that we support other elements, such as reducing the age of independence, but we are critical of the fact that there was not a move to increase the fortnightly allowance for independent students above $371.40.

Although it is indexed, it has never had a budgetary increase and is below the Henderson poverty line, which is $616 a fortnight, and takes into account a living allowance and everyday costs such as text books.

The Greens also have massive concerns with the proposed changes in connection with the workplace participation eligibility criteria. The Greens will be supporting the motion. We oppose the retrospectivity, in particular, of the changes to the youth allowance scheme and the impact that that is going to have on current students.

Mr Hall foreshadowed that the government might argue that these changes would allow more people to receive the youth allowance -- that it was a bigger pot with less money allocated to people -- but I would say that if there is an education revolution, then that should mean we are going to support students.

I would say that our society should support our tertiary students and we should not be making it harder for them to survive. It is certainly much harder for tertiary students to survive now than it was when I was a tertiary student. I feel that I was very blessed to be able to undertake my undergraduate degree without any fees. Even though I came from a working-class family, the eligibility criteria for the tertiary education assistance scheme were quite strict at the time. I had to undertake part-time work, but nothing like 30 hours a week, and I was able to work part time and complete my undergraduate degree without having a HECS debt hanging over my head. Even when I undertook postgraduate studies and did incur a HECS debt, it was nothing like the HECS debt that people have hanging over their heads now.

These changes are going to be a disincentive to both metropolitan students who for one reason or another need to be independent from their parents and rural and regional students in particular.

I just cannot understand why these changes are being introduced when the rhetoric is about an education revolution and saying that education is the government's no. 1 priority. I believe the money could have been found. We should not have seen a 3 per cent increase in the defence budget, for example. Perhaps we could use the huge pot of money that goes to defence to support our students. It is for only a short time really, particularly if you are talking about undergraduate degrees -- usually three years, maybe four for an honours degree -- that students need to be supported by the community to undertake their studies, and we should be doing that. We should not be making it an absolute survival mission for them so that they have to live on the breadline, or way below it -- way below the Henderson poverty line. They should be in a situation where they can concentrate on their studies for that time and we as a society should be supporting that.

I would like to say that I was a little bit surprised at the almost cursory response Ms Huppert gave to this motion, basically saying that this is a federal matter, so we should not even be talking about it, even though it is going to impact upon thousands of Victorian students, which certainly makes it a matter for our interest. She then went on in the briefest of fashions to talk about the government's skills reform agenda, which we have already had a motion about in this chamber, and the issues and problems with that in terms of TAFE fees, especially the reduction in concession fees and the number of students, including mature age students, who rely on TAFE to upgrade their skills. That was not very helpful, and then there was a very short list of some funding the government may put into some regional TAFE infrastructure, which is a good thing, but I could not believe that that was really all the government had to say on such an important matter.