It is in continuation that I will focus my issues particularly on the concerns raised on the changes to youth allowance. Continuing with my speech from last night, I would like to explain to the minister the unintended consequences and the impacts as a result of this policy. I would seriously ask the minister to look at the consequences of her changes and to rectify the issues relating to the way in which regional students will be able to study in future.I will use my electorate of Riverina as an example. We are extremely fortunate to have Charles Sturt University campus in Wagga Wagga, the largest city in my electorate. The electorate, though, is over 42,000 square kilometres, so it is only those students who actually live in Wagga Wagga itself who can attend the university without having to leave home and relocate. Even if the students decided that they would be able to study at Charles Sturt University, the majority of them come from well outside travelling distance and will be unable to undertake that travel, bearing in mind that we
do not have the public transport system that is available
in the cities. So not all students can attend Charles Sturt
University; some will need to go to other universities
that cater for their specific needs. Those students who
must move towns or states to attend the appropriate
university for their career of choice need some form of
financial support.
For some students, due to course commitments it
is literally impossible for them to hold down a parttime
job in order to support themselves. For example, a
fourth-year veterinary science student at Charles Sturt
University spends around 80 hours per week dedicated
to his or her degree through combined personal study
and in-class lessons. If he or she had to move to Wagga
Wagga to study and their parents could not support
them then they would need to receive student income
support. If their parents do not come in under the family
tax benefit part A and still do not have the means to
support the child, and the child cannot work due to their
university commitment and the heavy lift of the degree
study, how does one suggest that these kids live, eat and
pay for their rent and their upkeep? The reality is that
they cannot. The individual in this example represents
the situation of so many students. Under the proposed
changes, this student would have to take a two-year
break between school and university and attempt, with
no guarantee of success, to hold down a full-time job or
at least 30 hours a week for 18 months over two years.
Let us consider this: we have a rise in
unemployment, particularly in regional Australia but
also right across Australia. The logistics of finding fulltime
work or 30 hours per week for at least 18 months
during a two-year period in regional areas and towns
is extremely precarious. Many of my constituents
believe that they or their sons and daughters will not
be able to accomplish this. We have singularly been
in drought for seven years, so the opportunities for
employment are vastly reduced. A large percentage
of my constituents’ employment is dependent on
agriculture. This type of work is often unreliable
due to environmental impacts and, in many cases, is
seasonally structured. With the area having been in
drought for seven years, for many of my kids from right
across my electorate from areas such as Hay, Ivanhoe,
Temora, Rankins Springs, Merriwagga or Bland shire,
it will be just simply impossible for them to meet this
requirement.
The third element of the current workforce
participation criteria, which the government intends
to scrap, is an extremely practical and appropriate
criterion for regional circumstances. A person can earn,
in an 18-month period after leaving school, an amount
equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of
pay under wage level A of the Australian pay and
classification scale generally applicable to trainees.
Currently, this requires earnings of around $19,532.
This criterion has enabled so many regional students
access to student income support, enabling them to
attend university. It is imperative that the government
see that the criteria of working full-time, or 30 hours
a week, for 18 months over a period of two years in
order to be independent is not appropriate for regional
residents and, for many, will simply be absolutely
unobtainable.
As I have previously mentioned I have received
considerable amounts of calls, emails and letters
from concerned parents and potential students. I can
seriously stand here and say to you that this issue alone
has generated more phone calls, emails, letters and
counter inquiries than any other issue that I have had
in 11 years, such is the concern. The minister stands up
at the dispatch box and tells us that it is all good for
us and that we are just scaremongering, but I have said
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2
CHAMBER
nothing to elicit the phone calls and concerns that have
come in; they have come in off their own bat.
People in rural and regional areas are not stupid; they
do not just blindly follow the leader—they know how
to work things out for themselves. They have worked
out for themselves that they have got a major issue.
I will certainly not mention any names in this, but I
received a letter from a person from a tiny little town
that has been drought stricken and on its knees for
seven years. The person wrote:
I have grave concerns for the future of many rural students
following the release of changes in tender for the Youth
Allowance scheme in the 2009 budget.
I will not go into the specifics of the person but
they talk about seeking the advice of Centrelink after
the daughter had completed her HSC in 2008, with
regard to eligibility for independent youth allowance.
She has been working toward the goal of earning that
$19,500-odd I spoke of earlier. In order to do this, she
deferred her university studies in a particular field for
12 months. The staff at the university that she was
going to attend also recommended that she defer so that
she could qualify for youth allowance, understanding
that she had significant financial pressures that could
hinder her heavy study load.
This young lady has been living in quite a remote
town and working really, really hard to meet the
criteria. As the writer of this letter said:
Should the changes to Youth Allowance be implemented, it
will be almost impossible for rural students to find a full-time
job for 30 hours a week for an average of 18 months out of
two years.
That is because they are living out in these isolated
towns and there is no work there. That young woman’s
community is identical to most of the communities
across my electorate that will be sadly impacted by
this measure. This person has driven tractors for wheat
harvesting, worked on building sites and done an
enormous amount of seasonal work, two lots of which
involved living away from home, because of course
there are no employment prospects for her in the
local community. There are no jobs in those local
communities. Sadly, this girl has now been denied
the opportunity to meet the criteria that were in place
at the time, as a result of the minister making these
changes retrospective. If you are going to make these
changes, surely you would make them prospective,
for the future, so they would not impact so on these
regional students, who have no choices. The letter goes
on to say:
These changes, if implemented, will be particularly unfair for
the students who deferred for 2009, as they have left school,
followed the guidelines of Youth Allowance eligibility
criteria as set by legislation, only to have the goalposts
changed halfway through the year.
It says:
We need to make sure the Rudd government does not
sacrifice the 2008 HSC class in order to make their bottom
line look better.
And, seriously, that is the issue. A drastic mistake has
been made; fix it. Please do not just stand on this issue
and let the students of Australia down. (Time expired)