1.1
Labor Senators on this committee reject the recommendation of the
majority report.
1.2
This Bill contains changes to the eligibility requirements of the
Relocation Scholarship and cuts to the Education Entry Payment and the
Pensioner Education Supplement.
1.3
Although Labor Senators welcome the Government's abandonment of previous
plans to abolish the Education Entry Payment and the Pensioner Education
Supplement entirely, there is still significant concern regarding the impact of
these cuts on income support recipients who are undertaking study, who are
predominantly women and people with disability.
1.4
This concern is stated in the submissions provided to this Inquiry by a
broad range of community sector organisations.
Cuts to already modest payments
1.5
The Education Entry Payment and the Pensioner Education Supplement are
modest payments designed to assist certain income support recipients to
undertake study or training so that they can participate in the workforce.
1.6
Both the Australian Council of Social Service and the National Council
for Single Mothers and their Children have provided evidence about the
importance of these payments.[1]
1.7
The Australian Association of Social Workers expressed concern regarding
these cuts when the payments that low income students receive have been
declining in real value for the last 15 years and are already insufficient to
meet basic living costs.[2]
1.8
Research into the financial circumstances of students by the Australian
Association of Social Workers, emphasises the financial pressures already being
faced by students, finding that:
-
55% regularly went without food or other necessities due to not
being able to afford them;
-
67% could not afford clothing;
-
43% could not afford accommodation;
-
87% could not afford to purchase all of the recommended texts for
their classes
-
35% indicated an increased likelihood of dropping out as a result
of a lack of financial support.[3]
1.9
The changes in this Bill would leave 56 100 people currently receiving
the Education Entry Payment worse off. The majority of these people are
Disability Support Pension, Parenting Payment Single and Carer Payment
recipients.[4]
1.10
Additionally, 39 700 recipients of the Pensioner Education Supplement
will be worse off as a result of new non-payment periods during semester
breaks.[5]
1.11
A further 32 300 recipients of the Pensioner Education Supplement will
also be paid a lower fortnightly rate.[6]
1.12
The National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children has
calculated the impact of these changes for a single mother with a study load
between 51% and 71% of a full time TAFE course in South Australia. This woman
would have the combined amount of Pensioner Education Supplement and Education
Entry Payment she receives each year cut by 55%. Based on these calculations,
she would be $832 worse off each year.[7]
1.13
St Vincent de Paul argue against the implementation of these changes,
and state that 'if enacted, this Bill would make it harder for people to
survive on already low payment levels, as well as making it more difficulty to
access education.'[8]
1.14
St Vincent de Paul characterise the cuts to the rate of the Education
Entry Payment as 'deeply unfair, inequitable and without any convincing policy
of evidentiary justification', as the people who will be impacted by this cut
already face significant barriers to education and rely on income support
payments which are below the poverty line.[9]
St Vincent de Paul argues that cutting these payments reinforces disparities in
access to education between Australians of different socio-economic status.[10]
1.15
St Vincent de Paul write that:
Deep inequities continue to characterise our tertiary education
sector, and access to tertiary studies and training opportunities are
increasingly out-of-reach for those on low incomes. Many who do study at
university are placed under enormous financial pressure, and this in turn
compromises their health, well-being and educational outcomes.[11]
1.16
This evidence suggests that cutting already low income support payments
to recipients who are studying places them further at risk of severe financial
hardship and long term dependency on the social security system.
Inconsistent Objectives
1.17
Cutting support to income support recipients who are studying to
increase their employability is inconsistent with the often-stated aim of the
Government that income support recipients should be encouraged to find
employment.
1.18
People with Disability state that 'if the Bill is passed those on the
lowest incomes, including people with disability, will be further pushed into
poverty and financial hardship. It will make it harder for people with
disability to start or to continue undertaking education. Plans to cut these
payments are counter to the Government's focus on increasing employment
opportunities through education. Whilst expectations for pensioners to
undertake education increase, the very means of supporting access to education
for pensioners are being cut.'[12]
1.19
St Vincent de Paul also argue that adding additional payment tiers to
the payments further complicates the payments system, and that this is contrary
to the Government's aim of simplification.[13]
Disproportionate effect of changes
1.20
This Bill will disproportionately impact women and people with
disability.
1.21
The National Council for Single Mothers and their Children argues that
single mothers will be disproportionally impacted by the cuts to the Education
Entry Payment and the Pensioner Education Supplement because they are studying
to gain employment and are unable to study full time due to the
time-constraints placed on them as a result of being a sole parent.[14]
1.22
Women and people with disability will be disproportionately impacted by
this cut.[15]
1.23
43% of current recipients of the Pensioner Education Supplement are
Parenting Payment Single recipients. According to St Vincent de Paul, poverty
rates among unemployed single parents are ten times higher than those of
employed single parents.[16]
1.24
St Vincent de Paul say that the majority of their Emergency Relief
clients are women, many of whom are single mothers, who have already been
impacted by a succession of funding cuts, and cannot cope with another.[17]
1.25
41% of Pensioner Education Supplement receive the Disability Support
Pension while 80% of Pensioner Education Supplement recipients overall are
women.[18]
1.26
Children and Young People with Disability has expressed concern that
cutting the Education Entry Payment and the Pensioner Education Supplement will
further entrench the disadvantage experienced by young people with disability,
particularly those seeking to access or participate in education.[19]
Changes fail to understand the needs of students
1.27
The Committee has received evidence that it is inappropriate to pay the
Education Entry Payment at different rates because most upfront costs
associated with study are fixed, and not variable based on study load.
1.28
The Australian Council of Social Services argue that upfront costs of
study are static, and do not decrease with study loads.[20]
1.29
The National Social Security Rights Network also argue that many costs
of study are fixed, and do not vary with study load, for example the cost of
internet access does not change based on study loads.[21]
1.30
The National Social Security Rights Network also argue that 'at $208 per
year [the Education Entry Payment] is unlikely to meet all the additional costs
of study for many students, regardless of study load'.[22]
1.31
Further, the Committee also received evidence that ceasing payment of
the Pensioner Education Supplement would be harmful to recipients.
1.32
Carers Australia argues that payments should be continued during
non-study periods, as fixed costs associated with study do not cease during
non-study periods. These costs include home internet connections and associated
data plans and organisation membership of subscription costs directly related
to the field of study.[23]
1.33
Carers Australia also argue that it is inappropriate to cease payment
during semester breaks, as students often use this time to complete other
course-related requirements. They say this is particularly the case for carers,
whose caring responsibilities limit the time available for study.[24]
1.34
The National Council for Single Mothers and their Children echo this
view. The National Council argues that breaks in formal study periods is often
the busiest period for assignment preparation and exam revision.[25]
1.35
The National Social Security Rights Network also highlight the
appropriateness of continuing to pay the Pensioner Education Supplement during
non-study periods. The Network argues that, as drafted, the Bill would prevent
payments to students during mid-semester breaks, which are periods where
students cannot work and continue to incur the normal additional costs of
study.[26]
1.36
Finally, the Government attempts to justify these cuts by pointing to
existing supports to students through schemes such as HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP and
VET FEE HELP. However, as St Vincent de Paul argue in their submission, these
schemes do not cover the ongoing and upfront costs of education, and therefore
do not duplicate the assistance provided by the Education Entry Payment and the
Pensioner Education Supplement.[27]
1.37
Labor Senators agree with the majority of evidence put to the Inquiry,
that the changes proposed to the Pensioner Education Supplement and the
Education Entry Payment will have negative impacts on some of the most
vulnerable Australians.
1.38
Labor will oppose these cuts.
Recommendation 1
1.39 Labor Senators recommend that the Senate reject the Social Services
Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017.
Senator the Hon Lisa Singh Senator Murray Watt
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page