Committee Majority Report
Introduction
1.1
On 17 November 2010, on the motion of Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy,
the Senate referred the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional
Students) Bill 2010 (the bill) to the Senate Standing Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for report by the second sitting day
in February 2011.[1]
1.2
The bill, a private senator's bill introduced into the Senate by Senator
Fiona Nash on 28 October 2010,[2]
seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to provide the same
eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for students residing in
the Inner Regional zone of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification
– Remoteness Area map as currently apply to students residing in the Outer
Regional, Remote and Very Remote zones.
1.3
Senator Nash explained the rationale for the bill as follows:
When the Government made the changes to the eligibility
criteria for Independent Youth Allowance, they used the Australian Standard
Geographical Classification – Remoteness Area (ASGC – RA) map, for the purposed
[sic] of determining the 'regionality' of students. The map is in five zones –
Metropolitan, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. However,
this is a flawed basis to determine the 'regionality' of students. The issue
for regional students is the distance they have to travel to attend tertiary
education and the ASGC-RA map does not adequately reflect that. The issue here
is that many students in regional areas simply have no choice but to relocate
to attend tertiary education – and that comes as a cost.[3]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.4
Notice of the inquiry was posted on the committee's website and
advertised in The Australian newspaper, calling for submissions by 6
December 2010. The committee also directly contacted a number of interested
parties, organisations and individuals to notify them of the inquiry and to
invite submissions. A total of 214 submissions were received, as listed in
Appendix 1.
1.5
A public hearing was held in Canberra on 17 December 2010. Witnesses who
appeared before the committee are listed at Appendix 2.
1.6
The committee thanks those who provided submissions to the inquiry and
appeared before the committee at the public hearing.
Background
Review of Australian Higher
Education (Bradley Review)
1.7
In December 2008, the Review of Australian Higher Education (the Bradley
Review) reported on whether the higher education sector is structured,
organised and financed to position Australia to compete effectively in the new globalised
economy. The Bradley Review examined student income support programs and found
that they were not accurately targeting students in most need of assistance. It
also found one of the unintended effects was that youth allowance was being
accessed by some students living at home in high socio-economic status households.[4]
To address these issues, the review recommended a comprehensive reform of
student income support programs.
Response to the Bradley Review
1.8
In response to the Bradley Review's recommendations in relation to
student income support, the government announced a package of reforms in the
2009–10 Budget.[5]
The reforms were aimed at ensuring that only those students who are genuinely
independent qualify for assistance and included:
- changes to the parental income test for dependent students: in
July 2010, the parental income test threshold was increased from $33,000 to
$44,165 and will further increase in January 2011. The 20 per cent family taper
rate was introduced replacing the 25 per cent per child taper rate;[6]
- changes to how young people can access payments as independent
recipients, including lowering the age of independence from 25 to 22
years, phased in from 2010 to 2012;
- changes to the workforce participation criteria: from 1 July 2010
young people will be required to work full-time for at least 30 hours per week
for at least 18 months in a two-year period to demonstrate financial
independence. Young people are no longer able to qualify through the two
previous workforce participation criterion elements of working part-time for at
least 15 hours per week for at least two years since leaving school or earning
in an 18-month period since leaving school an amount equivalent to 75 per cent
of the appropriate maximum national training wage award;[7]
and
- introduction of the Student Start-Up Scholarship for all
university students receiving youth allowance, Austudy or Abstudy and the
Relocation Scholarship. The Student Start-Up Scholarship assists with the costs
of textbooks and specialised equipment even for those on a part rate of student
income support. That scholarship was $650 in each half-year of 2010 and increases
to $1,097 in each half-year of 2011.[8]
1.9
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) outlined
for the committee the effect on students of the reform package. Ms Marsha
Milliken, Group Manager, Income Support Group, DEEWR, stated that changes to
the parental income test and taper rate[9]
will improve access for dependent young people from low- to medium-income
families and:
...over 100,000 students are expected to benefit from those
changes. Many will receive a higher payment than would have previously been
applied and many students who have previously considered it necessary to gain
eligibility as independents would no longer need to do so.[10]
It is estimated that an additional 67,800 students would
qualify for income support and approximately 34,600 will receive a higher rate
of payment.[11]
1.10
In relation to the changes to the workforce participation criteria, it
was noted that it was about establishing genuine independence. Ms Milliken
commented that:
The whole package goes to targeting assistance more closely
to young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and the 18 months in two
years is an average of working 30 hours per week over 18 months in a two-year
period. So you might have a break in that two-year period. It is not
necessarily 18 months straight but, on average, 30 hours per week for 18 months
out of 24. You could achieve that in 18 months; you might achieve it in two
years if you have some breaks.[12]
1.11
DEEWR also informed the committee that by the end of August 2010 around
174,000 students had received at least one payment of under the Student Start-Up
Scholarship and over 22,000 students had received a Relocation Scholarship.[13]
1.12
On 31 December 2010, the government reported on the effect of the
decrease in the age of independence:
...already more than 2400 students have gained access to
Youth Allowance or ABSTUDY for the first time or have received increased
student payments...The Government expects 7000 additional students to benefit
from the 1 January 2011 change.[14]
Further reform of student support
system
1.13
In response to concerns raised by students about changes to the Youth
Allowance system, the Hon Julia Gillard, the then Minister for Education,
announced on 26 August 2009, that the government would introduce transitional
arrangements for those students who had left school in 2008, had taken a gap
year in 2009 and who must leave home to attend university. Until 31 December
2010 these people can be assessed under the pre-existing workforce
participation criterion for independence and would therefore be not caught up
in the transition between the old and the new systems.[15]
1.14
On 1 December 2009, the Minister for Education announced the
establishment of the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund worth $20 million. This fund
will help to address the barriers preventing disadvantaged rural and regional
students from attending university.[16]
A taskforce was established to advise the government on the eligibility
criteria for assistance under the fund.[17]
The taskforce reported in December 2010. The taskforce proposed two sets of
criteria (eligibility and selection criteria) for achieving the purposes of the
legislation in a systematic and equitable fashion.[18]
1.15
On 16 March 2010, as a result of negotiations (see paragraph 1.20), special
arrangements were implemented for students from outer regional, remote and very
remote Australia who are required to live away from home to study. From 1
January 2011, these students are able to access the former elements of the workforce
participation criteria provided their parents' income is less than $150,000 per
year.[19]
1.16
The government initially proposed to implement the reforms announced in
the 2009–10 Budget through the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment
(Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. They were subsequently implemented
with the passing of a revised bill, Social Security and Other Legislation
Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No.2]. The history of the
bills is discussed below.
Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009
1.17
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for
Students) Bill 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives on 10 September
2009. On 17 September 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate Standing
Regional, Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee which examined the
proposed changes to student income support and broader access issues facing
rural and regional students.[20]
On 27 October 2009, the committee tabled its report on the bill.[21]
Following extensive debate, amendments to the bill were agreed to by the
Senate. However, the House of Representatives agreed to only two of the nine
amendments made to the bill in the Senate. On 24 November 2009, the Senate
voted not to adopt the report from the committee of the whole.[22]
The bill remained before the committee of the whole and subsequently lapsed at
the end of the 42nd Parliament.
1.18
The Senate amendments rejected by the government sought to:
- extend the period during which the savings provisions applied,
for those affected by the changes to the independence criteria, by six months
to the end of 2010;
- extend those savings provisions to all students affected who left
secondary education in 2008; and
- permanently preserve access to qualification for independent
status through the part-time work for students who are required to live away
from home to study.[23]
Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
1.19
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for
Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2] (the revised bill) was introduced into the House of
Representatives on 25 November 2009[24]
and into the Senate on 30 November 2009.[25]
The revised bill incorporated amendments which had been negotiated by the
Australian Greens and Senator Xenophon with the government. Differences between
the original and the revised bill were as follows:
- savings provisions for gap year students affected by the changes
to the independence criteria concerning workforce participation were changed.
Students who left secondary school in 2008 would have until 31 December 2010 to
commence a tertiary course rather than the original limit of 30 June 2010.
Students who were not required to leave home to attend the course of their
choice could also qualify. However a family income limit of $150 000 per annum
was added for this group to target the savings provisions to lower and middle
income families;
- the amount of the proposed Student Start Up Scholarship was
halved in 2010 to ensure that the package of changes in the revised bill
remained revenue neutral taking account of the added cost from the new savings
provisions for gap year students;
- the package of changes would be reviewed in 2012; and
- the remaining workforce participation criterion for independent
status would be adjusted to require an average of 30 hours per week of
employment rather than 'at least' 30 hours per week of employment.[26]
The compromise
1.20
The revised bill was the result of negotiations undertaken by all
parties to achieve a way forward. On 16 March 2010 the Hon Julia Gillard, then
Minister for Education, announced:
The Liberal and National Parties agreed to the bill after the
Government made changes that will mean students who live away from our major
cities and regional centres who have to move will be eligible under the
existing independence test. The existing test will be restricted to those who
leave home to study, whose parents earn less than $150,000 a year and who live
in 'Very Remote', 'Remote' or Outer regional' areas as defined by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics.[27]
1.21
However, during consideration of the bill on 17 March 2010, further
amendments were made. During the second reading debate, Senator the Hon. Brett
Mason spoke about the deal that was agreed:
The bill currently before the Senate represents the result of
negotiations undertaken between the government and the coalition. It embodies
what I believe is the best deal achievable by all of the parties under the
circumstances. This is not to say that this is the best deal that could be. We
believe that the government should have been more generous to rural students,
and as such I foreshadow that in the committee stage I will move an amendment which
will reflect the coalition's view of what a better outcome for rural students
would be.[28]
1.22
Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, the then Minister for Innovation, Industry,
Science and Research, pointed out that the Coalition intended to move
amendments which they knew could not be accepted given the agreement reached.
Senator Carr noted the letter from Mr Christopher Pyne MP to the then Deputy
Prime Minister on 16 March 2010 detailing the agreement that the Coalition
'would ensure passage of the legislation'. Senator Carr added:
Just as long as you understand, Senator Nash, what those
words 'ensure passage' mean. You cannot go outside and say that you were not
signed up to the deal, because what we have now is a set of arrangements to
give effect to landmark reforms that this government has introduced—that this
government has ensured will provide enormous benefit to the people of this country—which
will be supported by the coalition...The member for Sturt has committed your
votes, in writing, to this proposition.[29]
1.23
During consideration of the revised bill, Senator Mason proposed an amendment
to preserve the same workforce participation routes for students in inner
regional areas as defined by the ASGC. Senator Mason noted:
...this amendment reflects the coalition's continuing concern
for rural students and also, in a sense, reflects that whatever happens there
will be anomalies. Whenever lines are drawn on maps there will be anomalies.
This amendment will cater for more students and make more funds available for,
let us face it, one of the most disadvantaged groups when it comes to access to
higher education. That is why the coalition is moving this amendment. But we
also move it in the spirit that there is no easy answer here.[30]
1.24
However, this amendment was negatived[31]
and is now the substance of Senator Nash's senator's private bill. The Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill
2009 [No. 2] was passed on 18 March 2010 with a number of amendments made by
the Senate and amendments made by the House of Representatives at the request
of the Senate. The revised bill, with amendments, was passed by the House of Representatives
on the same day and was assented to as the Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Act 2010.[32]
Reference on rural and regional
access to education opportunities
1.25
Overlapping with the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References
Committee's inquiry into the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment
(Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, the References Committee undertook an
inquiry into rural and regional access to secondary and tertiary education opportunities
which had been referred on 16 June 2009. The report was tabled on
18 December 2009.[33]
The key issues for this inquiry were the proposed changes to student income
support and in particular the proposed changes to Youth Allowance which the bill
outlined above implemented.[34]
Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010
1.26
As noted above, Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional
Students) Bill 2010 was introduced into the Senate by Senator Fiona Nash on 28 October
2010. On 16 November 2010, Senator Nash sought the suspension of standing
orders in order for her bill to be considered by the Senate. When this was not
agreed[35]
she explained:
I certainly tried to use appropriate processes so that this bill
could be considered at this time during these sitting weeks. Unfortunately, the
government was not of a mind to accommodate that. The reason that it is very important
that we debate this bill today is the timeliness of this bill. This bill
relates to the changes that the government made earlier in the year to the
provisions in the independent youth allowance. We have spent all year with
thousands of students across the country who are absolutely desperate because
they no longer have access to a funding mechanism that would allow them to
start university or further tertiary education next year. That is the reason it
is so important for us to debate this bill now, and the government's refusal to
do so is really quite extraordinary. The government did not want to debate this
bill, and we can only ask why not.[36]
1.27
Unsurprisingly, the agreement reached between the parties to pass the Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009
[No. 2] was raised by the government. In response to this, Senator Nash
commented:
...I am going to place on record exactly why that happened. It
happened because the government wanted to get rid of the independent youth
allowance for every single student across the country; however, the coalition
managed to have three of those zones, though the inner regional zone was not
among them, kept for inner regional students. The reason we supported that and
the legislation's going through at the time, as the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations knows full well, is that there
were a number of good measures—the start-up scholarships, the relocation scholarships
and the changes to the amounts available through the straight-up youth
allowance—in that legislation. Far from being obstructionist, we on this side
of the chamber were very happy to support those measures. We were not going to
stop those good measures going forward for those students who needed them. As
Senator Evans will be at pains to point out to you our reasons for supporting
those measures at the time, I will tell you what they were. We supported them
because the then Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and
current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, refused to split the bill. She refused
to deal with the independent youth allowance measures separately from all of
those other measures in the bill that did have some value for those students
and that we very much wanted to support. It was purely for political reasons
that she would not split that bill. So, when Senator Evans stands up and tries
to say, 'Gee, the coalition supported this before,' it is now on record exactly
why we did it—we did it because we had no choice. But we now have an
opportunity to make sure that we get some fairness for regional students.[37]
1.28
Senator Mason also commented that the deal was made 'to overcome a legislative
impasse between the government in the House of Representatives and the
coalition and, indeed, the Independent senators here in the Senate'. However,
it was 'never, ever intended to last forever, certainly not beyond a federal
election'.[38]
1.29
Senator the Hon. Chris Evans responded:
The reality is that Senator Nash, Senator Joyce and every
Liberal member voted for the arrangements they seek to now overturn in a
public, open and clear agreement with the government...In passing, they do not
tend to mention that it is going to cost $300 million or so...[39]
1.30
Senator Xenophon summed up the way forward:
So the issues of concern raised by Senator Nash are matters
that have been previously raised. I do not for one moment question the sincerity
and genuineness of Senator Nash in relation to this issue, but I think it would
be fair to say that no new evidence has been presented since this matter was last
debated and the compromise was reached between the opposition and the
government that would warrant the suspension of the practices of the Senate.
The best way of dealing with this matter is not to suspend those practices but
to have it referred for an inquiry.
Having said that, I have had discussions with the minister
about specific concerns put to me about potential anomalies with the
classifications and boundaries caused by the instrument that has been used. In
particular, I appreciate very much the conversation I had with Richard Vickery,
the president of the South East Local Government Association in South
Australia, earlier today about some of these potential anomalies. For instance
a student on one side of the street in Mount Gambier is classified as outer
regional, while their neighbour on the other side of the street is classified
as inner regional. We are talking about a matter of metres and yet the
classification criteria are quite different.
I have had discussions with the minister in relation to this
and I can say—and I am sure if I am wrong that the minister will correct
me—that the minister has agreed to examine whether the use of the Australian Standard
Geographical Classification, the ASGC, is the most appropriate mechanism for
determining eligibility for the independent youth allowance. I believe that the
best way of resolving this in the longer term is to have that review and to
have this bill get the scrutiny it deserves because it is a bill that is
important. It is a bill deserving of scrutiny and there are budgetary considerations
in relation to it. That is the best way forward, and such a committee ought to
report back in the first week of February.[40]
1.31
As noted above, on 17 November 2010 the bill was referred by Senator the
Hon. Stephen Conroy to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Committee.[41]
This was confirmed by the Selection of Bills Committee Report adopted by the
Senate on 18 November 2010.[42]
The following discussion canvasses issues in relation to students from the
Inner Regional zone.
Students from the Inner Regional
zone
1.32
The bill before the committee seeks to extend the eligibility criteria
for independent Youth Allowance for students residing in the Inner Regional
zone of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) – Remoteness
Area map. It was noted by many submitters that the reforms to the student
support arrangements introduced by the government result in differing treatment
of students from inner regional and outer regional locations.[43]
1.33
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) advised that the ASGC is used
for the collection and dissemination of geographically classified statistics
noting that '[i]t is an essential reference for understanding the interpreting
the geographical contact of statistics published by the ABS'.[44]
1.34
The ASGC contains seven classification structures of which the
remoteness structure is one. It was added in 2001 in response to a request from
stakeholders for a standard classification which defines remoteness as a
characteristic of an area. It is this structure that leads to the break-up of
Australia into six remoteness classes: Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer
Regional, Remote, Very Remote and Migratory. The remoteness structure is based
on the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+). The original version
of ARIA was commissioned by the then Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged
Care in 1997. It was designed, constructed and is maintained by the National
Centre for the Social Applications of Geographical Information Systems (GISCA),
part of the University of Adelaide. The ABS interprets ARIA+ values to create
the remoteness structure.[45]
1.35
ARIA is a purely geographical approach to defining remoteness. It does
not take account of socio-economic status (SES), rurality or population size.
The ABS advised that:
As a comparable index of remoteness that covers the whole of
Australia, ARIA+ provides a measure of remoteness that is suitable for a broad
range of applications including assisting in service planning, demographic
analysis and resource allocation.[46]
1.36
The ABS told the committee that the main use of the classification is in
the health area where, for example, allowances paid to medical practitioners are
based on ARIA classifications. ABS reported that the classification is:
...used for a variety of purposes, and certainly departments
have talked to us about what the classification tries to do and we have
provided that advice. Ultimately, the decisions for these things are of course
with the department.[47]
1.37
At Senate Estimates in October 2010, Ms Lisa Paul, Secretary DEEWR, explained
the decision to use the ASGC map:
This [ASGC map] is based on ARIA, which is a health based
indicator but it seems to be one of the most robust indicators of the
differences between regions. It is one of the categorisations that we use
fairly regularly...it is still the best approach to regional demarcation that
we have, and it is the one that is based on a notion of distance from the
centre.[48]
1.38
In response to further questioning from Senator Nash, the Minister
added:
...if your point is: is it imperfect–it probably is. Are
there a hundred other different ways to calculate rural and regional–yes. Every
department and act seems to do it in a different way. If you have got the
perfect solution for this, I would love to hear it, but I think that the
department, as a result of the discussions chose this as an established model
that seems to be based on reasonable grounds...[49]
1.39
The committee majority understands the frustration for some students when
eligibility to allowances is based on residence in a defined geographical zone.
For example, Miss Sarah Dickens told the committee:
We live 150 metres away from White Avenue, which is the
deciding border for whether you are in a regional or outer regional area. If we
lived 200 metres to the left, we would qualify for youth allowance by taking
the gap year, but without it we are not going to be able to qualify.[50]
1.40
However, witnesses also recognised that moving the boundaries is likely
to shift the problem on to others.[51]
Some witnesses disagreed with the use of the ASGC in relation to youth
allowance and suggested that the eligibility criteria should be based solely on
the need to relocate to study.[52]
1.41
ABS advised the committee that a new Australian Statistical Geography
Standard (ASGS) Remoteness Structure is being developed for the 2011 Census.
Consequently, a new remoteness structure will be released by the end of 2012.
It is anticipated that the new structure will result in less instances where
the boundary between Inner and Outer Regional areas bisects towns.[53]
1.42
DEEWR commented on the rationale behind the differing criteria for
students in the inner regional zone:
...those arrangements were reached prior to the passage of the legislation
in March in the context of the broader package of student income support
reforms which the government had designed to be a budget-neutral package. In
order to afford those changes, there were offsetting changes to the amount of
money in the Student Start-up Scholarship. So it was within the context of a
broader package.[54]
1.43
DEEWR also outlined to the committee the criteria for students in the
Inner Regional zone to access income support:
Young people in inner regional locations can qualify for an
away-from-home rate of student income support which is the same amount that is
paid to independent students—young people who are attracting at the maximum
level. It is subject to the parental income test and family income and assets
test. Young people who relocate from inner regional locations to study and who attract
the dependent rate of youth allowance will also attract the relocation
scholarship of $4,000...
as well as the student start-up scholarship, whatever the
amount of youth allowance they were eligible to receive as a dependent student.
So young people in inner regional locations can attract youth allowance and
associated scholarship payments where they need to relocate to study.[55]
1.44
In addition, students in the Inner Regional zone may be eligible for
assistance under the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund as 'it is not restricted only
to income support recipients'.[56]
Ms Milliken explained further:
The Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund is not linked as directly as
your question might suggest as to whether you are an independent or a dependant
recipient of income support. There is a range of criteria. Location is one of
them, because it is intended for rural and regional students, as well as the
type of course, the level of study and a financial hardship measurement. But it
is not dependent on whether or not you are receiving youth allowance.[57]
1.45
The committee majority notes that the government has committed to a
review of the student income support reforms[58]
which will include the use of the Australian Standard Geographical
Classification.[59]
Addressing the effect of the recent
floods
1.46
The issue of flooding affecting the ability for students to comply with
the 30 hours per week element of the workforce participation criterion was
raised with the committee.[60]
1.47
The committee majority notes that the extensive flooding across
Australia could temporarily affect the ability of some students to access
employment in order to meet the workforce participation criterion. The
committee majority is of the view that this temporary inability should not
undermine a students' eligibility. The committee majority notes advice from
DEEWR that the department is considering a range of responses to ensure
individuals are not disadvantaged as a result of the flooding in December 2010
and January 2011.[61]
Recommendation 1
1.48
The committee majority recommends that as a matter of urgency the
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations finalise responses
to ensure that regional students who are temporarily unable to meet the
workforce participation criterion because of the recent flooding are not precluded
from accessing Youth Allowance.
Conclusion
1.49
The government is committed to assisting students in regional and rural Australia.
In March 2010, after extensive consultations with the Coalition and
cross-benchers, the parliament passed the Social Security and Other Legislation
Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2] which contained a
package of budget neutral reforms to ensure a fairer system for more students
and increased support for those who need it most. Through the package of reforms,
the government has expanded the reach of support and income support for
students across the board.
1.50
The reforms were necessary. They are already underway and students are
benefiting. This was acknowledged by witnesses.[62]
For example, over 100,000 students will benefit from changes to the parental
income test and taper rates. The committee majority notes that there has been a
substantial take-up of the scholarships which became available from April 2010.
DEEWR reported that by the end of August almost 174,000 students had received a
Student Start-up Scholarship with almost 38,000 receiving one payment of $650
and over 136,000 receiving two payments. Also as at the end of August 2010, 14,000
students had received the $4,000 Relocation Scholarship and over 8,000 had
received the $1,000 scholarship.[63]
1.51
In addition, the government agreed to set up the Rural and Regional
Taskforce to investigate issues of participation and attainment by regional
students in tertiary education and to report by the end of 2010. At the committee's
hearing on 17 December 2010, DEEWR advised that the government has
accepted the recommendations of the taskforce.[64]
The Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund will assist young people in rural and regional
areas who are facing particular financial hardship to attend university. Under
the $20 million fund, students from areas other than major capital cities,
commencing a bachelor degree in 2011 and experiencing severe financial
hardship, will be able to apply for a $3,000 one-off grant to assist in
undertaking their university degree.[65]
1.52
The committee majority notes advice that the bill would increase public
expenditure by approximately $272 million to 2013–14.[66]
What the committee did not hear from witnesses was an agreed position on how to
fund it. Some thought it should just be funded as those students will pay the
extra money in taxes.[67]
The Explanatory Memorandum suggested it should be funded from the Education
Investment Fund,[68]
and some agreed[69]
but many disagreed with this position.[70]
Some suggested that the allowance be extended by reducing the amount of the
allowance for everyone[71]
but others did not agree.[72]
1.53
Regarding the ASGC remoteness area map mechanism, the committee majority
notes that if the government moves the line then it is likely that the problem
will just be shifted elsewhere on to others.[73]
This was acknowledged by witnesses.[74]
Again the committee heard no agreed way of addressing this. The committee
majority notes the work underway in the ABS on the ASGS.
1.54
The committee majority notes the government has recognised that with
such a comprehensive package of reforms a wide-ranging review of their
operation is necessary. To this end the government has committed to undertake a
comprehensive review of the effects of the student income support reforms. The
review will have a particular focus on rural and regional students and be
completed by 30 June 2012.[75]
It will include the use of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification.[76]
This was supported by witnesses.[77]
The committee majority notes the contribution from Ms Maureen Campbell,
Group Representative, Monaro Area, Country Women's Association of NSW, who told
the committee:
Whatever time it takes, it has got to be right. There is no
point in rushing something through if it is not going to end up being the best
product in the end.[78]
1.55
The committee majority awaits the outcome of this review with interest
and in these circumstances believes that the bill should not proceed.
Recommendation 2
1.56
The committee majority recommends that the bill not proceed.
Senator Gavin Marshall
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page