Coalition Senators' Minority Report
Introduction
1.1
As part of the 2009–10 Budget, the government announced changes to the
student income support system. While these changes were based on the
recommendations of the Bradley Review and were aimed at providing support for
those students in genuine need, the proposals—particularly those relating the
workforce participation requirements for access to independent Youth Allowance (IYA)—put
forward initially by the government were fundamentally flawed. Rather than supporting
students in regional and remote Australia to access tertiary education, the
proposals would have resulted in further barriers to improving higher education
participation. Amendments agreed in the Senate to the Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 to provide
support for those students in greatest need were rejected by the government.
1.2
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for
Students) Bill 2009 [No.2] (the revised bill) incorporated amendments
negotiated by the Australian Greens and Senator Xenophon. During negotiations
with the government to secure the passage of the revised bill, the coalition
agreed to support the bill if further amendments were incorporated into the
revised bill.[1]
These amendments resulted in the two workforce participation criterion for
independent Youth Allowance that the government was seeking to remove from the
scheme remaining available for those students who must leave home to study,
whose parents earn less than $150,000 per year and who live in Very Remote,
Remote and Outer Regional areas. Those existing criteria required that:
- students worked part-time for at least 15 hours per week for at
least two years since leaving school; or
- students have been out of school for at least 18 months and have
earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage Level A of
the Australian Pay and Classification Scale in an 18 month period – the 'gap
year'.
1.3
While students from Very Remote, Remote and Outer Regional areas may
qualify for independent Youth Allowance through one of three criteria, all
other students are only eligible if they meet the new workforce participation
criteria of working full-time for an average of 30 hours per week for at least
18 months in the previous two years.[2]
1.4
While the new arrangements recognise the particular needs of some
regional students, the provisions contained in the revised bill[3]
have resulted in students residing in the Inner Regional zone being treated in
a different, and inequitable, manner. The coalition sought to address this
anomaly through an amendment to the revised bill. However, this amendment was
negatived by the Senate. The Social Security Amendment (Income Support for
Regional Students) Bill 2010 seeks to ensure that all regional students are
treated in a fair and equitable manner.
Income support arrangements for students in the Inner Regional zone
Equity issues for students in the
Inner Regional zone
1.5
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 purpose of determining
the 'regionality' of students. The map classifies Australia into five zones: Metropolitan,
Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote.
1.6
While the classifications are useful in some contexts—the committee
heard that they were used to determine some allowances for health professionals
working outside metropolitan areas —they are an entirely inappropriate basis
for determining the eligibility criteria for students seeking independent Youth
Allowance. The real issue for regional students is not whether they live in a Very
Remote, Remote, Outer Regional or Inner Regional zones but that they have no
choice other than to relocate to access tertiary education.[4]
Mr Paul Simmonds-Short summed up the problem for Inner Regional students:
It is only those residing in Perth that can do without living
on campus or within the local area; all the others will need to pay to do so,
so should be eligible for the allowance. The fact that a student lives in or
outside an arbitrary line drawn on a map is irrelevant.[5]
1.7
The Isolated Children's Parents' Association of Australia stated that:
...the use in isolation of the Australian Standard Geographical
Classification (ASGC) for residential location in order to determine which
workforce participation criteria is to be used for assessing independent Youth
Allowance, is flawed. Without due consideration to the important factor of
ability to access tertiary institutions within a defined geographical area,
merely considering where one resides is an unsuitable measure.[6]
1.8
Mr Hugh Warren added his view:
There may be nothing wrong with using the ARIA+ to set a demarcation
line. Just use the right line. Common sense demands that, if we are using the
instrument in the context of University assistance, the chosen line must be
that between Major City and Inner Regional classifications, between those who
can commute from home to University and those who cannot. It is simply idiotic
to pretend that driving up to 3 hours a day in each direction to attend Uni is
a viable option. Using the right line will not create the vaunted level playing
field of opportunity, but at least it will be a navigable slope up towards the
plateau of urban advantage rather than a sheer cliff.[7]
1.9
Ms Susan Barnett voiced her concerns more forcefully and stated that the
ASGC–RA 'was NOT designed to affect the eligibility of potential university students
to help finance their studies. It has been hijacked by the Federal Labor
Government for the purpose of making illogical lines on maps for IYA
eligibility'.[8]
1.10
It was strongly argued in evidence that students from the Inner Regional
zone require just as much support as those from the Very Remote, Remote or
Outer Regional zones. Submitters noted that few opportunities exist for Inner
Regional zone students to access tertiary institutions within commuting distance
of their family homes and some Inner Regional zone students are required to
relocate up to 450 kms to access their course of choice.[9]
Mrs Sally Quigley, Isolated Children's Parents Association, commented:
Most students from regional areas need to relocate to attend
a university as there is no university in their local town. Public transport is
severely limited or non-existent for towns that are close to large regional centres
with tertiary institutions, such as Tamworth, Orange or Devonport. Not all
regional universities offer all courses. Not all the towns listed in inner
regional Australia have universities, and if they do the courses can be very
limited.[10]
1.11
The costs of relocation are not less just because a student resided in
the Inner Regional zone – students must still pay for accommodation, food,
transport and study material in the city where they have relocated. Families
indicated that these costs amount to $15,000 to $20,000 per year per student.
This is an enormous amount of money for regional families, many already facing
difficult financial times, to find.
1.12
Indeed, Coalition senators note that the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations has recognised that the costs
of relocating for tertiary studies are faced by all non-metropolitan students.
The Minister announced in December 2010 that grants would be available under
the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund to students from 'areas other than major
capital cities'.[11]
The hardship grants are not just for those in the Very Remote, Remote and Inner
Regional zones. The government is thus recognising the relocation costs of
non-metropolitan students for access to the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund but
not in access to independent Youth Allowance. This is inequitable.
1.13
For some submitters, the concept that the government had grouped
students living in the Inner Regional zone with those in the Metropolitan zone
was beyond their comprehension. Submitters pointed out that Metropolitan
students could live at home and therefore continue to receive parental support
(and lower costs) that that brings. As Mr Hugh Warren commented:
It would seem that policy makers imagine that, in the context
of University attendance, living in Inner Regional Australia has little in
common with living in Outer Regional Australia, and is in fact essentially the
same as living in a Major City. Driving for 3 hours from Dunsborough to Crawley
(home of UWA) has more in common with a 5 minute bus ride from Claremont to
Crawley than with driving for 3 hours from Cowaramup to Crawley. Cowaramup
youth continue to avail themselves of workable Youth Allowance qualification
criteria, Dunsborough youth and Claremont cannot.[12]
1.14
Mr Hayden Walsh made the following comment:
...condemning students on the basis of where they live, as the
current legislation does, based on an unscrupulous 'means test' in the form of
geographical demarcation is not a viable or effective way of measuring who [should]
and who should not be able to qualify for Youth Allowance.[13]
1.15
The government's use of the ASGC–RA has also led to some inexplicable, and
indeed ludicrous, outcomes for regional students. These outcomes were not just limited
to differences in closely located towns and villages – the committee heard of
instances where residing on one side, or one end, of a street meant that the
different workforce participation criteria applied. The following are just a
few of the many examples of how the use of the ASGC–RA has led to inequitable
outcomes. Miss Sarah Dickens commented:
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.[14]
1.16
Ms Dickens resides in Mount Gambier where the only tertiary education
available is the small UniSA campus which offers some nursing courses and some
other TAFE subjects. As Councillor Richard Vickery, President, South East Local
Government Association, noted '98 per cent of the people in our region who
aspire to undertake tertiary studies need to relocate to Sydney, Melbourne
Perth–wherever–for the course that they wish to study'.[15]
1.17
Ms Susan Barnett stated:
Attunga with a population of 630 is 20 km from Tamworth. If
you live in the village on the left hand side of Manilla Road you are Outer
Regional and if you live on the right hand side (eg Garthowen Road) you are
classified as Inner Regional.
...In some cases, students living in Moonbi Gap Road in Moore
Creek are regarded as both Inner and Outer Regional depending on which end of
the road they live at. There is a family who are regarded as being Inner
Regional who can see from their house another home whose children are regarded
as Outer Regional with vastly different effects on the students in those families
seeking a university education and whose parental income requires them to apply
for IYA.
Places quite close to Armidale, such as Invergowrie and
Saumarez Ponds, are deemed to be 'outer regional'.[16]
1.18
Mr Steven and Mrs Anne Eccles provided further examples:
The ridiculous issue at Scone is the inner regional boundary
goes through the township of Scone itself. We live in 16 Koala Street Scone, 50
metres within the inner regional boundary. Across the road at Barton Street to
the east, still within the township of Scone, the new Figtree Estate is in the
outer region. So the new Figtree Estates 50 metres away in the $550,000 to
$700,000 priced houses, families meet the criteria while the $250,000 fibro
houses 50 metres away to the west the area we live in, in the same town are in
the inner area. Though we all live 150km away from the nearest university and
have the same limited transport facilities.[17]
1.19
Other submitters noted that some students residing in the Outer Regional
zone are closer to universities than students in the Inner Regional zone.[18]
1.20
It is not only students in regional areas who must travel to access the
tertiary institution or course of their choice. For example, students in Darwin
or Hobart who wish to study veterinary science must relocate to Brisbane,
Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. Likewise, forestry is only available at the
Australian National University in Canberra or at the University of Newcastle.
Mrs Dorothy Creek, Executive Director, Australian Parents Council, stated:
Some people are talking about students having to leave home
to attend a tertiary course and I do not think we can look at it as just a
tertiary course. We must look at it as the tertiary course of their choosing.
We are not talking about children just going to the closest university to do
whatever course they can get into, if that is not what their interest is. We
are looking at children being able to access courses that are going to be
beneficial to this whole country as well as to that student.[19]
1.21
Witnesses voiced concern at the inequity that now exists for
regionally-located students.[20]
Parents voiced dismay at the outcomes of using the ASGC–RA to establish which
criteria applies to their student children and expressed incomprehension at the
lack of understanding exhibited by the government as to the needs of regional
students. The following was submitted to the committee by one parent:
I am absolutely bewildered and angry that our government is
openly discriminating against educating children from inner rural areas of
Australia. Why are they not able to have the same choice of studying at the
university of their choice that their city counterparts do? We live 3.5 hours
away from Bathurst where my son has been accepted. This distance is too great
to travel each day so he has to live away from home...my son is holding down two
jobs and is constantly improving his qualifications so as to truly become
independent.[21]
1.22
Ms Jill Rogers submitted the following:
...how can there now be 2 different classifications for rural
students? Can someone please explain to me why the family 5-10 minutes down the
road from us are classified as outer regional and we are inner regional? The
students all went to the same school, caught the same school bus, and all have
to travel 3 hours away from the family home to go to uni. How can that possibly
be fair? We now have division between rural and metro and rural and rural.[22]
1.23
The examples provided above are but a few of the many received by the
committee illustrating the inequitable outcomes for regional students arising
from the government's reformed income support system. The committee was also provided
with evidence of the financial impact of the reforms. For example, the Bird
family have one daughter who received support under the 'old' arrangements as
an independent student and another daughter who will attend university under
the new regime. The difference in support for the siblings is substantial and
shows the potential impact on rural families.
Table 1: Comparison of support schemes
Daughter No 1 – former arrangements |
Daughter No 2 – new arrangements |
Youth Allowance |
$377.00 |
Youth Allowance |
$ 25.39 |
Rent Assistance |
$ 76.80 |
Rent Assistance |
$113.40 |
Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship |
$173.38 |
Start Up/Relocation |
$235.69 |
Total |
$627.18 pfn |
Total |
$374.48 pfn |
Source: John and Sue Bird,
Submission 31, p. 1.
Employment opportunities in
regional Australia
1.24
One of the problems facing students from Inner Regional zones is access
to employment so that they can meet the workforce participation criterion of
working full-time for an average of 30 hours per week for at least 18 months in
the previous two years. This was a major concern for submitters as many pointed
out that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find jobs in regional areas to
qualify for independent Youth Allowance under the 'average of 30 hours per
week' criterion. Employment in many regional areas is unreliable, seasonal,
agricultural or the tourist/service industry.[23]
For example, Ms Fiona Mullen submitted:
Most of my daughter's peers found this a very difficult, if
not impossible task in a town with a population of 25000 and a higher than average
unemployment rate.[24]
1.25
Ms Maureen Campbell, Country Women's Association of New South Wales,
Monaro Area, commented on employment opportunities in her region:
One of the problems with them having to get work is that
there is not a lot of work around. The Monaro district has been in drought on
and off for 17 years and a high percentage of property owners down there
have already got off-farm employment, and have to have in order to survive, and
any support that their young people could have would be invaluable. There is
not a lot of employment down there and if the young people do not go to further
their education they have got to leave home anyway, and on the whole it breaks
up the family unit.[25]
1.26
CQ University also commented that finding a job in Inner Regional areas
is no easier than finding a job in the Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote
zones. This is supported by SEIFA data indicators of disadvantage and CQ
University concluded that:
...making it more difficult for students from these
inner-regional areas to access appropriate income support compounds place-based
inequities as highlighted as a contributing factor of social exclusion in
Australia.[26]
1.27
Many students submitted to the committee and provided examples of their
particular circumstances, for example, Mr Hayden Walsh commented:
For the past two years I have been employed with my local
Coles, Port Macquarie NSW. Aiming to qualify for independent Youth Allowance I
undertook a Gap Year despite trepidation of the, then, changes with the confidence
that such a divisive Bill would not pass the Senate. The reality however was
somewhat different, and since then I have pursued multiple and arduous shifts
between the three Coles stores here, with constant apprehension of my casual
position and added uncertainty of hours to compete with new eligibility criteria.
Meanwhile in the time I didn't work I searched and applied hoping I could pick
up a second job (if you don't count working at two additional Coles stores as
multiple jobs).
Despite all of this I know if the current legislation is to
continue unamended I will not qualify for independent Youth Allowance.[27]
1.28
The policy assumes that work is available to young people in Inner
Regional small towns to the same extent as larger towns—a patently flawed
assumption. Ms Barnett commented:
Werris Creek has 1200 people and is 50km from Tamworth. Yet
according the Labor Government's classification for ascertaining which workforce
participation criteria apply, the young people of Werris Creek have the same
opportunities to find 30 hours work per week for 18 months – just like students
in Tamworth, Bendigo, Albury and Gosford.[28]
1.29
The Snowy River Shire Council also commented that in many regional areas
young people must leave home in search of work to become eligible for Youth Allowance
and this adds to the costs of rural and regional working families who are less
likely to be able to afford those costs.[29]
1.30
In relation to the recent floods, coalition senators are very concerned
about their impact on the ability of Inner Regional students to meet the very
strict workforce participation criteria. While the amendments agreed to by the
government now require an 'average' of 30 hours per week, the flooding has been
so severe that the work opportunities in many areas of Australia will be
disrupted for a substantial amount of time. Even before the January floods,
witnesses raised concerns. Ms Quigley commented:
The requirement to average either 120 hours in each of 19
periods of four weeks or 390 hours in each of six periods of 13 weeks is
ridiculous. Consider the huge wet that has just occurred in eastern Australia.
The sitdown time of this could mean that a student who hoped to qualify under
the 30-hour rule but who has been unable to work during this time would be
unable to fulfil the requirement. The wet period may make the difference
between a student qualifying or not. Does the government really want students
to miss out just because their average hours are a bit short in one or two of
these periods?[30]
1.31
Coalition senators consider that the effects of the flooding are so devastating,
so wide-spread and so disruptive to rural life that this matter should be
addressed as a matter of urgency. Coalition senators note that the Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (the department) has stated it
'is considering a range of responses to ensure individuals are not
disadvantaged by their particular circumstances as a direct result of the
December-January floods'.[31]
1.32
However, more than just consideration of responses is required: urgent
and specific action must be in place before the commencement of the 2011
tertiary academic year. Coalition senators consider that one of the specific
measures that should be evaluated by the department is a moratorium on the
criteria for independent Youth Allowance for the months of December 2010,
January 2011, February 2011 and March 2011. That is, for any student in
regional Australia seeking to qualify for independent Youth Allowance, if the
eligibility period includes the months of December 2010 and January to March
2011, that those months not be counted for the workforce participation
criteria. Students would still be qualifying in the same 18 month or 2
year period, but those months would be excluded from any calculations of the
hours per week or earning requirements. This would recognise the lack of
employment opportunities for regional students as a result of the flooding.
1.33
Coalition senators acknowledge Recommendation 1 of the committee majority
report and agree that the response to the recent flooding be finalised as a
matter of priority.
Effects on Inner Regional students
1.34
Many submitters raised concerns about the detrimental effects of the new
income support system on Inner Regional students. These concerns ranged from
the impact on take-up rates of tertiary places to potential mental health
issues.
1.35
Submitters argued that the change to workforce participation criteria
for Inner Regional students will have a detrimental impact on tertiary place take-up
rates by students. The committee heard that many students just cannot afford to
take-up tertiary places without independent Youth Allowance. Miss Dickins
provided the following example:
I have some friends who have been affected. One finished year
12 last year and got a TER of 98. Her family is not in a position to be able to
send her away without full youth allowance payments. They would qualify for a
partial rate but they have sat down and they have done the figures and it is
just not enough for her to be able to move. So she is working at Video Ezy
where she has been promoted to a manager's role very quickly. She is a very
bright girl but her parents just cannot afford for her to go. So with a TER of
98 she is in Mount Gambier working at Video Ezy.[32]
1.36
It was also noted in evidence that the new workforce participation
criterion will effectively extend the gap-year to two years. Concerns were
voiced that this will further exacerbate the trend for regional students not to
take-up their tertiary places following a deferral of studies.[33]
Mrs Quigley commented:
...I think two years is too long. You cannot defer from a
university—kids go off and get jobs. They get jobs in mines, they earn big
money and they think: ‘What is the point? Why go and get an education? I can
earn money. I have got money to spend.’ It is too late. Plus all their peers
are already there. When they are older they do not want to go to university
with a younger crowd of people. They want to be there with students the same
age as those that they went to school with.[34]
1.37
As noted in the report of the Senate Standing Rural and Regional Affairs
and Transport References Committee inquiry into the Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, 30 per cent of
students who formally defer a university offer to take a gap-year never return
to study.[35]
Coalition senators are concerned that the effective lengthening of the gap
between leaving school and being able to move into tertiary education will see
an increase in the number of students who never return to study.
1.38
There were also concerns that the new arrangements 'needlessly' delay
students moving on to tertiary education after finishing school. As Mrs Dorothy
Creek, Australian Parents Council, commented:
If a student works for two years and then accesses
independent youth allowance, they end up having independent youth allowance for
their four years or more of tertiary education. Only two years of that is
obtained by their workforce participation, because after that they are already
independent. What is the government actually saving? They are just delaying it
by putting it off for two years.[36]
1.39
In addition, extending the gap was seen as potentially acting as a
barrier to taking up certain higher education courses, particularly courses of
longer duration such as architecture and medicine, or worse, failing to take up
any tertiary study at all.[37]
In addition, many submitters pointed out that lengthening the qualifying period
does not mesh well with the policies of many universities: some do not allow
for a deferral of more than one year; and many do not have courses which commence
mid-year.[38]
1.40
Of great concern to coalition senators is the potential for adverse
mental health outcomes for Inner Regional students and their families. Mrs
Shelley O'Brien, Injury Control Council of Western Australia, provided the
following evidence to the committee:
The financial pressures really are going to be quite
considerable if they have to factor in not having access to youth allowance.
These financial pressures, we understand from mental health, lead to family
disharmony; increased levels of mental ill-health and depression; pressures on
other family members and risks to younger siblings; increases in domestic
violence potential loss of family home or car; family discussions about
financial prioritising; feelings of discrimination; and, in small communities,
the fears of shame leading onto isolation are real pressures.
...Our main argument is that the mental health of families is
being impacted on quite dramatically within families and also in the wider
community.[39]
1.41
In addition, Mrs O'Brien raised specific concerns for young people in
the 15 to 25 year age group:
The other thing is that, from a science perspective, young
people need to be able to traverse what is known in the mental health world as
the critical period, covering the age group from 15 to 25. As research shows
and mortality data suggests, mental illness, substance abuse and those sorts of
things are the highest per head of population. Any assistance that policy,
services and resources can provide in assisting a young person to traverse this
period is going to provide significant social and economic benefits. So we are
looking at making sure that there is capacity for a good investment to support
and resource a young person’s journey into adulthood. The youth allowance
allowed that. It allowed families to regulate their own homes in order to support
this trajectory and the best possible pathway. Exposing young people to a delay
in being able to access the sort of education that they need is going to
increase their risk and their vulnerability. For us that is a significant
concern.[40]
Government's proposed review of
income support reforms
1.42
Coalition senators note that the revised bill provided for a review of
the impact of the student income support reforms, particularly the impact on
rural and regional students. The review is to be completed by 30 June 2012. The
then minister stated that 'I am very confident that the review will show that
these arrangements are better for regional and rural students'.[41]
Coalition senators acknowledge that new government programs should be reviewed
to ensure that no adverse outcomes arise from the implementation of programs.
However, in the case of the impact of the government's income support reforms
on regional students, the evidence is already in: the reforms are inequitable
and will impose yet another barrier to Inner Regional students seeking to
undertake tertiary education. Coalition senators consider that the only review
that should be undertaken is a comprehensive review of the education needs of
all regional students. Such a review should address the barriers facing
regional students wishing to undertake tertiary studies and consider a better
way to provide financial assistance to those students.
Long-term effects in regional
Australia
1.43
Submitters, including the University of South Australia (UniSA), voiced
concern about the long-term impact that the government's legislation on
independent Youth Allowance will have on regional communities. The UniSA noted
that many exciting developments are occurring in regional South Australia in
the areas of mining, agriculture, transport and energy. Support for regional
students to undertake tertiary studies will aid the further development of
these industries and build strong regional communities as regional students
will be able to return to stay in their communities following completion of
their studies.[42]
The South East Local Government Association argued:
The high costs of education combined with the high costs of
relocation will impact on the participation of rural and regional students.
There will be a resultant reduction in numbers attending higher education and
the gap between city and country will be widened rather than bridged.
There will be an increase in the number of families who will
leave rural and regional Australia to provide their children with opportunities
for higher education. There is year to year evidence of this happening and it
is resulting in the loss of professional and skilled families who move to the
city to give their kids what they believe is the best start to the careers.
This will impact on economic and community development and will result in
population decline.[43]
1.44
Mrs O'Brien stated:
We are also very concerned about the potential loss of
intellectual property in the south-west—what we are calling a further dumbing
down of our regional areas.[44]
1.45
A further concern raised is the loss of professionals from regional
areas. Evidence received indicated that professionals were considering moving
to cities where they can earn more money, and bare lower costs by having their
children live at home while they complete their education. This will put
further pressure on the rural professional workforce.[45]
Dr C J Lewis submitted:
As a General Practitioner in an extremely busy practice in
Eaton WA, I feel like I am at a 'crossroads' as I have 3 children to educate at
university in the next 5 years. With the removal of the Youth Allowance, this
will cost me +- $ 40 000 in accommodation and living expenses.
Due to the above circumstances, I am seriously considering
relocating to Perth, where my children will be able to attend university, but
live at home.
Unfortunately, Eaton is already short of Doctors and several
of my colleagues are in the same situation as I am.
I hope the decision by the government to remove the Youth
allowance, does not result in a severe shortage of medical professionals in the
disadvantaged rural areas.[46]
1.46
It was also noted that many students returned to their homes once they
have finished their tertiary education.[47]
Ms Karen Tully, National Rural Women's Coalition, commented:
Numerous studies have shown that individuals who are most
likely to live and work in the bush, those who are most likely to take career
steps away from the urban environment, are those who have spent time in
regional Australia. Sure, many workers in the areas of health education et
cetera come from the city to work in rural Australia; however, most serve their
obligatory two- or three-year term and then return to the cities. That is a
fact of life, and we thank those workers for their contributions to rural
Australia. However, guess who are the ones that tend to stay on and serve rural
communities for greater periods of time, often in more meaningful ways? Who are
the leaders and the mainstays of our rural areas? What is the background of
those who stay for longer periods or indeed make rural Australia their
long-term home? Yes, it is the people who originally come from regional and
remote Australia. They are the ones who are our long-term workers.[48]
1.47
Councillor Richard Vickery also stated:
In those figures about what people do later in life, people
who are used to growing up in rural and regional communities tend to get used
to that sense of community and are far more likely to return to those
communities. Our falling percentage of tertiary uptake in the regions and
issues like that are exacerbated considerably. I understand how the situation
came about, but it needs to be remedied quickly.[49]
1.48
Mr Richard and Mrs Leanne Ford added their view:
The new rules will work against a vibrant and sustained rural
economy at a time where the ability to entice professionals from their
metropolitan support base is already very difficult. The young people targeted
adversely by the new rules are the very best hope to have high quality
professional skills available in regional areas. They deserve to be supported
strongly by Government not the reverse![50]
1.49
Submitters also argued that the present income support arrangements
undermine the aims of the government's much vaunted Education Revolution to
increase participation of students from rural and regional backgrounds in
tertiary education.[51]
The Snowy River Shire Council commented:
...these new guidelines are inconsistent with the view held by
the Labor Government which seeks to increase post secondary education
participation leading to a higher skill level which in turn increases
productivity in the long term.[52]
1.50
The University of Tasmania noted that major economic benefits arise from
increased educational attainment: if the average educational attainment of the
working-age population were to rise by a year, real GDP should rise by eight
per cent.[53]
The so-called 'deal'
1.51
The government has made much of the so-called 'deal' that allowed the
revised bill to pass the Senate. Coalition senators wish to make it clear that
they supported the legislation at that time to ensure that students were able
to access the beneficial measures contained in the legislation. Indeed, Senator
Mason stated during the second reading debate:
We have never had problems with the bulk of changes in the Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill
2009 [No. 2] that is before us today, such as the introduction of new
scholarships and most of the changes to youth allowance, but we have major
problems with two aspects of the bill: firstly, its retrospective impact on
students who have already made decisions affecting their lives, work and
education based on the law as it previously stood and, secondly, the attempt to
narrow the avenues to achieving independence by workforce participation for the
purposes of receiving youth allowance.[54]
1.52
However, the government chose to put the non-contentious reforms, such
as the new scholarships, and the more controversial changes into the one bill.
By not splitting the bill, the only option open to coalition senators was to
allow the bill to proceed, so that many students would not be disadvantaged, while
continuing to pursue a better outcome for Inner Regional students. Coalition
senators did so by moving an amendment in the committee of the whole to add the
Inner Regional zone to the provisions maintaining the three workforce
participation criterion.
1.53
While the government saw fit to try to label this as some sort of
reneging on a 'done deal' for the sake of political posturing,[55]
the coalition continued to seek to overturn the very great inequity that
government has now visited on students in the Inner Regional zone. This is not
about political posturing; it is about ensuring equity in access to tertiary education;
it is about supporting families in need; and it is about ensuring that rural
communities grow and thrive through a well-educated population.
Conclusion
1.54
The government's decision to apply different criteria for independent
Youth Allowance to students in one of the four regional zones is inequitable
and discriminatory. The government's decision shows that it has failed to
understand the very real pressures on rural and regional families and students.
1.55
The evidence received by the committee pointed to many inconsistencies
that have arisen because of this policy even to where students in the same
street are treated differently when they apply for independent Youth Allowance.
This policy does not take into account the realities facing Inner Regional zone
students: that they must travel to take up tertiary education places and face
the same costs as students from the Very Remote, Remote and Outer Regional
zones. Inner Regional students face the same relocation costs which may be as
high as $20,000 per year. They also face uncertain employment opportunities as
work in regional areas is often seasonal and unpredictable and therefore many
will find it difficult to meet the very onerous 30 hours per week
participation requirements.
1.56
The government has recognised that all regional students face costs in
relocating to study: the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund is available to students
from areas other than major capital cities who are experiencing severe
financial hardship. This recognition of the realities of being a student from
regional Australia has not been carried over to independent Youth Allowance.
1.57
This policy is having significant adverse effects on Inner Regional
students. There is evidence that Inner Regional students are failing to take up
tertiary places; are discouraged from enrolling in courses of a longer duration
such as medicine; and suffering adverse mental health outcomes. Not only has
the rug been pulled out from under the feet of many regional students, but the
policy has also the potential to undermine the viability of regional
communities. The evidence shows that regional students who go away to study are
more likely to return to their communities and practice their professions. The
government is being negligent in not providing every support to ensure that
regional students access tertiary education.
1.58
Coalition senators consider that this bill addresses a great inequity that
currently exists for regional students, families and communities. Young people
from regional Australia are only asking to be treated in an equitable manner.
Once they have gained their tertiary qualifications many return to their
communities and contribute to building a strong and resilient regional
Australia. With a well educated population regional Australia will continue to
make significant contributions to the economy to the benefit of all
Australians.
1.59
While the bill aims to overcome the current inequitable situation faced
by regional students in relation to independent Youth Allowance, it is only a
part solution. The real issue is that there are many barriers for regional
students to accessing tertiary education including that many students must
relocate to access the course of their choice. The inquiry by the Senate Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into to access to
secondary and tertiary education opportunities for rural and regional students
recommended that the Government introduce a Tertiary Access Allowance for
students who are required to move away from home to access tertiary education.[56]
1.60
Coalition senators also consider that there is a great need for a
thorough and comprehensive review that focuses on the educational needs of all
regional students. Effective strategies are required to overcome the barriers
that currently exist for students in regional Australia in accessing tertiary
education opportunities.
Recommendation 1
1.61
Coalition senators recommend that the government, as a matter of
urgency, establish a comprehensive review of the educational needs of all
regional students and in particular, that the review focus on implementing
strategies to overcome inequity in educational opportunities for regional
students including assistance for students who are required to move away from
home.
1.62
Coalition senators also wish to thank all those who submitted to the inquiry.
The very large number of submissions received, many based on personal
experience, show the depth of concern in regional areas about the government's
changes to the student income support arrangements. It is unfortunate that the
committee had the capacity to have only one hearing in Canberra. However, the
submissions received paint a vivid picture of the detrimental outcomes that the
government's legislation regarding independent Youth Allowance is having on
students, families and communities in Inner Regional Australia.
Recommendation 2
1.63
Coalition senators recommend that the bill be passed.
Senator Chris
Back Senator Fiona Nash
Deputy Chair Senator
for New South Wales
Senator for Western Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page