MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Education

August 12, 2009

You have got to hand it to the Rudd government: they are all about spin. They are big on spin, they are big on cliches, they are big on promises, they are big on hard hats and orange vests but they are small on results.

When they coined the phrase ‘the education revolution’, a reasonable person would have believed that they were thinking about a quantum leap in standards or that they were talking about greater access to education for all Australians, no matter where they live. The Australian people should have been able to expect, I believe, that they would receive real results delivered on the ground, not government spin.

When we look at the Building the Education Revolution program and the rollout of this program, it is more an education illusion than an education revolution. We see a program that has been characterised by waste and mismanagement. We see a program that is not delivering services effectively. We see a program that is so much subject to this allegation of waste that the Auditor-General is in fact undertaking a full performance audit. It must be something that should be recorded in the Guinness Book of Records—a program only three months old and already the subject of a full performance audit, such is the waste by this minister and such is the mismanagement on this minister’s watch.

The education revolution should have as its aim access to education for all Australians and access to education no matter where you live. A true education revolution would have the aim of maximising the potential of our youth. A true education revolution would have as its aim maximising national productivity. Instead, we see Labor’s education illusion being all about hard-hat photo opportunities and spin rather than about improving the prospects for our youth.

I would ask the members opposite: how is denying youth allowance to people in regional and rural areas going to build an education revolution? How is denying youth allowance going to affect the youth of our country? It is going to discourage the youth of this country; it is not going to improve their prospects. The changes that this government proposes to put in place with regard to independent youth allowance will severely disadvantage regional students and rural students. From 1 January next year, this government is proposing to alter the eligibility for independent youth allowance so that students will have to work 30 hours per week for 18 months in order to qualify. These changes will affect all students but will impact most heavily on those students who are required to move away from home to pursue the course of their choice.

Whilst metro students in many cases can do the course of their choice within commuting distance of their homes, regional and rural students often have to travel long distances and incur great expense to access the same opportunities, opportunities that are much more readily available to people in our major cities. The government changes will effectively eliminate the gap year, where many students defer their course to earn enough money in 12 months to qualify for independent youth allowance. This proposed change will greatly affect thousands of students who wish to study in future years.

But its impact will be greatest on those students who are in their gap year this year and who are working towards earning $19,500 so as to qualify for independent youth allowance in 2010. These students have planned their work and their studies but they have been kicked in the teeth by this government. They have been basically confronted with what will effectively be retrospective legislation. Many of these students chose to defer their studies and to work for a year specifically to gain access to that independent youth allowance so that they would be financially able to complete their course, financially able to support themselves, and that has been dashed by the policy moves of this government. They made a decision based on the eligibility criteria. They made that decision in good faith on the criteria that existed at the time they commenced their gap year.

Many will not be able to defer for 18 months and many will not be able to secure the 30 hours per week which is required to qualify under the new scheme. As a result, what is going to happen? The result will be that many students from regional and rural areas will not get the benefits of tertiary training, will not get opportunities to upskill and will not get opportunities to maximise their potential in this country, which should be the aim of the so-called education revolution.

The requirement that students work 30 hours per week totally ignores the difficulties of obtaining employment in regional areas. Employment opportunities are limited in regional areas compared to the city. It is not easy to obtain 30 hours of employment each and every week. It is not an easy thing to do. What is worse, Centrelink is advising students that under the new guidelines—very ‘revolutionary’ indeed—a student unable to secure 30 hours of work in any one week has to go back to scratch with regard to their eligibility and start the process all over again. How realistic is that? The student is precluded from banking hours in the weeks where he or she may do 60 hours a week. He or she cannot bank those hours for the weeks when work may not be available.

It is absolutely outrageous to apply these guidelines in this way, it is absolutely discriminatory and it could not form part of a so-called education revolution. Where does this leave regional and rural students who are in seasonal areas, where work is perhaps available at harvest time, or in tourist areas, where—

Mr Pyne —Put them on ice!

Mr Hartsuyker —That is it; they have to go into some form of suspended animation. The reality is that these changes are a retrograde step and discriminate against people from regional and rural areas. This policy totally disregards the plight of students from regional and rural areas, where employment options are limited, work is largely seasonal and it is very difficult to achieve the 30-hour-per-week benchmark. It is a policy that has impacted on students who acted in good faith, who had started their gap year this year and who had their plan in place to better themselves into the future, and they have had those plans dashed. This callous minister, who is out of touch, refuses to consider their plight.

It is interesting to note the comments of the Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee, chaired by the Labor member Geoff Howard.

Mr Pyne —Labor?

Mr Hartsuyker —Yes, Labor. Geoff Howard is a famous name about this House. He is a Labor member in a committee with a Labor majority.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Mr Hartsuyker—That is correct, yes. The committee investigated the issue of rural disadvantage in relation to the government’s youth allowance measures. The report was supported unanimously by all participants, and what did they find? What did this committee find? The committee said:

A disastrous effect!

Mr Chester —What sort of effect?

Mr Hartsuyker —A disastrous effect, Member for Gippsland. This is a committee chaired by Labor, with a majority held by Labor, concluding what this government will not admit: that these changes will have a disastrous effect. The committee went on to say that it:

So there we have a Labor committee, from a Labor state government, with a Labor majority, concluding that this will be bad for students in regional and rural areas and bad for the so-called education revolution.

So how does the denial of independent youth allowance to so many regional and rural students contribute to an education revolution? How is making it more difficult for regional and rural students to obtain tertiary qualifications and trade skills—when they are more likely to go back into the regions where those skills are required—taking them out of the system or giving them a disincentive going to improve this nation into the future? I would maintain that this is one of the greatest backward steps in Australian education in quite some years.

How can the government claim that it is fair to pull the rug out from under regional and rural students who made decisions some time back on their future based on the status quo? How can it claim it to be fair to discriminate against students who face far higher costs in obtaining an education than those in the metropolitan areas? The government should be condemned for these changes. The Building the Education Revolution program has proven to be grossly mismanaged. It is proving to be working against many students, particularly those in regional and rural areas.