Income Support for Students
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Wednesday 28th October 2009, 11:32am
by SarahHanson-Young in
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, proposes a raft of measures aimed at reforming the way in which student income support is rolled out, based on recommendations from the Bradley Review.
While the Greens are supportive of a number of reforms proposed within this package, we remain concerned that changes to the workforce eligibility criteria, is particularly unfair for rural and regional students who commonly defer university to take a ‘gap year' to fulfil the workforce participation criteria, and so be able to undertake tertiary study away from home in a capital city or regional centre the following year with income support.
The need for adequate student income support is particularly acute for those who have no choice but to leave home to take their place in higher education and fulfil the potential they have demonstrated by earning that university place.
Reform package:
While the Government has been more than forthcoming with producing the figures on how many students will benefit from this reform package, they have failed to adequately identify just how many students will miss out on a payment all together.
It should be noted that there has been no public release of the economic modelling used to derive this budget package reform
It is clear that while there are some positive reforms contained within this package, the fact that the Government has refused to put one extra dollar into funding student support highlights the problems when students are left carrying the can for the Government's Budget savings.
We are concerned that the Government's own briefing materials on this reform package misleads potential Youth Allowance recipients as to their fortnightly income amount, as the calculations include the scholarships in the overall living allowance, which is clearly not the intention of the payments.
The Greens have long advocated for the need to provide a specific payment to students to assist in the educational costs associated with tertiary studies, and welcome the inclusion of the Start-Up scholarship and the Relocation scholarship as two positive additions to the overall package. However, what we do not want to see is the Government use these scholarships to avoid an increase in the dismal living away from home amount of $371.40 per fortnight.
During the public inquiry, Universities Australia informed the committee that "If you compare income support for Australian students against the OECD benchmarks, we rate very lowly. It just puts before us the speculation-perhaps it is more than speculation and is a probability-that being revenue neutral in relation to these expenditures will just shift pockets of inequality rather than address inequality on a structural basis."
Therefore, the Greens are recommending:
- Given Australia lags behind the rest of the OECD countries when it comes to adequately investing in student income support, the Greens recommend that at the very least, the Government commit to an increase in the 2010/11 Budget to bring Youth Allowance in line with other social welfare payments such as Newstart, which provides a maximum fortnightly payment of $456.
- The Greens further recommend that the Government commit to a comprehensive review of the impact of the new student income arrangements in 2012 (ie once they are all in place) on equity with a particular focus on the impact on rural and regional students.
Workforce eligibility criteria:
As part of their reform package, the Government announced that two of the three workforce participation criteria for a young person to qualify as Independent, and receive Youth Allowance as income support while they study, will be removed effective from 1 January 2010. The Government's own estimates suggest that 30,700 young people will be caught short by these changes.
While the changing of the ‘goal posts' was originally intended to commence on 1 January 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister has since announced that the commencement of this change would be delayed for six months, finally acknowledging the unfairness of this proposed Budget measure, which would have had a retrospective effect on thousands of gap year students currently working towards qualifying for student income support next year.
While the Greens welcomed moves by the Government to push back the start date of its workforce eligibility changes, we remain concerned that this will be funded through delaying changes to the level of personal income at which Youth Allowance and Austudy begin to be reduced from 2011 to 2012.
Despite seeing fairness in backing down on the start date of its Youth Allowance eligibility changes to accommodate current gap year students who must leave home to study, the Government cannot shy away from its responsibility to support future aspiring university students from those areas, without replacing it with a comparable option.
Therefore, the Greens are recommending:
- The Greens recommend that an eligibility criterion for geographically disadvantaged students be established, for those students who have no choice but to leave home to undertake tertiary studies, and by virtue become independent from their parents.While the Government's backflip on the start date to its workforce eligibility changes was a welcome announcement, the Greens recommend that the important changes to the Youth Allowance personal income test should take effect from the original starting date of 1 January 2011, as announced in the 2009/10 Budget.
- While the Government's backflip on the start date to its workforce eligibility changes was a welcome announcement, the Greens recommend that the important changes to the Youth Allowance personal income test should take effect from the original starting date of 1 January 2011, as announced in the 2009/10 Budget.
Postgraduate support:
Part 13 of the Bill proposes an exemption for scholarships to the annual value of $6,762 (indexed) from the income test under social security legislation, with the aim of providing "an incentive to individuals and organisations to fund scholarships for students".
While the Greens are indeed supportive of this measure, we agree with the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) that the scope of the proposed
Amendments should be adjusted "in order to yield a far greater benefit for students at negligible additional cost."
Therefore, the Greens are recommending:
- The Greens recommend that the Government amend the threshold amount outlined under item 14, subsection 8AB of the Bill to the value of $13,524 (indexed). This figure, proposed by CAPA, is double the proposed threshold, and would remove the "penalty" effect of being awarded a small or part time scholarship.
- The Greens recommend that the Bill be amended to exempt scholarships as assessable income for the purposes of eligibility for parenting, carer and disability support payments. This would be of great benefit to parents who are already struggling to balance work and study with parenting and carer responsibilities.
While there is support for many of the reforms in this package put forward by the Government, we remain concerned that prospective students from rural and regional Australia, who have no choice but to leave the family home to undertake tertiary study, are not appropriately supported.
The Government should be investing more in supporting students from rural and regional Australia at a time when we know the job market is tightening and more young people are turning to higher education to upskill.
The Greens will be proposing changes to the legislation to remedy our concerns, and reserve our final position on the bill pending the outcome of negotiations on these amendments.

Comments
All I Remeber About - Income Support for Students
What I want to discuss about - Income Support for Students might not the same as what is being discussed here.
So let me just say it.
When I was young and my parents were working on average 6 days of the week for year and years. Some time its was still less than 40HR per week per parent but they were almost always away during quality family time hours.
Sometimes there were working 2 jobs and at other times they were working 3, but the cash flow was still under what I would consider middle class wages. I really respected that hard working approach but after 10 years of being a student under those conditions I decided to defer University - of course I went to University - In fact I studied at 3 Universities to date + 1 Online University. I have worked for 3 University projects also.
The point is during the entire struggle / battle / hardship - I was never eligible for Income Student. At times I'm sure I remember thinking how unfair the System was, after all - I was never really a receiver of my parents money, they had my 2 younger sibling to take care of still.
To sum up the experience, I would say:
1) Unfair
2) Anti-Competitive
3) Unjust
4) Irrational
5) Full of discrimination
6) Perhaps at time racist
7) Under estimated and ill planned
I'm calling for a much fairer time slice, or round robbing of the assistance. Making funding available to students regardless, richer or poorer.
Please bring equality back to all young students. Please!
Youth Allowance Proposed Changes
I am requesting that the changes demanding that eligible recipients of Youth Allowance be forced to move out of home effective from 01/01/10 in order to qualify be abolished. How dare the government out my child into a vulnerable position of living rough in order to meet the qualifications for Youth Allowance independent as one of the gap years. We live more than 90 minutes from any university that provides a primary teaching degree. Our eldest son has Youth Allowance as an independent and is not made to live out of home to qualify. He qualified through self supporting employment. Our daughter, as a gap year student, is doing the same. By making her move out of home to qaulify, the government is creating additional strain on a family budget to subsidize the small amount that you provide as payment. The government expects my daughter to abandon her 20 hrs per week of paid employment (and live on $371 per fortnight), withdraw from her volunteer work within the local community, disengage from family and friends, become isolated and solely reliant on benefits from the government. The legislation that is being considered needs to be considered - it should not be mandated that they MUST move out of home. After all, regional young people (ie living in Ballarat and Bendigo) who choose to attend their local universities and remain living at home, won't qualify under these changes either. If a young person, takes the initiative to work, sacrifice their placement at university for a period of 2 years, risking not continuing their further study because their families are unable to support and pay for them to attend their courses, then we are breeding a generation of children who won't achieve what the government proposes about obtaining a degree. Why is it so hard for the government, following the recommendations of the Bradley Report, getting it so wrong? I should not have one child living at home and one child being made to live out of home to qualify for the same entitlements. The proposed requirement to move out of home MUST be voted against when parliament resumes. After all, these young people are the voters at the next election. Vote for the legislation and risk losing your seat at the next elections. I for one will NOT be supporting any politician who endorses the destruction of a family unit for the benefit of a few bucks.
Funding for Youth Allowance
Leanne, I am sure the Government has thought long and hard of where to reduce funding to enable them to avoid making changes. If you can suggest where the Government could take funds from within the Welfare bucket to retain Youth Allowance as it was, I am sure they would consider.
I would expect that they even looked at where they could reduce expenditure in the Education, and Health buckets as well, as these are probaly the only large buckets funds could be withdrawn from. However, for example, reducing hospital beds to retain the Youth Allowance may not be very popular with the general community.
Governments and money, again
Come on mate, spare us the, "my heart bleeds for Kevin" stuff please. In my previous post on the subject I spelt out several areas in which our beloved leaders shovel out the stuff in billions for extremely dubious projects. No, they do not need to close hospitals, schools, starve the elderly - assuming they don't do that anyway - or shut down the Lost Dogs' Home, in order to fund all these feckless youth. Governments will always find plenty of money for anything they want to spend it on; if they are cutting Youth Allowance it is because they do not wish to fund it, probably because they think it is a cut that will arouse minimal wrath amongst those whom they expect to vote for them. Their spin doctors have probably told them the bone idle, glue sniffing youth, who are too lazy to get a proper job, and are only spending time in education to avoid work, are an easy enough group to pick off anyway. After all, they have a lot of mates who have to be looked after first you know, and you wouldn't want to have a summer of power cuts now would you?
Youth Allowance for Gap Year Students
Dear Sarah,
Your press release gives the impression that you are no longer concerned about the current gap year students who do not fit into the 'must move' category. It is completely unfair that these students who, often on the advice of centrelink, took at gap year in November 2008 in order to qualify for youth allowance. We are now in November 2009 and these students have spent the past 6 months unsure of what, if any, youth allowance they will now receive.
Please fight to have the changes to the independence criteria delayed for all current gap year students, so that they can qualify under the rules that were in place in November 2008 when they decided to take a gap year.
It is unfair and unacceptable of the Government to move the goal posts half way through this year.
Thank you,
SUSAN CULLEN
youth allowance
I am a single father with 3 childen one of whom has flown the coup. One is presently on youth allowance. I work and make approx $36,000 a year where half goes to rent. My daughters youth allowance may be effected because my income is over $33,000. Married couples with or without $500,000 dolllar homes (payed for ) may receive FTB A or B up to a income of $45,000 dollars. I am not entitled to a pension or health care card and get no support. If I had my own business or company I could employ my own child and ensure they make enough money to meet the independent requirements. Poverty prevents these possible rorts. If this bill is not passed it will be a travesty for 150,000 students. Please pass this bill for the sake of the majority and the poor.
There Are` Limits To Taxpayer Largesse
While I do agree the current system is both a market and policy failure, I do not support simply slugging the taxpayer to cough up the Newstart amount for all uni. students. Given the government's insane frenzy to push as many young people as people into universities - thereby turning the lower tier university degrees into pretty worthless toilet-paper, we are inevitably going to have a lot of burger-flippers with degrees.
While I do support the government kicking in, some must also come from the beneficiary - the student herself - whether through HECs-style loans, a change in culture where parents start putting money aside for their kids' tertiary education,university scholarships (which many of our unis are already quite good at, and getting better) or government-guaranteed loans.
While there are many good reasons and programs that combine full-time work with study, sponsored by employers, too often at the moment, the young HSC graduate intends to be a full-time student, but ends up being forced into being neither a good student, nor working in a good job. A lose-lose situation.
Post new comment