|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Democrats' Supplementary Report
The Democrats are in
agreement with the content and most of the recommendations of the Chair's
report. Accordingly, our supplementary comments and recommendations are
confined to additional issues or areas in which we have different views from
those covered by the Chair.
We acknowledge the
useful information produced during this inquiry and its relevance to the
current debate on the issues surrounding future higher education policy,
specifically in relation to student income support measures.
The Democrats,
however, believe further background to some issues is required and that the
challenging evidence presented to the Committee, and many of the arguments
raised in the Chair's report, warrant further or stronger recommendations.
The decline in
Commonwealth funding of education, relative to other portfolios, over the past
thirty years is of particular concern to the Democrats, as are the recent HECS
fee increases for students. The Democrats believe education is an investment,
not a cost and that Government policy should work to reverse this trend of
declining investment.
The Democrats
acknowledge that student poverty has not registered as a significant national
policy issue, this is in spite of our attempts to raise the issue of student
income support measures constantly, both publicly and in the Parliament.
In my first speech to the Parliament on May 1 1996, I expressed my
concern about the issue of student debt, and have been speaking about it ever
since.
The Democrats have
opposed and voted against all attempts to impose fees on students. We have also
strongly opposed the decreases in student income support measures that resulted
from increasing the age of independence for Austudy, cuts to ABSTUDY, cuts to
Rent Assistance, the closure of the Student Financial Supplement Scheme and the
abolition of the Educational Textbook Subsidy Scheme.
In 1997, I
introduced a Private Member's Bill – the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time
Students) Bill 1997 – to ensure both part-time and full-time scholarships were
exempt from income tax. The distinction between the two arose from the
debate over the Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No.1) 1997 when the bill was amended
by the Democrats to ensure full-time scholarships remained income tax free.
However, part-time scholarships were not covered by that amendment, and even if
they satisfy all other aspects of the exemption provision they are taxed under
the current provision.
The Council of
Australian Postgraduate Associations – who have consistently advocated for the
removal of taxation from all scholarships since 1979 – recommended to the
committee the exemption of part-time scholarships from income tax assessment.
The Democrats fully support their recommendation and consider it absurd to
exclude part-time APA scholarships from income tax assessment and not other
part-time scholarships. The Democrats have constantly raised this issue in
successive Parliaments since 1997.
In May
1998, the Government and Opposition combined in the Senate to defeat an Australian
Democrats' proposal for students over 25 on Austudy to access Rent Assistance
in an amendment to the Social Security
Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill
1998.
The Democrats
repeatedly expressed concerns about the inequitable nature of the Student
Financial Supplement Scheme, while recognising many students relied on it. Many
students were simply unable to survive on the rates of income support available
at the time, and for many, taking out SFSS loans was their only option.
Accordingly, the Democrats moved to ‘grandfather’ existing students from
closure of the Scheme receiving the endorsement of the NUS and Student
Financial Advisers Network.
In 2002,
39,892 students accepted the Student Financial Supplement Scheme loans. Of
these students, 15.6 per cent were Indigenous, 1.6 per cent were listed as
remote, 15.2 per cent were listed as single parenting payment recipients, 12.2
per cent were not born in Australia, and 54.7 per cent – clear majority of
those who accepted the loans – were women.
The
Democrats emphasised their concerns about all those traditionally disadvantaged
groups, not to mention students with disabilities, however, the Government
ignored the Democrats' calls to support students on the Scheme after its
closure. Not only did the
Government fail to provide meaningful, alternative income support measures to
students, but they did not even allow the Senate to decide whether the SFSS
would close or not, arrogantly closing the
Scheme administratively before the Senate debate had concluded.
The Educational
Textbook Subsidy Scheme (ETSS) was part of the Book Industry Assistance Package
negotiated by the Australian Democrats in 1999 in an attempt to alleviate the
impact of the GST on the price of textbooks for students and their families.
The Democrats believe all books should be exempt from the GST.
The ETSS was appropriated for only four years when the GST was
introduced, and was due to lapse after 30 June 2004. Although there was no
formal agreement between the Government and the book industry to extend the
scheme beyond this date, until 2003 the Department of Education, Science and
Training (DEST) had included forward estimates for the scheme for 2005 and 2006
in the Budget.
Approximately
70 percent of the scheme's allocation related to higher education (universities
and TAFEs). Importantly, the ETSS maintained access to textbooks for students,
and, therefore, access to education and knowledge.
In June 2003, when
it became clear the Government was not intending to continue the ETSS, I
introduced a Private Member’s Bill in June to extend the ETSS beyond June
2004. Support for the Bill was received from the Australian
Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union
of Students, Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, Australian
Publishers’ Association, Australian Booksellers’ Association, Australian Campus
Booksellers’ Association, Australian Society of Authors, and the Australian
Medical Students’ Association, among others.
A petition launched
in March 2004, by the Democrats, to save the scheme received more than 35,000
signatures. Thousands of the Democrats’ 'Save Our Subsidy' postcards and
stickers were distributed around the country as part of a broader campaign to
oppose the abolition of the scheme.
In June 2004, the
Democrats' introduced a motion calling on the Government to extend the Scheme
which was complemented in the House of Representatives, by Tony Windsor MP. The
Senate motion was defeated when Labor voted with Government, opposing the
Democrats motion.
The ETSS cost around
$25 million per year and, according to evidence provided to this inquiry, was a
significant student income support measure. The benefits of the ETSS are
well known, as is the cost of the scheme, and the Democrats believe the scheme
should be restored.
The impact of the
Government's so-called "Voluntary Student Unionism" policy is likely
to have a severe effect on student income support measures currently provided
by student organisations all over the country. While it was not part of
the terms of reference for the inquiry, the likely impact of the changes
resulted in many witnesses expressing their concerns to the committee.
The Democrats
believe ample evidence was provided to the inquiry to conclude that the
Government's Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory
Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 should be opposed by the Senate.
Recommendations
The Democrats'
recommendations to the Hacking Australia's Future: Threats
to institutional autonomy, academic freedom and student choice in
Australian higher education inquiry, by
the Senate's Education, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee
in November 2003, included the following recommendations on student income
support measures. These recommendations (numbers 1 to 6) are supported by
the evidence presented to this inquiry and are still relevant.
Recommendations 7 to
12 are other recommendations supported by the evidence presented to this
inquiry.
Recommendation 1
That the age of
independence for all student income support payments be lowered to 18.
Recommendation 2
That all forms of
student income support be raised to parity with the age pension over a 5 year
period.
Recommendation 3
That all Commonwealth
education related scholarships be tax free, regardless of the student's study
mode.
Recommendation 4
That the Government
reverses its decision to increase visa application fees by $85.
Recommendation 5
The lack of thorough
and consistent research on educational outcomes by the Commonwealth that can be
compared with previous data has made critical analysis, of previous and future
changes to the sector, difficult. That the Commonwealth conduct research into
the effectiveness and broader social and economic impact of its higher
education policies using established benchmarks that will allow historical
comparisons of data.
Recommendation 6
That the number of
Commonwealth scholarships for equity groups be increased.
Recommendation 7
That the Government restore
the Educational Textbook Subsidy Scheme.
Recommendation 8
That the personal
income test for students be abolished.
Recommendation 9
That the Higher
Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union
Fees) Bill 2005 be opposed by the Senate.
Recommendation 10
That the method of
indexation for student income support payments be made consistent with the
indexation of the pension.
Recommendation 11
That
university-administered scholarships are exempt from the social security personal
income test.
Recommendation 12
That Centrelink
employ Indigenous staff to deal specifically with Indigenous students.
Recommendation 13
That Section 3.20.15
of the Guidelines for Commonwealth Scholarships be amended such that the
duration of a full-time APA is four years (eight years part-time) for a
student undertaking Research Doctorate studies.
Recommendation 14
That Rent Assistance
be made available to ABSTUDY Masters and Doctorate students.
Recommendation 15
That Indigenous
education be made a National Priority area, and thus exempt from the HECS
increases allowed under backing Australia's Future.
Senator Natasha
Stott Despoja
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 11 July 2005 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
