Senator BOLKUS(9.45 a.m.) —by leave—I move:

No. 1—That regulations 1 to 6 (inclusive) of the AUSTUDY Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1996 No. 261 and made under the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, be disallowed.

No. 2—That regulation 7 of the AUSTUDY Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1996 No. 261 and made under the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, be disallowed.

In moving these two motions together, and recognising that there is only 10 minutes for my contribution this morning, I say that the opposition sees these two government proposals as indicative of the mean spirited approach they are taking to students in the whole education sector. We are talking here of proposals such as these coming as part of a package of an attack on the education sector, which has led to some $1.9 billion in cuts and, in respect of students, some $800 million being taken out of their pockets over a short period.

What the government has sought to do by the regulations that are subject to the disallowance is to increase the age of independence and, in doing so, to reverse an important reform of the previous government which brought the age down from 25 to 22 in three annual steps starting in 1992. The presumption that people up to their mid-20s have a relationship of financial dependence on their parents is patently untenable. Before we reduced the age limit, it was very much one of the two top priorities of student organisations in their annual budget submissions. To reverse it now, to try to argue that students in their mid-20s should be presumed to have a financial relationship of dependency on their parents, is patently untenable.

What we have here, basically, essentially and starkly, is a grab for cash. It is a baseless excuse to try to argue that students are dependent. The real agenda here can be exposed to be the fact that the original decision in the budget papers would have saved some $242 million from students' pockets over the course of the forward estimates. That decision has been amended slightly. What we are talking about now is savings of some $210 million through the forward estimates.

The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone), in the budget statement, referred to this measure targeting the well-off families. This is double speak. It comes from the minister for double speak. Essentially, the families we are talking about here are families that have very modest incomes. Remember, Austudy starts to taper off at a joint family income of some $22,650.

We are also talking here of a growing number of people who can be classified as being Howard's losers. Some 14,000 people will have their payments reduced and some 12,000 will become totally ineligible for payments. So it is a grab for cash. No matter how the minister tries to justify it, no matter how she tries to describe it, no matter what language is used in the budget statements in terms of targeting well-off families, we are talking here of ripping some $210 million from students on the pretence that they should be presumed to be financially dependent on their parents until they are in their mid-20s.

That is the first of my two disallowance motions for this morning. The issues are pretty simple. It is a matter of judgment for the Senate as to whether we dig our heads into the sand and argue that people should be presumed to be financially dependent on their parents up to that age.

The second motion goes to regulations which are, I think, particularly mean spirited and particularly devastating in their impact. I have had a number of students come to see me over my years as a member of parliament—students who cannot live at home, students who have been forced out of their homes for one reason or another, and students who are very keen and have been very keen to continue with their secondary education.

You get some real heart wrenching cases. Time and time again, you look at their statistics, you look at their income, you look at what they need to keep them at school, what they need to basically realise their ambitions of finishing year 12 and going on thereafter, and quite often it is a little amount of assistance that is needed to either buy the books or give them the capacity to stay at school. If they do not get that assistance, they are forced into taking unemployment benefits or they are forced into leaving school and seeking work.

It is a vicious circle that they find themselves in. Quite often, I have gone through situations with young people and tried to work out with them their income and how we can top up that income. What the previous government did was to introduce a schooling incidentals allowance. It is an allowance which is paid to homeless secondary students, an allowance which cost some $11 million over four forward estimate years, which is what we are arguing about here, and a measure which is assisting some 8,500 students—students living basically on the breadline. What the government is seeking to do is to take away this financial assistance of some $300, payable at the beginning of each year, to help homeless Austudy and Abstudy students complete their secondary education by assisting with such expenses as books, equipment and course costs.

This measure was going to have full effect from the beginning of this year. It is obviously justified as a measure that helps young people at critical times. It is much more important to them than it is to the budget revenue outlays. It is much more important for individual students. I just cannot understand the logic behind taking this particular measure away from young people, who find it quite critical. The government says that it will be abolished subsequent to a review of 1995-96 budget measures. But there really has not been a comprehensive review about this. Once again, the minister for double speak is coming in here and saying, `Well, we have reviewed it and it should go.'

In essence, we are talking about depriving people of assistance—people who critically need it. We are also talking about a self-defeating measure. You force kids out of school, they have to go on unemployment benefits, they have to seek work and at the end of the day it costs government more by withdrawing this sort of measure. This is the same group that will be hit by another exceptionally mean budget measure—that is, the cessation of case management of secondary students who are on the student homeless rate of Austudy or Abstudy. That measures saves $14½ million. The government says, `Oh no, we are going to maintain or re-establish the job placement employment training program. That will cost us $11 million.' You are still talking about a big reduction of funds—some 25 per cent—as opposed to the previous measure that was in place.

I just cannot work out how a minister for education can deprive young people—people on the borderline—of assistance in this particular instance. Case management of young students is basically geared towards achieving family reconciliation, assistance to them and working out their particular needs. That measure has gone. With it has gone the supplementary measure, which is quite critical. We are talking here of $11 million over the forward estimate years. As I said, it means nothing in terms of the budget bottom line but it means a hell of a lot to young people who are forced to make hard decisions based on, quite often, less than $100 that they need to keep them at school.

The opposition is keen to ensure that these two sets of regulations go down this morning. We cannot see any justification for them. We see them as particularly mean-spirited. We also see them as having no justification in a policy sense. No matter what the minister says about them, no matter how the government tries to argue that they are ripping money away from well-off families, that is just not the truth, and they should not continue with that particular line.