Darren, it is true that the rules for step children are grossly unfair. I know several students who have been affected by this. You should check out some of the new changes to Youth Allowance though, I believe there are now extra scholarships being given to help cover the cost of rural children moving to study.

In regards to my university exchange to Spain, I’d like to just point out that like many students, I received a university exchange scholarship (which covered my airfares) and my Youth Allowance paid for my rent and food while overseas. Obviously my own savings went into this as well, but the Youth Allowance received is the exact same amount that I would receive normally in Australia, meaning it was no extra cost than usual to the tax payer. The only difference is that I could not work in Spain and therefore my Youth Allowance was even more precious. I learnt more Spanish immersed in Spain for four months than in three years of university in Australia, as many people who have learnt languages will understand.

What if we refuse? Will we be forced, by some law of social engineering, to pay for fear of penalty? Government, and the voters who think we are rich, expect that there is a continuing obligation on the part of the parents and they are partly correct. However, it is one thing to voluntarily assist your children to have a better life, it is quite another to be forced by the state to support another independent adult, where the alternative is destitution. This is particularly harsh on Regional Australians who must leave home to obtain the Education they seek

Of course they can get a part time job and help relieve the burden, but there are not enough of those to go around.

But it gets worse. When a step child is under 18, the absent parent’s income is assessed and they are forced to contribute to the costs of that child. This is fair and has certainly worked both ways in our family. However, once that child is 18 and seeking youth allowance to assist with further education, the residential Step parent’s income is used! There is no mechanism to force the absent parent to contribute because the laws in this area cease to have effect when a child becomes an adult. This can work in your favour if you have the lower income, but can mean that a child/adult who would have been eligible for payments with his parents’ income, is deemed ineligble.

It has been a great budget. Less Health Insurance Rebate - probably fair. Higher penalty for no Health Insurance - again fair? Lower Superannuation thresholds - reasonable. Less FTB - understandable. Even less chance society will assist your children to be educated - this one is outrageous.

And the Jolly to Spain is not something anyone’s taxes should be paying for.

While I agree with the sentiment of the author that perhaps working 30 hours/week for 18 months may be excessive to determine independence, I have to say that her justification of her receipt of Youth Allowance as a means to allow her to study in Spain and become fluent in Spanish, is perhaps the very reason that the rules are being changed. Youth Allowance isn’t really supposed to be about a wonderful personal benefit for the person receiving it. So while her outlook on life may be better for having done so, it doesn’t really go very far in the argument towards increasing the payments.

The goal behind Youth Allowance is to (or at least should be) to allow as many students access to higher education as possible - regardless of socio-economic background. This essentially recognises studying as a worthwhile pursuit, which, by means of educating the population (ensuring that in years to come there will still be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, philosophers, teachers etc), benefits society as a whole. The whole point is acknowledging that students are foregoing an income in order to pursue a career that will inevitably benefit many members of society, and as such society rewards them by providing them with a means to support themselves during that time. I’m not sure that supporting yourself necessarily includes global exchanges.

It doesn’t appear to me that any student is being punished for taking a “gap year”, it would seem that there is some encouragement to take more than one year to consider a future choice of education, and whether it is really something that the student wishes to pursue. The extra 6 months of working before resuming study really doesn’t seem like an enormous burden, if anything it allows a student more time to consider whether university is really where they want to be. Given the attrition rate of first year students, perhaps this is something worth encouraging.

I agree with the author, payments made to students are low, and it’s sad to see that they haven’t been increased. Students do form a valuable part of our society (at least I’d like to think so, I’ve been one almost all of my life) and should be recognised as contributing members. Personally I’d most like to see that Age of Independence dropped to equal the age where we recognise that someone is legally an adult. At 18 we’re given the right to vote, drink, apply for a driver’s license, and be tried as an adult, perhaps a recognised independence from our parents would go along nicely with that.*

*I should qualify that this has nothing to do with my own age - I’d pass the test hands down.