Benefits of universal income support for students ‘outweigh costs’

Living allowances should be granted to all students regardless of their families’ wealth because the educational and social benefits would outweigh the financial costs, two Australian academics have argued.

Political scientists Susan Goodwin and Ariadne Vromen say students from all socio-economic backgrounds suffer from an income support regime premised on “ongoing parental dependency”.

Students from the poorest households must earn money to supplement living allowances well below the poverty line, while those from the “squeezed middle” – whose parental incomes render them ineligible for income support – must work just as hard to “compensate for the pressure…on family resources”. And the one in five students with no paid work must rely on parents “providing for their children well into adulthood”.

Outlining their argument in a chapter of a recently published book, Australian universities: a conversation about public good, Professors Goodwin and Vromen say post-school education is no longer a “choice” for young people because the prospects of obtaining secure work without it have become increasingly remote.

They say tertiary education must be acknowledged as a customary transition stage between school and “regular work”, and the government should facilitate this by making Youth Allowance (YA) – the main income support stream for students aged under 25 – available from the age of 18, irrespective of parental income.

Professor Goodwin rejected the notion that this would constitute “middle class welfare”, noting that parental income also did not affect eligibility for student loans. “Using tax revenue to support young adults would be progressive rather than regressive,” she said. “Expecting young people from upper socio-economic backgrounds to finance their studies from a pool of family resources…is problematic politically, because it denies their social citizenship rights. And [it is] problematic culturally because it encourages the ideal of intrafamilial transmissions of wealth and privilege.”

Professor Goodwin said it was also wrong to assume that parents were willing and able to contribute to their adult children’s living and education expenses. She said a “plethora” of exemptions to YA eligibility rules showed that there were many circumstances in which parental financial support was “absent or impossible”.

However, the government’s appetite for income support reform is doubtful. Last year social services minister Amanda Rishworth shrugged off a National Union of Students call for similar changes, at an estimated cost of around A$11.5 billion (£6.2 billion), saying “there are many competing priorities and…we’re faced with difficult choices”. 

Treasurer Jim Chalmers offered a similar response to this month’s Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee report, which recommended a “substantial increase” in various welfare payments. “[We] will always look to provide support where we can to those most in need, where it is responsible and affordable to do so, [but] we can’t fund every good idea.” 

But at least three serving government backbenchers are reportedly among some 300 signatories to an open letter calling for increases to income support.

Professor Vromen said she was “hopeful” that the political climate might favour a change in income support policy, because independent politicians were in favour and the governing Labor Party had a history of expanding YA eligibility during previous stints in government.

She said the cost-of-living crisis could also fuel political pressure to ease parents’ financial burden: “Granting independent status to students 18 and over could be a form of relief for stretched families.”

Professor Goodwin said the benefits of such a reform could outweigh the costs. The current income support regime negatively impacts students’ financial security, mental health, educational experience “and many other aspects of their lives”, she said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com