After years of student campaigning and calls for paid mandatory student placements, the Federal Government has responded in the Budget — but in a dissatisfactory and inadequate manner.
So, what are the problems with this Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP), or what we know about it so far?
Restricted eligibility
Student campaigns against placement poverty call for universal payment, with the rationale that students on placement are working, and therefore deserve to be paid like any other employee. The work they undertake on placement is often similarly labour-intensive to after graduation, with education students teaching classes and midwifery students in charge of delivering babies in hospitals. Clearly, these placements are distinct from “shadowing” internships. Alongside this principled justification is the practical truth that students on placement are usually physically incapable to hold a part-time job due to the placement’s full-time demands. For students who have to pay rent or support their families, they are either forced to work in the cracks of time between placement, or make significant life changes to complete their degrees. As the Government identifies in the Budget, this hurdle prevents many students from graduating at all.
The Government’s proposed payment scheme is far from universal — there are a number of restrictions.
The first restriction is on degree type — and the rationale behind which placements receive funding indicates where the Government is motivated by economic expansion rather than protecting student welfare. The only placements covered by this scheme are: teaching, social work, midwifery and nursing. Omissions include medical, psychology and all other allied health students. Honi understands that the CPP scheme is based on a Treasury White Paper from last year, and therefore, addresses economic issues regarding skill shortages in certain sectors. Simply put, the Government deems it less important for some students to finish their degree than others. Any claims from the Government that this scheme intends to “end placement poverty” don’t square with this targeted approach.
The next restriction is financial, and at the moment, nebulous. The CPP will be “means-tested”. The exact details are unclear, but Honi understands that it will likely be modelled off means-testing infrastructure for other student welfare payments such as Youth Allowance.
But that’s not all — Honi understands that there is a work-related eligibility criterion. It is likely that, to qualify for this payment, students have to have been working at least 15 hours a week before stopping replacing paid work with placement. This proves a problematic metric for a number of reasons. Firstly, this already is more hours of work than most universities recommend for students. Secondly, it does not take the income of this workweek into account, meaning that students will have to alter their quality of life in different ways. Thirdly, it does not take students with disabilities into account who may not be able to work as many hours, but still deserve and require this payment.
Insufficient financial support
The Greens and the National Union of Students (NUS) have pushed for a payment that equates to at least minimum wage. The payment rate of $319.50 per week is benchmarked at the single Austudy payment. On its own, this payment falls far below the poverty line, averaging at $45.60 a day. However, Austudy payment typically dovetails with other welfare payments or an income, which renders it closer to liveable.
Whereas, there are many students who do not qualify for welfare payments such as Youth Allowance, but cannot afford to jettison their income to complete their degree — this scheme neglects this large group of students entirely. Additionally, there are students who would need the funding from both CPP and Youth Allowance, but are locked out due to Youth Allowance restrictions. The Budget overview paints a hypothetical portrait of a student, Felicity, a full-time student living away from home who receives Youth Allowance, CPP, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and Energy Supplement, totalling to $712.05. Whilst this weekly payment seems more reasonable, it illustrates the best-case scenario. What if Felicity was 21, not 22, and had not yet reached the “age of financial independence” as recognised by Services Australia? What if Felicity still lived at home, but had to provide income support to her family? These gaps and holes in pre-existing means-testing infrastructure emphasises why the Government cannot rely on students receiving multiple payments to escape placement poverty. For many students on placement, the only payment they can qualify for may be CPP, which is only a meagre improvement on the current unpaid situation.
Payment administration
As opposed to a universal prac payment, a prac payment based on eligibility requires significantly more bureaucracy to administer. Honi understands that this payment will be administered by higher education providers rather than Services Australia, which is a welcome relief for all students who have been mistreated by Centrelink. However, if the University of Sydney’s bureaucratic system is anything to go by, this could still be a nightmare to navigate, placing additional burdens on students. Furthermore, to provide documentation and fill out forms is labour-intensive, and for many students, invasive or even humiliating.
Reiterating these concerns, University of Sydney SRC President Harrison Brennan said, “The attempted efforts to reform paid placement funding are horribly inadequate. $320 a week for teaching, nursing and social work students is a slap in the face for the thousands of students across the country. $320 is not enough to cover basic living essentials, including rent, in a cost-of-living crisis, which then requires these students to undertake work whilst on placement. Furthermore, paid placements must support any and all students who undertake a mandatory unpaid placement as a part of their degree requirements, this includes veterinary students, medical students, and countless others. The slew of requirements that restrict access to this pittance of a support payment only aim to restrict access to it.”
In Treasurer Jim Chalmer’s Budget speech, he emphasises how this Budget alleviates cost- of-living pressures in various ways. Clearly, the Budget prioritises economic expansion in the higher education sector rather than relieving students of financial burdens. It cannot be said that the cost-of-living budgetary measures work in tandem with the CPP in its projected form.