The Diatribe (fixed for marmooks):
These claims strike me as exagerated for several reasons into which I will delve.
I believe that it can reasonably be assumed that the 'extreme case' who was living on $30 a week and had scurvy was living on $30 AFTER paying rent, food (breakfast and dinner x7). Thus $30 a week was LEFT to pay for lunches, snacks, entertainment and clothing. I can see no reason for them to have scurvy. Yes that is a tight situation however it is not one in which I would expect scurvy UNLESS students FAILED to adopt an appropriate lifestyle eg rather than eating healthily and leading a balanced lifestyle they blow $30 a week on a night out every week and scrape by the remainder. This scenario would likely result in health problems, health problems bought on by choices the student has made.
There is no reason to expect the government (which means the taxpayer which means all of us) to fund YOUR social life.
The dems contend that YA+RA is insufficient. I commend them for their intuitive knowledge. Yes YA+RA is low, it is set at such a level as to ENCOURAGE part-time work as this is more economically desirable than government supported students. And with contact hours for a full-time course being as low as 9 a week (BA three courses a semester, 2L, 1T each course) there is no reason not to work.
Illustrating both this point and my previous one are two examples, one is myself the other a person I know.
I am ineligible for YA because of my parents income, due to the number of children in my family it is untenable for them to support me. As a result I work. In the school-uni break I worked 12+ hour days on an 11 day on 3 day off roster. I did this so as to have savings when I started uni to fund books, bond, etc etc. I have since taken up part time work. I get up at 4am in the morning to go to work, I do a 5-9am shift five days a week. Three days a week I tutor maths. I earn more than enough to cover my expenses. I do 14 contact hours a week at uni and attend all of them. I eat well, have a long weekend (well from 9am on Friday) every weekend, go out if I want (albeit limited to friday and Saturday nights) and do reasonably well at uni. I do 40 hours a week face to face uni and work, slightly more than I'd like, however doable, working and university is clearly possible, though not necessarily preferable.
My second example lives in tracki-dacks and on tuna mornay. He is up late, completes assignments at the last minute, is in many 'clubs and societies', he receives YA+RA+parental support, complains about a lack of time, money and food. He campaigns for greater YA, etc etc. He does NOT work, he DOES go out frequently during the course of a week.
Clearly my examples are extremes however I think they illustrate the point nicely, that is: it is not that hard to support yourself at university. It is about lifestyle choices. Some students CHOOSE to live in squalor so they can go out more frequently, this is no particular reason for them to receive additional government support.
I accept that it is harder for some people than myself, for this reason I do support making YA+RA more accessible however I do NOT support making much larger. I do support changing aspects which mean a $20 drop in rent is punished by a $50 drop in RA. This is a disincentive for students to explore cheaper accommodation options and as such the government spends our taxes unnecessarily.
Before I started uni I would have gasped and pointed out the injustices seen in the article, having been at uni, worked at uni, thought about uni, and observed the people who do live in squalor and the people who are active in the NUS. My attitude has been hardened considerably by experience.