Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the majority of members from both sides of the House. As an Independent, I am certainly flattered by the support. Hopefully, it demonstrates the importance of the issue before the House of closing the education gap for regional and rural Australia. This issue is not only about education but also about social inclusion, probably the most important social inclusion issue at a public policy level we can address. From the perspective of regional members—and I know many members in this chamber share a similar view—we certainly do enjoy the language of the education revolution that we have heard in the last 12 to 18 months. We are certainly engaged in the process of reform, whether it is post Bradley or post budget. There are many good aspects and a few difficult aspects that we continue to work through with the government. However, on the sheer statistics of education in regional and rural areas compared to metropolitan areas, it is without question that we need not only the education revolution but also an education intervention within Australia today.

The statistics for the Lyne electorate show that the proportion of people aged 20 to 24 years who have completed year 12 is 47 per cent—one in two on the most recent statistics—compared to the statewide average of two in three or 66 per cent. That is a significant difference in completion rates for year 12, which this House needs to consider and address. It would be the same in most regional and rural electorates throughout Australia. Likewise, the proportion of people with a degree or higher level qualification in the electorate of Lyne is 17 per cent, or one in six, compared with the New South Wales statewide average of 30 per cent, or one in three. Again, I think that would be a similar statistic shared throughout regional and rural areas when compared to their metropolitan counterparts.

We can go through the education statistics to drive home the point that there needs to be an education intervention in rural and regional areas, whether it is the proportion of people holding a certificate-level qualification or diploma, where the number is higher in regional and rural areas, whether it is the proportion of workers classified as ‘professionals’, where the number is significantly lower in the Lyne electorate compared with the state, or whether it is the proportion of workers classified as ‘labourers’ being slightly higher. The point of the comparison of those three statistics is that there is a direct relationship between education levels and education status and a range of other factors in play in regional and rural areas, whether it is low-income levels or the status of poverty in regional areas. On the North Coast, the four electorates are all in the top 10 poverty regions of Australia. So there is a direct link between the length of stay in education and the aspirations of the community and, as a consequence, the full range of the needs and wants of the community.

So the problem not only concerns the Lyne electorate but is one shared right throughout regional and rural New South Wales and Australia. The problem has been talked about at length by many and clearly identified, I would hope, in the minds of many. The reason I wanted to propose this MPI and to engage this chamber in this debate is not so much to repeat the problems but to start to consider some of the answers that we can work through. I mentioned the Bradley review before and the post-budget environment, and I think this is potentially a very exciting time for education in a regional area such as ours. Some of the issues that have been picked up through the Bradley review are certainly welcome: the increase in the parental income test, the change to the independence age and the new start-up scholarship—which I just wish was named something that identified it as an annual scholarship rather than seeming to identify it as a one-off. However, that funding is certainly welcome. The relocation scholarship is welcome, the personal income test threshold changes are welcome, income support for masters coursework programs in 2012 is welcome, and the relaxation of means-testing of equity and merit based scholarships provided by universities and philanthropic organisations is certainly welcome. All those changes are necessary and are talking to regional and rural Australia.

The Minister for Education has been engaged in discussions with the member for New England, many other members of this place and I on some aspects of the post-budget environment. The gap year for students already on the pathway to try to qualify for independence under the youth allowance is one matter that I do hope, in good faith, the executive reconsiders in buying six months or 12 months as a compromise position. It is a horrible first lesson in civics for many 18-year-olds, particularly from rural and regional Australia. I certainly hope, in good faith, that the government reconsiders its position on that issue and does not, as part of the process of reform, accept collateral damage. If that one issue alone can be addressed, the overall package starts to look a lot rosier in the eyes of many and particularly starts to address some of the fundamental underlying questions that we face in rural and regional areas.

There has been discussion on the detail of the relocation allowance. There was a very good article in the Australian newspaper—and I note that the member for Kennedy has also raised this with the minister—on the non-means-testing of the relocation allowance so that it become more targeted as an access payment for rural and regional students. I ask, as part of two potential answers to improving the reform package, for Treasury modelling to be done on both of those considerations. They will make a difference in the lives, the choices and the pathways of many rural and regional students or potential students in the future.

I also wanted to raise some other issues for the government’s consideration and to identify the importance attached to some previous announcements about, and hopefully delivery of, programs for areas such as the mid-north coast of New South Wales. Without doubt, if the language with regard to broadband is fair dinkum and the delivery is within that eight-year time frame, we really are starting to seriously see the gap closed in the delivery of services such as education. A need for an Australia-wide communications network that makes education equally accessible to regional and rural students is a no-brainer. It would certainly change the game of the delivery of education and the choices of entering education. It would change it in the minds of many in the area that I represent.

In this place it is easy to forget, in a practical sense, what life is like in many regional and rural areas. In this chamber and in this House, it is a very quick process to turn on your computer and to access any website anywhere you want in the world. Think of people such as year 10 students from Camden Haven High School who are still on dial-up. Think of the challenges that they face in a knowledge economy and trying to keep pace with students in communities such as where we all are now, discussing this issue. It is inequitable; it is unfair that in a nation that prides itself on its egalitarian spirit we have such a stark difference in the ability to compete in the knowledge economy. Not only do I know of many people still on dial-up; the associated frustration of the dropouts that go with it have many people in regional and rural Australia not engaging in the use of the internet to access information. So the broadband announcement is vitally important and hopefully is delivered upon and will make a difference.

I also want to put on the record some broader themes that are not talked about in the cut and thrust of an adversarial parliament. Some of these are the questions of the fundamentals that underpin completing education, in particular higher level qualifications. Some of the issues around identity—and this is where it does become a social inclusion question rather than an education one. I would hope that the government and the executive really consider some of those identity questions. Too often I see in households within my community that replication of themes: ‘My parents didn’t study so I won’t’, ‘I’m not smart enough’, ‘We can’t afford it’ and so on. I really hope that the government, with its social inclusion hat on, starts to address some of those questions of identity in the regional and rural areas, as well as those aspirational questions. Holding higher education qualifications in a high regard is probably not as significant in many of the homes in regional and rural areas as it is in some of the metropolitan areas or, I might suggest, for some of our Asian neighbours. This is something that we need to address as a nation and for government to address during its consideration. There are also the blunter considerations of the options and the pathways that can be provided to rural and regional students. The issues of access are fundamental to many people and that is why the changes to Youth Allowance have got under so many people’s skin in regional and rural areas. It is seen as a direct attack on what is already a difficult pathway choice in trying to access and stay in higher education. So those general themes are ones that I hope government will consider.

As part of that, I would also ask the government to consider bottom-up thinking rather than top-down thinking. In principle, eight of the government’s own social inclusion policies name the silo thinking of government and the inflexibilities that go with it as barriers to addressing social inclusion. As a community, we have a proposal before the government called ‘Learning in place’. It has been generated from the bottom up. It is a holistic view of a community wanting to help itself. We are waiting on a response from the government, but there is frustration in our community that the response so far from various departments is ‘DEEWR can fund this bit, FaHCSIA can fund this bit’—no-one is looking at the holistic view of the overall needs of our community. We have done the hard work on the ground. It is a bottom-up response; it is meeting the full needs of our community. Yes there are some creative elements to it, but we really need a government response to appreciate that silo thinking sometimes clouds the decision-making in this chamber and of government generally.

Attached to that is the issue of the short-term, one-off thinking that comes from here and the difficulties that go with that with regard to addressing long-term structural disadvantage, which is the issue being addressed here today. We need government to be shoulder to shoulder for the long term and commit to at least three- to five-year programs if we are talking about some serious structural reform in regional and rural areas. At the moment it is frustrating that it does not happen as much as we would like. Again, I hope the government considers that.

Finally, a positive consideration is the change in thinking about the cost, the market place, the contestability issues. The delivery of education in regional and rural areas does have greater costs— (Time expired)

See this speech in context