Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015. I must say that in fact this issue is one of the reasons, I think, that I am in this parliament. As I raised my children, I realised just difficult it was for those of us that live in regional Australia to get our children particularly through tertiary education but even through secondary education if there is a need to send them away for that period of their life, and it got me actively involved on a mission in politics, if you like. In fact, at one stage I managed to sponsor a motion through the Liberal Party Federal Council in support of a better outcome for regional students. I was a little frustrated that, of course, that did not make immediate changes to the political world, and I guess my eyes were opened somewhat. So I became more involved in the political process, and perhaps that is one of the triggers that led me to the position that I hold today.

I normally subscribe to the theory that as long as people are able they should shoulder some responsibility for their choices in life, and that includes where they live. So if we choose to live in my electorate, for instance, in the far west so we can access the great surfing beaches at places like Cactus, or if we choose to live at Oodnadatta because we like the peace and quiet, that is our choice, and if the groceries cost more in that shop they cost more in that shop. But, of course, children do not have a choice, because children are necessary baggage with their parents, and they go where their parents and guardians take them. So, if they cannot realise their dreams and find a path to tertiary education because their parents have made a choice, I do not think we should allow that decision to run against them. That is why I think governments should be in that place, making sure that we are presenting a more even playing field. I even produced a paper on this subject in 2009, and in fact the member for Gippsland, who is sitting in front of you at the moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, said to me only the other day, 'That paper is still relevant; those points that you make are still very real in this debate.'

In 2009—that is why I developed the paper—I hoped for a better outcome. There was a time when we were in opposition and I was hoping to improve the situation we had. But in fact the government of the day, the Labor government under Kevin Rudd, made changes in this area to youth allowance eligibility. Some, I would have to say, were good, inasmuch as that government limited the ability for people living at home in the city to substantially gain out of the system for independent living, but some were extremely deleterious to country students—in particular on the independence test for youth allowance. So instead of progressing country students, as I had hoped, we were ceding ground. There was a long ground war after these decisions by the previous government, and regional members Australia-wide—who, I must say, are nearly all coalition—were incensed. After a long campaign, in March 2010 then Prime Minister Rudd finally backed down on most of the changes relating to the independent youth allowance and, in particular, restored the previous arrangements for those in outer regional and remote Australia. By 2011, the government ceded yet more ground and gave the same conditions to inner regional Australia. So, apart from the stricter means test, we had almost turned full circle. But, of course, given that I was unhappy about that particular position in the first place, it stands to reason that I would still be lobbying, first in opposition and now in government, for a better deal for country students.

I quote from a speech that I gave to this place in October 2009, raising issues of rural disadvantage.

However, there is another form of disadvantage that governments have been less willing to accept responsibility for. Those who live in the country who have to leave the parental home to attend university have an inbuilt financial disadvantage. Where other students can live at home cheaply with the support of family, country students and their families face years of extra costs amounting to tens of thousands of dollars per student.

That statement is still relevant today, and country students and their families face years of extra costs amounting to tens of thousands of dollars per student.

During this whole period there has been a united group within the coalition that have continued to lobby for change, and that has included the member for Gippsland. A reoccurring theme for regional MPs has been this situation where we have families that are asset rich and income poor. It particularly pertains to the farming industry but not only the farming industry. You might have a farmer or a motel owner that is struggling for reasons due to drought and the economic downturn in regional communities and not getting a great income from their asset and is often worse off than a straight wage earner, and their children have been ineligible for assistance because the family is deemed to control assets. It is not a fair and proper arrangement to then turn on the people that control these assets and say, 'You must mortgage them up to get your children an education.' In fact, if it is a poorly performing asset in the first place, imparting greater debt on them so they can finance their children's way through education is only undermining the very model that supports them in the first place.

Students are not stupid; otherwise they would not be seeking a higher education, perhaps. They know when a family can or cannot afford to send them away, in this case, to university. We have the HECS and HELP schemes, but it is this issue of supporting that person in situ that rests most heavily on the family. They know when their families can or cannot afford this outcome. So rather than say to their family, 'I really want to go to university, but I understand that we cannot afford it so I will go off and get a job locally, sweeping the floor at the local garage,' instead they say to their family: 'I don't really want to go to university. I would rather have that job down at the local garage.' The kids are sending an open message to the family that reduces the guilt that particular family might have about not being able to support them on their dreams. So I think the level of unmet need or unmet desire to go to higher levels of education within rural and regional communities is understated for this fact.

This legislation, amongst other things, removes the family actual assets test. It is estimated that that will enable an extra 4,100 students to qualify for assistance. It removes the family means test. It is estimated that that will assist another 1,200 students to access appropriate assistance. It places the means test in sync with the family tax benefit part A, as of course it should. There is no logical reason why you would not line up these criteria together. This is a huge move for the thousands of isolated families in Australia. As I said, 4,100 in the first instance from just the family actual assets test, to an outcome that will probably produce about $7,000 a year extra for them to meet, primarily, accommodation expenses. It is a big step and it is a great win for those of us within the coalition that have continued to lobby for change in this area.

There are a raft of other changes, of course: altering arrangements where parents receive income support payments, to iron out some of the cliff faces where students are transitioning from family tax benefit A to individual support, removing a number of superfluous exemptions and bringing ABSTUDY into line. These are basically housekeeping measures, but, in total, the commitment from the government will cost an extra $262 million over the forward estimates. From my point of view, the big move is the removal of the family actual assets test and the family means test for youth allowance, and I say hooray.

See this speech in context