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

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018. This has been a very long campaign and a personal campaign for me. I am joined by many of my colleagues, particularly rural and regional ones. I came to this place in 2007. One of my driving factors was to try and get a better deal for rural kids, in particular for access to tertiary education. Having put three children through their last years of high school in the city, and then through university—in fact, at that stage, my last child was still at university—I think I've brought some real understanding of the penalties, the extra imposts that are placed on rural families and why we need change.

On the rural disadvantage: our country's schooling system is quite good, I believe, across a wide range of schools, up to about year 9 level in the smaller communities—the larger communities can certainly punch out really good students right up to year 12. What happens in rural communities is the populations drop within the schools and the subject choices fall away. Firstly, families face the issue of how they finish off those final years of high school education and, then, how they get their children through university. It's widely accepted that it is about a $25,000 impost on a family to put a student in the city. They need a place to live, and, of course, they need to go to university. They can access HECS, which allows them to deal with at least the educational cost. But they also need a car, because we want to see them from time to time and we want them to travel safely on the roads, and they've got to pay for their food. These are all things that children who are brought up in the city and can attend university by hopping on a bus do not face. This is the $25,000 excess that goes on rural families.

So when I got here in 2007, hoping to make things better, it came really as a hit to the solar plexus, if you like, when the new Rudd government, under education minister Julia Gillard, turned the access to independent youth allowance, which had been the tool that most rural students used to try to address some of this imbalance, on its head and turned it into a system where, instead of a student having a one-year gap between high school and university, it was effectively turned into a two-year gap. Previously they had to earn 75 per cent of wage level A of the National Training Wage declaration, which in those days was a little less than $20,000. If they could earn that in an independent fashion, and their parents didn't have too many assets or too much income, they were deemed as independent. The Labor Party, in 2008 I think—it may have been 2009—moved to make that a two-year gap period, with 30 hours of work a week over a two-year period. Effectively, it became a two-year gap period. This is very disruptive to students. Many of them, even with the gap year, don't actually get back to their original intention. After two years in the workforce, getting used to having an income, getting used to being independent—perhaps it mightn't be the greatest job, but you're getting money; it is working all right; you're only 18 or 20 years old—it's difficult to get that student back into university.

I absolutely thought this was a terrible idea. The fight was on! There was a group on the coalition benches—I used to call us the rural rump for education. We formed and we fought hard to try and reverse those arrangements the Labor Party had made. I was just listening to the member for Hindmarsh bragging about the changes the government made in 2011. In fact they were brought kicking and screaming to the table. It was not Julia Gillard's preference to do this, but in the end they reversed most of that impact on rural students. For all those who live in inner, outer, regional and remote and very remote communities it went back to close to the status quo—there were some changes—when it came to qualifying for independent youth allowance.

So there we were in 2011, right back to where we had started in 2007, with a deal I didn't think was good enough for rural students. We kept agitating through the years in opposition and through the years in government. In the 2016 budget, in government, we delivered what I think is a great reform to this system. We removed the parental assets test from the disqualification for these students to access independent youth allowance. We often have talked in this place about farmers, in particular, being income poor and asset rich. That is what this was about. Some, particularly farmers, have high assets tied up in farming. They might go through a long period of time—unfortunately we're in another one of them now—when they don't have any income. So the $25,000 or so that they might be supplementing their child to live in the city becomes a real burden for them. I didn't think that was fair, and we removed it. I'm very pleased that was done. We could actually go to the heart of the question about what on earth parental income has to do with a student being independent. I would have thought that, by definition, an independent student is not relying on the parents' income, whatever it is. It is where we are in Australia. I think there's a very good argument we should make that, if you're independent, you are independent of your parents, and it really shouldn't matter what your parents' assets are. But I understand the political argument and why that is difficult—the argument about: why, if someone has $50 million, should their student be able to access independent youth allowance? There must be a line in the sand somewhere, and I guess I accept that as being the case. But it is a curious question.

We removed the parental assets test, but I have to say that this gap still sits there. It sticks in my craw. We are still running at a deficit when it comes to tertiary education. Only 18.3 per cent of people aged 25 to 34 in remote or very remote areas and 20.4 per cent in regional areas obtain a bachelor's degree or above. That compares with 42.4 per cent in the major cities.

So we are basically running at about half—about half as many rural students complete bachelor degrees compared to the city. This is an arrow to the heart of rural Australia. If there is one thing we are going to have to be in rural Australia if we are to survive and prosper, it is 'smart'. The challenges of agriculture in particular, but also the other industries that sit within rural and regional Australia, demand that we have well-educated, smart and sharp people. That is not to say that smart people aren't still in the country, but, if you are equipped with a higher level of learning, you are better able to access that intelligence and use it within your business and to grow your business. This is essential, yet we are languishing at half. We have increased the rate—that is true—but the rates in the city have grown even faster.

In VET, we don't do so badly, it must be said. But certainly at diploma level, once again, we are running at about half. It is not good enough. It comes back to—and I know this is not the whole answer—the severe financial impediment that is placed upon families. Often children will say to their parents: 'I don't really want to go to university, Mum and Dad. Don't worry about it. I'm quite happy to go down the road and get a job doing whatever.' But, in fact, they are saying that because they know their parents can't afford it; they might not even consciously know that. People say, 'It is tough here and we just don't have the money.' Or maybe the parents will get one kid through and they can't get the second one in. And I've heard that many a time: 'We sent one away to school, and that was the only one we could afford to send away to school or to university.' So no wonder our bachelor completion rates in the country are half what they are in the city.

This group, which I call the rural/regional education rump—one of the co-founders, the member for Forrest, is sitting alongside me; she has been passionate in this area; she and I have worked very hard over a long period of time—got the government to agree to a review. We took that to the 2016 election. I was delighted when Emeritus Professor John Halsey, from Flinders University, was appointed to lead that panel. I have known Professor Halsey for a long time. In fact—and I am a bit reluctant to say it in this place—I have known him ever since he taught me year 8 maths. He was one of the most gifted teachers I ever had. He rose quickly through the ranks to become a principal in a country area a couple of times and in the city and then he went into the department. He did a wide range of work and then he did some more education and ended up as a university professor in the Sydney Meyer School at Flinders University. He has prepared an excellent report. I thank him for the work and application that he put into that report. He probably knows more about rural education than any other person in Australia, in my opinion.

The government have adopted the recommendations from that report, and this legislation today is a reflection that we are trying to work towards implementing all of the outcomes that Professor Halsey recommended. The parental income threshold for independent youth allowance will now be lifted to $160,000—and I have already spoken about whether parents' income for this purpose should be assessed at all. But let's squeeze it up a bit and make it a bit higher. It sounds like a fair bit—unless you live in Paraburdoo or Roxby Downs, where the rent for your house might be $1,000 a week. Maybe one person in the household is earning a good income working long hours down underneath the ground on a tough task, but perhaps the partner is only working at KFC. That is quite a likely outcome. These people are not rolling in money. The cost of living in these environments is higher, so they don't necessarily have more disposable income to go shunting children off to university. So, with the lifting of the threshold from $150,000 to $160,000, the numbers provided show that quite a few extra people will qualify for independent youth allowance. That is a move in a good direction.

Given time, I would hope that the budget in Australia will continue to improve. I certainly believe strongly that we need to keep the government we have at the moment to ensure that outcome. We are looking at a surplus next year—the first one in Australia in 10 years. It comes back to this fundamental point: governments that can't run the economy can't spend money on education and they can't spend money on health. Governments that can't run the economy can't put extra money into aged care.

This government is hitting the targets. We're reducing our spend—well, we're eliminating the growth of spend, to be more specific—and the economy is recovering; the jobs are flooding in. We are at a very good point. We have a good story to tell. It is most unfortunate that, as I speak here today, other things are happening in this place that are detracting from our ability to tell that good story. But the world doesn't stop. The mechanisms of government don't stop. We are still here today. We are still legislating for the good of Australia.

We are legislating, in this case, for the good of rural Australia, not just for the students but for the long-term future of rural Australia, which needs these born and bred—actually I always think that's the wrong way around; I think they are bred before they are born, so bred and born—in the country. We need them back in the country but really tooled up to lead to us the next level, to take our agricultural industries and turn them also into manufacturing industries, value-adding to that product so Australia gets full value. If you look at our wine industry, for instance, grapes are worth so much—I know this will go into the Hansardand they can't see how far apart my hands are; let's say my hands are 100 millimetres apart, okay? Grapes are worth so much, but wine is worth that much—my hands are a metre apart now, for the benefit of the Hansard. They are the kinds of knowledge and skills we need back in the country to deal with a whole host of other products that we produce.

I heartily back this legislation. It's been long, arduous work for the member for Forrest, for me and for a number of others on this 'rural rump for education', as I named the group. I am heartened by the fact we are making progress, steady progress, with subsequent budgets. We keep clawing a little bit more, just getting a little bit better package for rural and regional students. I highly recommend the legislation.

See this speech in context