Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Deputy Speaker would know I have waged a long battle, as he has, for a fair and better go for regional students in the tertiary education system in this country. It was my motion on 28 October 2010 which called on the then Labor government to reverse its decision to discriminate against regional students in the changes that they made to youth allowance. This motion was the first defeat on the floor of the House for an incumbent government for a long, long time, and in my view represented a low point for Labor in power at that time.

I thought it was a low point as well because of the importance of that particular issue and the importance of youth allowance to young people who live in rural, regional and remote areas. Labor had, as we saw repeatedly, disadvantaged regional Australian families and students for the express purpose, in this case, of diverting funds into outer metropolitan seats. For those of us who live in regional areas and work with people in those areas, this had an immediate and profound effect. I know that members like me had family after family and young person after young person coming to see them, and it was the most dreadful time.

I was in a supermarket and had a mum come up to me in desperation because she wanted to talk to me about the fact that she had to choose which one of her children she could afford to send to university in Perth. They lived two or three hours away and they had no choice. Her children did not have the choice to be educated locally; they had to move to the city. Of course, this meant that families had to choose. I had one particular family who had five children who needed to go to university, and the family could not afford to send them. I had one mum who said to me, 'Both my husband and I have gone and got second jobs to try to give our children the opportunity to go to university.' That came about through the changes that the Labor government made at that time.

There was a two-year campaign in 2010 and 2011 before the previous Labor government made some changes. There were profound efforts, and there was an inquiry into this. The inquiry came into my electorate, and many of the families who had worked with me for so long on this came along and gave evidence to that inquiry. They were very honest to the inquiry, and for practical purposes they could demonstrate exactly what this had done.

When I visited schools, what disturbed me most was that these great young people from my part of the world had literally changed their options to the subjects they were taking because they knew their families could not afford to send them to university, so they had made conscious decisions about their futures because they would never be able to afford that option. That, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, was something I found very hard to deal with: that these great young people were unable to pursue their ambitions and their dreams. They were not able to go to university. The measure of support that youth allowance gave them was the difference between being able to go to university and not being able to go to university. Of course, we rely on those young people to come back into our communities and to be our leaders of the future or really important parts of our community.

So this was something that many of us fought very hard for at the time. I wondered then why, as part of making the change, the previous Labor government then added a parental means test to the students who were classified as independent, even though they were independent of their families. We know that many students have to take a year off to earn enough to be considered independent, and that applies particularly to regional students. They have no choice but to move away, and they have so many costs when they move, including accommodation and the food that they need. They cannot even go home to their families. They have no choice but to live away. Not only does this often create some social and emotional challenges for them; it creates a huge financial burden on each of those families. They are costs that those who live in a metropolitan area would not have to face, and they would have the support of their families around them in often trying circumstances when they are going to university and studying.

The then education minister, Julia Gillard, changed the rules and used the maps where the ABS defined the Australian Standard Geographical Classification remoteness areas to pick the winners and losers. That divided the regional students again: those in outer regional and remote areas, who could access youth allowance after taking a single gap year; and the losers, technically in the so-called inner regional zones, who had to take two years off. It certainly did what it was intended to do, which was to reduce the number of regional students who were able to achieve independent status. It drove regional students out of the education process. This was a two-year battle.

The Labor government took independent status away from inner and outer regional students unless they took the two years off. Inner and outer regional students could then only qualify under the new rules for independents and earn their funds in blocks of 30 hours over 18 months. So there have been more and more challenges for these young people and their families to meet. For outer regional students 2013 was the first time that the means test applied. This was really an unforgivable decision by the then Labor government. There is no doubt that this was seen as discriminatory. In my area families came, and still come, to tell me that they believe that this is a form of discrimination against their children and their children's opportunities.

We know that young people in rural and regional areas are desperate for the opportunity to pursue their education. Often the only option they have for the courses they seek is a city based university. None of us underestimates the disadvantage they face. We are already seeing a reduced number of students from rural and regional areas go to university. This is something that has plagued me and still does. It is certainly something that plagues rural and regional students and their families. The whole family feels this.

When I look now at it, I see that these same families are being hit again by the debt and deficit we have been left. Our gross debt is over $400 billion and our interest payments are over $10 billion and I think, in relation to regional families and students, that is a lot of education opportunities for students in rural and regional areas. That is something that the previous Labor government clearly took lightly, but it is not something that regional families take lightly. One of the most important issues is opportunity for their students and their young people. They are constantly talking to me. They know I took a very strong position on this and that I would have sought a review on this whole process.

I intend to keep fighting for rural and regional students and their families. For these young people their time at university makes a difference for their whole life. None of us here underestimate the importance of education, and certainly not for those in rural and regional areas. We want our young people to come back to us. We want them to go away, get an education and qualify themselves. These are the young people who come back to us. I want to bring them back. I want to see them come back as doctors, specialists, engineers, teachers, whatever. They will make fantastic members of our community, but they need the education to start with. A key part of that is the additional cost involved for a rural and regional student in pursuing their education away from their home. That is why the issue of youth allowance is so critical to so many students and their families. Like my colleagues, I will continue to work on this issue.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that we are in the final week of this parliamentary year, it is worth reflecting on some of Newcastle's achievements and on the new government's agenda and the impact that might have for the people of my electorate of Newcastle. I do have many concerns. The time allotted tonight does not allow me to go through them all, so I will focus on a number that I believe have the broadest reach, particularly for the electorate of Newcastle.

As I touched on in my first speech, Newcastle is a city that leads with distinction in so many areas, such as the arts, science, sports, innovation, manufacturing and education. We are world leaders in a number of scientific fields that are directly saving lives. Researchers like Newcastle's laureate Professor John Aitken, the 2012 New South Wales scientist of the year, and his fellow researchers at HMRI are making a difference in medical research.

We are producing award-winning plays that are touring the country. In October this year, Alana Valentine won three Australian Writers' Guild awards for her 2012 play Grounded, which was centred on the famous grounding of the Pasha Bulker on Nobby's Beach in Newcastle in the 2007 storms that ravaged our city. We are home also to some of Australia's best athletes. World-beaters like Paralympians Kurt Fearnley and Christie Dawes are leading the way, and many young athletes are following. Even my team, the Newcastle Knights, had a good year, finishing in the final four in the NRL. We have some of the best journalists, too. Just last month, Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy won the Gold Walkley for her coverage of the sexual abuse of children, helping to uncover decades of abuse within the Catholic Church in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. It is a shocking part of our history, but her dedication to exposing the truth was necessary and much lauded. We also host great events, and we build amazing things.

I stood for the seat of Newcastle for Labor on the basis that I believed we had the best plan for the electorate and for the nation—a plan that would address needs, a plan that made sense, a plan that mapped out a future and a plan that was all-encompassing. Notwithstanding the distinct lack of plans this government have for Newcastle, I now have concerns that their commission of cuts will further harm the city. Agreements are being torn up, contracts are going unhonoured and promises are being broken every day.

On 15 April 2010 the then Minister for Education, the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, initiated a review of funding arrangements for schools to look at a new way of supporting Australian children. The result was the Gonski report—a report that recommended a new system of funding education, a system that tackled inequity and disadvantage to make education accessible for everyone and to level the playing fields to give every kid a chance, a system that was transparent, fair and sustainable, a system that promoted excellent education outcomes for all Australian students. The Gonski recommendations and funding arrangements were announced in April this year, passing through the parliament not long after. New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania, the Catholic schools group and the independent schools group all signed up. At one stage even the now Prime Minister and the now Minister for Education pledged their support for the model. They went to the election pledging a unity ticket on education.

We all know the story since then—the acrobatic flip-flopping between support, nonsupport, more funding, less funding and now the no-strings-attached cash handout for state governments. In the end, it seems as though the government have landed on less overall funding and have scrapped the recommendations for reform. It is little wonder that people are saying this is not the government they voted for. Abandoning the system does not make sense. It was created by the best minds in this country. It tackled inequity. This government clearly do not believe that everyone should have the same opportunities. Indeed, the Minister for Education has now declared that he does not believe there is an equity problem in Australian education. The evidence does not agree with him. Last week, the Program for International Student Assessment report released by the OECD showed that disadvantaged students in Australia are up to three years behind their peers and that students in regional and remote areas are almost a year behind city students.

We know that under the existing funding model we were falling behind. That is why we were reforming the system that got us into this position. It is apt today that I quote perhaps the greatest tackler of inequality in our history, Nelson Mandela. He said:

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

I urge the government to reconsider their reforms and to stick with the system that the Gonski report set out. It would be a powerful weapon to change Australia.

I also have concerns for the training and higher education sectors, which are areas where Newcastle thrives. The Labor government threw open the doors to Australian universities, with 190,000 more Australians now attending universities compared to 2007, enabling any Australian with ability and commitment to attend university. The 'commission of cuts' is promising to close the doors on higher education. The University of Newcastle, Australia's leader in opening doors to higher education through their enabling programs for universities, will suffer. The next generation of Australians will suffer.

In Newcastle, the higher education and TAFE sectors work very closely together to improve outcomes for students. I recently had the pleasure of attending an evening of recognition for the University of Newcastle industrial design graduates. These were not necessarily graduates who had the highest or best academic records throughout high school. They were the students who found their way to university through TAFE. The first three years of their degrees took place at TAFE, equipping them with the necessary practical skills before their study and research were refined at the University of Newcastle. They are the idea makers of tomorrow who, through a good education and a strong partnership between education sectors, are now graduating from our universities.

I note that the recent decisions of the New South Wales government to cut our TAFE system will have massive implications for those kinds of cross-partnerships between the university and TAFE, where we have done some great training. But more people have gained access to university study and education under Labor, and the track record there is substantial.

Access to education is likely to be cut, and funding to schools operating with this no-strings agreement is going to end in poor outcomes for Newcastle.

Sticking with my education concerns, I just finally mention that the parents and families who find it difficult to put their kids through school are now looking at losing out on the schoolkids bonus. It looks like there are more than 6,200 low- and middle-income-earning families in my electorate of Newcastle who are set to miss out on the schoolkids bonus under the watch of this new government. The schoolkids bonus is not beer-and-skittles money, as the Prime Minister has described it; it is money that helps families put their kids through school. Uniforms, shoes, textbooks, school equipment, school camps, laptops and school fees are not free. All of these things cost money, and the schoolkids bonus helps those who need it most.

As disappointing as it is that this government had no particular plan for Newcastle, made no promises to build on our education or infrastructure sectors and did not make any particular pledges to any of our industries in the area, you can be assured that I will continue to stand up for my community and hold this government to account for every cut to every job and every service that hurts the people of Newcastle.