Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

And indeed should have been fixed up in the past by those on that side when they were in government, and I commend the member for Kalgoorlie on that. We are trying to bring equity to this.

But I want to tell you I also have information from families who would have benefited under our system, these amended changes, and who are absolutely distraught that those opposite are not supporting it. So I want you to know—these are direct facts; I did not make this up—they have made decisions now and they are going to have to continue on their path. They have to take accommodation in Hobart, where they have to move to for their university. They have to sign those bonds now and they are lost in limbo because of what those opposite are doing, so I want those opposite to take that on board as well.

The minister has pointed out some of the figures which those opposite cannot deny in relation to those who are going to be seriously affected by the fact that the opposition will not support this legislation, along with Senator Fielding in the other house. If passed, the changes in the government’s amendments would have seen more than 100,000 students, and their families, better off. That is 100,000 students better off with either more youth allowance or youth allowance to some degree. One hundred and fifty thousand students would have received a $1,434 start-up scholarship in 2010, rising to $2,254 in 2011, but now they will miss out. So these are the facts that are being affected by the opposition and Senator Fielding’s opposition in the other house.

The government had agreed to a total of three sensible amendments, following negotiations in good faith with the Greens and supported by Senator Nick Xenophon, which would have dealt with any remaining concerns about current gap year students which I have just mentioned. I think that was only fair and I thank the minister for listening to those concerns raised by many members, on both this side and the other side of the House. But what have we got? We have them playing politics and, in the process, they are going to punish students and families such as the one that communicated with me today, including those students on a gap year who will not receive the scholarships. So that is a double whammy.

Those opposite had the opportunity to agree to a historic change to youth allowance. The member for Kalgoorlie pointed out that the previous allowance system which allowed so many more people to rort the system desperately needed change. That is all it was—a good old rort—and we know it. It should have been dealt with. The member for Sturt—he has more front than Myer, frankly—comes in here talking about how he can do us a favour if we separate these bills and the Commonwealth scholarships, which, by the way, the member for Sturt and all those opposite voted for earlier in the year in the budget measures. That is how much of a grasp he has of his portfolio. All he really wants to do is score a few points against an excellent minister whom he cannot match in any way or form either in this place or outside of it. That is his problem.

Let me just go over in the short time available to me—there are colleagues who want to contribute to this debate—the seven major negatives visited upon us and upon those families in Alveston in my electorate by the opposition in the other house along with Senator Fielding and led by the member for Sturt. I do not know what he is leading and how many there are to lead on this, but let me have a look at them. More than 150,000 students across Australia will not receive the start-up scholarship. That is fact. There were 21,000 existing Commonwealth scholarships voted out of existence earlier in the year which the opposition supported—the member for Sturt should remember that, as he supported this—meaning no scholarships are being paid by the Commonwealth in 2010. More than 100,000 students across Australia will get less or no youth allowance in 2010—a mere 100,000. Students who choose to move to study will not be eligible for a $4,000 relocation scholarship in 2010. Many students from my electorate who would have benefited from the new parental income threshold will not now be able to go and access these scholarships. Students with very high parental incomes will continue to receive youth allowance. So the member for Sturt has got what he wanted.

The continuation of the rort includes 18 per cent of students receiving youth allowance from families with incomes of more than $150,000, 10 per cent of students receiving youth allowance from families with incomes above $200,000 and three per cent from families with incomes above $300,000. For heaven’s sake, what are we doing here? This is immoral, but you continue with your recalcitrance in the Senate and you let this immorality, this rort, to continue—all for the sake of your petty vanity.

See this speech in context