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

I just praised Senator Nash, who has just joined us. What is not in that legislation in detail, which is unfortunate—I gather it is in press releases and in public commentary—is the nation-building fund as the funding mechanism. That, for me, is a problem—that it is not actually identified in the bill. Going back to that previous point is the reason why. It would have been handy for the funding mechanism to be identified, as well as savings measures alongside that. The nation-building funds do place pressure on the budget bottom line. If there is a spend from that, they are accounted for in the budget cycle and they therefore need to be addressed as a budget item. Therefore, it is not as if these nation-building funds are off on one side as something that can be tapped without budget consideration. At the moment we are all going through the regional round of the Health and Hospitals Fund. That will have budget implications. There are important capital expenditures that are hopefully going to be announced over the next three or four months for many regional projects. Wagga, in front of me, is one example; Port Macquarie is one; so is Tamworth, next to me—look at all the hands go up. These have budget implications and are an example of why these nation-building funds cannot just be tapped without broader budget consideration. So for me it is not an either-or.

The other problem with the nation-building funds is that, if we just tap the education funds or nation-building funds generally, what they were going to be used for starts to be questioned. The EIF, as part of the agreement that was reached with government, does have a regional capital round attached to it, and that will hopefully be opened by government soon. I have been meeting with many vocational education providers and universities who want to develop some really good projects for education, many in regional and rural Australia. Therefore, another genuine concern is this either-or choice between youth allowance and the EIF. I would prefer that we be able to see the EIF do its job of providing capital projects for education in regional Australia and that we do what we can to get the result of better youth allowance outcomes for regional and rural students within Australia and tackle that topic of engagement with education and increasing participation rates.

In response to all of that, what I have tried to do is capture the very real substance of the issue that has been raised, and that is the issue of this ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ regional designation and the problems associated with that for many students. The electorate of Lyne is no different to any other. I now have a line right down the middle of the electorate—a line in the Lyne—where there are those that are in and those that are out and have a different set of rules of qualification for independence. But I also do not want to see a constitutional argument, rightly or wrongly, used as a show stopper in getting this issue addressed, either wittingly or unwittingly.

So, in response, over the past week several of us have been trying to reach an agreement with government on the substance of the issue, and we have reached an agreement in the following terms. It is that the government will bring forward by 12 months the review which is required by the social security amendment act to report by 1 July this year. That is only about 16 weeks away. It is not just another committee; it is the legislated review that is part of these youth allowance changes. This is bringing it forward to a time now 16 weeks away—something that is not in the substance of the bill itself, by the way. So we can now bring that forward and start that process of considering the impacts of the recent reforms, including the capacity of regional students to access higher education and appropriate savings that can be made to pay for extensions in eligibility for youth allowance. The changes will be informed by the findings of the review. The government will present legislation to the parliament this year with a view to implementing new eligibility arrangements with effect from 1 January next year—so 2012. The government will ensure that the new eligibility arrangements which would be implemented from 1 January would eliminate the distinction between inner regional and outer regional students, so we have blown up that concept—that deal that was done in the Senate—of the hybrid model and the geography test put on top of the poorness test, which is the fundamental problem that we are debating today. The final agreement point is that the solution will be evidence based, financially responsible and sustainable in the long term. Given the tough budget environment, any new spending needs to be offset by savings. If there is any political capital in this at all, in my view it is that last point. Depending on events today, if this is where we end up then the arguments around the savings measures and the ability for as much money as possible to be put into youth allowance based on a poorness test are an important fight for all of us regardless of political persuasion.

I will be surprised if we get down to the substance of the bill, because I do think there is a constitutional fight to be had. I acknowledge the amendment that has been put up by the Greens, and I think that is a sensible compromise position for the parliament in its relationship with the executive. I certainly think that provides some good prudential boundaries for members of parliament when they bring bills in in the future. I hope to see, either through this bill or through the actions of government through the agreement reached, the issue of regional participation in education finally getting addressed, and addressed in an equitable manner.

See this speech in context