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

I have just heard an interjection to say, 'That is right.' Let us do a direct comparison between the two options that have come before the House, one now and the other in February. The one we are looking at now, which will hopefully have the support of both all members in this chamber and those in the other place, has $265 million of outcomes and removes the inner regional versus outer regional dog of a deal that was done in the last Senate—that is, in the 42nd Parliament. It is a real result with real outcomes which have been achieved without bagging anyone, without accusations, without smears. Compare that to February—no result and no real outcomes but unconstitutional and with plenty of bagging, lots of accusations and lots of smears. I would say that for everyone the choice between the two options is pretty clear: $265 million versus zero. If you are a student who is thinking about their university options from 1 January next year, I would hope you would much prefer a result that mattered and that was achieved via negotiation—or via whatever means through the political process—to the smear, the accusations and the baggings that went with zero results in real terms for students in low-income areas, in regional communities and among communities of Aboriginal descent: the three standout areas in Australia of low access and low participation in higher learning.

It is a shameful failure of policy by this parliament and so-called public policy leaders that it is the case that low-income, Indigenous and regional and rural students are up to 30 per cent less likely to be in higher learning when we have skills shortage in this country. It says that public policy has been all too comfortable leaving people behind. I do not want to be in a parliament that does that. I do not think that is the Australian way. This legislation is one important contribution that says that we do not leave people behind and that we do all that we can to bring less affluent, Indigenous and regional and rural people—all of them potentially students—to a situation where they can be valuable contributors to the Australia of the future.

This legislation matters. It has had one ugly birth through a political process that goes back to the last Senate. The major parties both should be condemned for a dirty deal gone wrong, but I am pleased that this parliament has now negotiated an outcome that cleans that up and delivers a very real result that will matter for the long-term national interest of this country.

See this speech in context