Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the House affirm the constitutional position as stated by the Speaker and decline to consider the Social Security (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010, to which the honourable member for Melbourne has moved, as an amendment, that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation, I want to make it very clear that this government has no other option, if it really does believe in the rights of rural students to tertiary education, but to move urgently to reinstate the criteria that the coalition had for all rural students in relation to independent youth allowance and then to move as swiftly as possible to introduce a comprehensive new way for rural students to be able to equitably access tertiary education. The problem is that the boundaries or zones that this government now uses to discriminate between inner and outer regional students were not designed to have anything to do with how close a tertiary education institution is to a population or the socioeconomic status of families in those zones. In fact, they were introduced for medical doctor retention purposes. It was either laziness or stupidity that saw them simply adopted to separate out the haves and the have-nots in terms of potential access to tertiary education.

It would not be so bad if the government at least understood and helped the rural universities now in country areas. But they have not built at all on the coalition legacy of trying to make sure that there are some tertiary education offerings beyond the tram tracks of metropolitan Australia. So there is no option for country students. In a place like Shepparton, which has a La Trobe University campus, there is only a very limited offering of university courses. It is no good if you want to do medicine, law or engineering. There are only business courses and some arts courses available. So I have to repeat: this government has neglected and callously disregarded rural students on so many fronts. It has not built up tertiary education offerings in regional Australia. It has introduced this nonsense approach to divide those who can still, under the old coalition criteria, apply for a one-year gap year and only 15 hours of work a week to become independent youth allowance recipients. It has left people in so-called inner regional Australia—and that includes people in towns like Shepparton and up to Deniliquin—with a two-year gap period that universities very rarely acknowledge as acceptable, and it leaves them in despair. In fact, in my electorate of Murray, there was an enormous drop in those even applying for tertiary entrance this year; and that is a tragedy. Students did not even aspire anymore to trying to gain a university qualification, even though their merit was as great as it ever had been, and even though, in ignoring the merit of country students, it is a direct violation of their human rights. I repeat: this is a travesty of justice for country students. The solution is in the hands of this government and it can be delivered today.

We do not have any alternatives, and for this Prime Minister—the architect of the problems we have on our hands today—to encourage her Attorney-General to say this is all about a constitutional problem and we should not even debate the bill: how cynical and callous can you get. I can imagine would-be tertiary students in my electorate listening to that and again despairing about the two-speed economy and the two-speed access to things like future tertiary education that is being encouraged by this government. I certainly will not be supporting either the amendment that has been moved or the proposition that we completely walk away from the needs of country students today. I urge this government to look at the rights of country students and to act with some humanity and sense of equity and fair play.

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

I think there are many of us in this chamber from regional areas who are salivating at the chance to talk about better regional access to education and I know there are many members of parliament who are also salivating at the chance to have some parliamentary push-back on the executive. This is therefore a welcome debate before the House this afternoon. I need to also reflect and hopefully remind the House why we are able to have this debate: it is because we have a working parliament with tight numbers.

We have had a successful vote on the opposition motion on youth allowance because we were able to negotiate in this parliament the ability of private members to bring forward motions and private members’ bills for debate in this House. We are having a vote because this parliament allows for debate and consideration on private members’ bills. I think generally we are talking about regional education because of some sensitivities of many members of parliament pushing the importance of regional education and access and participation in education.

We are also talking about some of the deeper questions faced by a chamber such as this with regard to the roles that are played by a parliament and members of parliament versus those played by the executive. Again, it is not a debate that is normally had when there is a majority government, so I welcome this opportunity. Hopefully, all members will reflect on why we are having this debate and the advantages that come with a tight parliament, and hopefully those traditions can now continue whenever a majority government returns in the future.

I think the point was made in earlier debate about reflecting on traditions of parliamentary procedure and practice; however, it is also fair and quite right to say that this is a unique set of circumstances, and so those traditions need to be lined up against the realities of the moment. We should not be afraid of, if need be, shaping precedent for the future and being aspirational about shaping a direction for this parliament and the people of this country that is in the national interest.

With regard to regional education, access to education and youth allowance, I would not be on my feet right now if it were not an important issue. To be fair to all sides of politics, I know many members of parliament, both privately and publicly, have also expressed similar views. We can bang on about the politics, but the reality is there is an issue, there is a problem and it does need to be resolved. Before we get there, however, we are also in denial if we do not recognise there is a constitutional question before the chair. I will not say whether I agree or disagree, but there is a question before the chair. The clerks of the House of Representatives deserve to be listened to. Their advice and the advice from the Speaker deserve to be heard. We can deny it, but I think the legal advice to government and the detail that has been provided deserves to be listened to and considered.

From my perspective, I accept the fact that an appropriation without savings is questionable with regard to constitutionality. We can argue yes or no, but what is without doubt is that, if a precedent is established from this legislation, it is definitely unwieldy with regard to the way government would operate into the future. So we have constitutional lawyers at 10 paces, but in the end the question is: can government function with members of parliament in US congress style putting up private members’ bills with money attached to them and without savings measures? That deserves consideration, and I accept that that is a step too far for functioning government.

However, there is an amendment from the Greens and it captures the compromise position. If there were to be savings measures attached to bills in the future, that is a sensible move for parliamentarians to demonstrate in whatever they want to bring forward as a preferred issue that it is important to them. If they can attach to that legislation savings measures of an appropriate amount, I think it is a sensible amendment to the principles of how an Australian House of Representatives could or should work into the future.

That amendment is one that I will certainly be supporting, and I will be interested to see how all parties deal with it. I can only guess that the government will violently oppose it, again from the executive position. The question will be for the opposition to consider, because denying that as an opportunity when going for an even higher standard of having direct access to the Treasury bench from opposition is an odd position. The question of Treasury or bust versus a compromised position where all of us have to meet the discipline of presenting bills with financial savings as well as any money requests, I think, is important for a parliament in its dealings with the executive and the Treasury.

In the case of the bill that has come from the Senate, and in particular from Senator Nash—and I congratulate her, by the way, for bringing this bill forward and bringing the issue forward to this House—I hope it is an example to some of her party colleagues, not in this place but in the other place, who got us into this mess or were a party to getting us into this mess. At the end of the last parliament, the Senate cut an ugly deal that created this concept of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ regional areas and placed a geography test on top of a poorness test. That has proven to be a failure. So for Senator Nash to pick that up early and bring it on, I think, deserves congratulations, and hopefully the Senate has learnt a lesson on the back of that.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Say it again, Rob; she’s here now.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it alarming that we are here today debating whether we can debate the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011], but it does not surprise me that we are doing it when you look at the newspaper headlines of today such as that in the Tasmanian Advocate ‘Students urged to lobby for equity’:

The fight continues to give Devonport and Latrobe students the same youth allowance entitlements as their North-West counterparts.

The member for Braddon is quoted in this article. Mr Sidebottom said he was happy to debate the issue again. I look forward to Mr Sidebottom joining us so that we can debate this in proper terms.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Braddon, I think, is the term that the member for Wannon intended to use.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very important speech and I got a little bit excited and carried away. The Courier Mail headline is ‘Backflip on youth: Gillard blows millions’:

In a spectacular backflip likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the Gillard government will today announce it is fast-tracking a review into regional youth allowance.

‘Gillard cave-in heads off crushing defeat’ says the Daily Telegraph:

The Gillard government has caved in to a $300 million Coalition demand and will overturn its youth allowance laws in an extraordinary political precedent.

‘Coalition push on student pay bill’ says the Age:

The federal Coalition hopes to make history today by forcing Labor to relax youth allowance eligibility for regional students.

That is why Labor does not want to debate this bill. I have a word of warning to the crossbenchers on this: private members’ bills are worthless unless they lead to action. We can have debates and we can talk for 12 months or for two years, but unless we get action on this issue the debating will be meaningless and the private members’ bills will be meaningless.

I use an example of a family in Tarrington in the electorate of Wannon who have contacted me. In this family currently there is a student who under the old rules is accessing independent youth allowance and attending university in Melbourne. There is another member of this family who wanted to do exactly the same thing this year, but they have not been able to and, under what is being proposed by the government, they will be left in limbo. Fortunately, if these changes go through, there will be a third member of the family who will be able to access once again independent youth allowance and will be able to go to university. But, as a word of warning to us all, we have to do our best to look after the student that has been left out.

While she is here in the chamber, I would like to praise Senator Nash for her bill. She has been like a dog at a bone on this issue and in defending regional and rural Australian students. I congratulate her on her foresight in getting this bill through the Senate and into the House today. I also praise others on this side who passed a bill on this through the House last year. It goes to show that what we need is action now.

I understand that what has been agreed by the government with the crossbenches is to bring forward the review into what is happening to regional and rural students as a result of the changes which were made to the independent youth allowance. We do not need another review. I am sure a visit by the Prime Minister or the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and the crossbenchers to any regional or rural electorate will suffice because there is no issue for young people in my electorate—and, from what I have heard, from other members—that has hit a nerve like this independent youth allowance issue. It is seen as discriminatory and the record sadly is backing that up.

A report just released called Deferring a university offer in regional Victoria 2010 shows that 30 per cent of those who defer do not take up their offer or remain in their course. We are forcing more people to defer their course to get income so they can work, yet in regional Victoria 30 per cent of those students will not end up completing their course. More than 81 per cent of those who defer are in the two lowest quartiles of socioeconomic status. These laws are targeting the most vulnerable, those people who cannot afford to go to university. They are the ones who are being disadvantaged. Only 7.8 per cent of city students deferred in 2010 compared with 15.2 per cent of regional students. There is an inequality between city and country areas—that is the divide. As Toni Jenkins from the Southwest Local Learning and Employment Network said when she read this report, data indicates that the academic profile of students in our region is just as high as in metro areas. It is clear that other factors, such as financial hardship, are impacting on their outcomes. We have the evidence already; we do not need another review. We do not need a gag on a debate on independent youth allowance. What we need is action—we need action so that regional and rural students can access the income that they need to go to tertiary education this year and next year.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] as a representative who lives in an area that is classified as an inner-regional zone of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Area. I represent students in the Mackay region, who are discriminated against by this legislation which restricts the independent status of youth allowance.

The members opposite have created the situation where students in some regional areas, such as those in Mackay, are treated differently to others when it comes to youth allowance. They have created the situation where students in different towns in the same region are treated differently when it comes to youth allowance. And they have created a situation where students on different sides of the street are treated differently when it comes to youth allowance, as the Leader of the Nationals outlined in the House earlier.

They have effectively created an apartheid policy in relation to youth allowance: a student apartheid. You can either get access to the independent rate of youth allowance through one set of circumstances or you can jump through a whole heap of other hoops and hurdles as students in Mackay have to do.

Today, we have the opportunity to do something about this disgraceful situation. Now we have the Labor Party trying to shut down the debate; trying to stop the vote just in order to save face. Those opposite are very happy to put politics before students; they are happy to continue to screw students over in order to save face on this issue. What a hardhearted bunch these people are. These students are real people we are talking about; they are affected by this atrocious situation—this student apartheid that the government have created. They are real people, often from families who are struggling with rising costs of living already who want the best for their children, but who are unable to fund their university degrees.

And why would that be? We could look at the University of Queensland, which outlines on its website the costs that an average student incurs. I note that many Mackay students do find their way to Brisbane to study in degrees that are not offered locally. UQ says that a student living in shared accommodation and off campus would pay approximately $14,248 for rent, food and utilities, and approximately $3,210 for establishment costs when setting up their accommodation. That is more than $17,000 in the first year alone.

But wait, there is more. UQ goes on to mention the additional living expenses, such as public transport, entertainment, telephone costs, textbooks, photocopying and clothing. And there is more: personal access to a computer and the internet is recommended for all students. And for those who need a car to get about it can vary from anywhere between $5,000 to $25,000 and $90 a week fuel costs. That is a costly exercise for most people, particularly students.

The bill that the coalition wants to put before this House helps those students and helps average families who send their students off to university. It does so by allowing students easier access to a higher rate of youth allowance, this being the independent youth allowance.

On this side of the House we have all had numerous people contact our electorate offices about this apartheid situation. I just want to draw the House’s attention to two of these people in my electorate of Dawson. The first of these is 62-year-old Stephen Parker, who happens to be the father of a young daughter who has begun studying a medical degree in Townsville. She does not get that independent rate of youth allowance, even though for all intents and purposes, she is independent. She just does not get it because it is too hard to get under the current arrangements.

Mr Parker, who is going to retire in about three years time, wrote to me about this matter, and towards the end of the letter he says:

I would not be writing to you at all if I lived in Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney or any other capital city. … My peers who live in these places have no such burdens to face and indeed many will avail themselves of assistance as well. Living outside of these places puts extra costs on families not to mention the additional hassles of finding accommodation, security and all the other worries of having children living away from home. Many of these costs are substantial. It is these extra costs that should be helped with by the government.

Sadly, all too little consideration is given to these costs under the present scheme.

For Senator Nash, who was here earlier, and for all those who are lobbying to change this, Mr Parker goes on to say that he wants to thank this side of the House for what they have done so far and he encourages us to continue lobbying for these changes.

I also want to mention the case of young Matthew Flor. His father, Darrell, wrote to me about this situation and he said that Matthew:

… completed a work placement at Team Engineering in Mackay for which he was paid. The amount that he was paid allowed him to qualify as an independent student for youth allowance purposes according to the criteria that was published on the Centrelink website at the time. Matthew finished his work placement on the 27th June, which allowed him a few days to complete his application for youth allowance before returning to Rockhampton to commence study for term 2. Using the criteria available on the Centrelink website, he completed his application and lodged it in person at Mackay Centrelink on the morning of 1st July 2010 … The Centrelink employee who accepted his application actually congratulated him on providing all the required information for independent status, and advised that he should not have any trouble with qualifying.

Matthew was later advised that his claim was rejected because the rules for independence changed on 1st July 2010.

One day late—so Matthew misses out now because of the hard heartedness of those members opposite. His family now has to scrimp and save, and no doubt Matthew has to chip in as much as he can—as much as a struggling student can—all because they created this apartheid situation. Here, now, is our chance to overturn this disgraceful piece of legislation; to give Matthew Flor, Ms Parker and many other Mackay students a fair go.

Members of the House have been pressured to say that the legislation that we are proposing is unconstitutional. Those opposite claim that it is unconstitutional, or that it is about appropriation or whatever they can dredge up to try to ensure that this bill does not see the light of day. But not everyone on the Labor side actually agrees. The President of the Senate, Labor Senator Hogg, put the view that the bill in question does not appropriate money, and he went on to say that it:

… does not need to do so because any funds required to support the measures in the bill have already been appropriated by the parliament in the form of a special appropriation of indefinite amount in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999.

The Clerk of the Senate has also said that parliament has agreed to a standing or special appropriation under the Social Security Act, which has effectively given a:

… perpetual blank cheque for payments to be made. This means that a bill to change entitlements, such as providing wider access to income support, does not need to appropriate any money because the appropriation is already in place.

That is pretty much clear cut: this bill is not about appropriation and it is completely constitutional. There is absolutely no reason to hold this bill up. I say to the House: let this bill be debated, let justice and fairness for Mackay students prevail and let this bill pass.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is about fairness, equity and assisting regional students to have the same opportunities as those who live in capital cities. If, as this government often claim, their focus is on regional Australia, here is the chance for the government to put action where their words are—real action, real policy and real hope for country students. Here is the test. It is not a geography test. It is not a test between inner and outer regional students. Allow the bill to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. What does the Prime Minister have to hide? I would like to see the Prime Minister show genuine leadership and help the bill pass. If the Prime Minister decides not to do this then I would like her to tell the students of Wagga Wagga, Junee, Tumut, Gundagai, Tumbarumba, Coolamon, Batlow and Adelong in my electorate—and all of those students in all of the other electorates, including those in Labor electorates, and also those in Mackay—why she will not allow them fair and just access to independent youth allowance.

Labor’s claim that the coalition’s policy to fix youth allowance for regional students is not offset with savings is a nonsense, a lie and a disgrace. As stated in the accompanying document to the bill, the coalition proposes that this be funded from the Education Investment Fund so as to be budget-neutral. The Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] was introduced by the shadow parliamentary secretary for regional education, Senator Fiona Nash, last September. It follows a similar motion that was moved and passed in the House of Representatives. The bill was passed in the Senate on 10 February 2011, with 35 votes in support and 33 against. The Greens and Labor opposed the bill—what would you expect? Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and Family First Senator Steve Fielding voted with the coalition. The Labor government, in an unprecedented move, wants to scrap the bill, even sounding out the possibility of Governor-General intervention. This is an extraordinary move by a government running scared from the parliament because it knows it will and it should lose the vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The changes to youth allowance which passed the Senate will not even be considered by the people’s house if the government has its way. How undemocratic. How unfair. How un-Australian. This is in conflict with the 2008 precedent established when the Rudd government allowed a coalition bill that had originated in the Senate and which sought to increase the pension to be presented to the House of Representatives. A motion to do exactly what this bill proposes passed the House of Representatives with crossbench support last year. The government knows it would again, and it is too weak and too insipid to face the music this time. We do not need another review. This is, if the Prime Minister is to be believed, to be the year of delivery and decision—not delays—so just let the bill be debated and let it be passed. Students in the inner regions who cannot access youth allowance will be the big losers if this government persists with this abhorrent and discriminatory tactic.

Tony Crook (O'Connor, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am bit surprised we are having this debate. This, in my view, has been through this House once before on the back of the member for Forrest, and the vote was won. There was a passionate plea from the Senate. In fact, I thought there was a fire in the Senate on Thursday, as the bells were ringing so often, and the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] was brought back to this place.

I would like to use this opportunity to clarify a few points that have been made today, mainly in the words of the Manager of Opposition Business in his speech. I was not party to an agreement with the government on this. In fact, I pushed hard for it to be implemented almost immediately. Failing that, I asked for it to be brought forward to 1 July 2011 so it could be thought of in the next budget session. There is a real opportunity for it to go forward there, but that request has fallen on deaf ears as well. July 2011 would not have been perfect, but it would have given a clear indication that this government were serious about regional students. My electorate of O’Connor, a mere 909,000 square kilometres, has lots of regional students and every one of them suffers. I appreciate that they are not inner regional, but the intent of this is critical and the intent or the view of government towards students per se are critical in this discussion.

I think it is a shame that we have got to this point where we are now putting pressure on the Speaker. I think the government should have used the opportunity and realised that this motion would be won in the House as it was last year when the member for Forrest got her motion up. With the great work of Senator Nash in the Senate, I think that the government should have taken the opportunity, bitten the bullet, realised the error of their ways and looked out for those inner regional students in this situation. It is a lost opportunity. It is a shame that there was any inequity in the first place. That to me is the biggest travesty in all of this—how a line on a map can determine whether or not you get youth allowance. It is clearly and blatantly wrong.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a few issues that I would like to raise. Essentially, we are looking at two issues here. One is the substantive issue of youth allowance. We have talked about that a lot. In the previous parliament there was legislation that came in. I was involved in some of it, and I think the member for Sturt would remember that there were games played. The outcome that we are dealing with at present was not a perfect outcome. In fact, a deal was eventually done in the Senate. I think the member for Lyne has referred to it as ‘a dog of a deal’. I think most of us recognise that it was not perfect and that it was to address a certain sum of money rather than a sum of students. Nonetheless it did occur, and I remember quite clearly that the Minister for Education at the time and the current Prime Minister was trying to negotiate with one of the senators—who will remain nameless for this exercise, but I think most people who were closely involved at the time would know which senator I am talking about. I tried to negotiate a better outcome in terms of a regional package for students who were going to be disadvantaged, particularly that cohort of students who were going to have to leave home to find a job to prove that they were independent of their home so they could achieve an independence test for the youth allowance. That was a proposal of about $30 million which died in a ditch but would have got the support of government at the time had in fact, one particular senator seen the benefits to country students of taking on that regional package.

The youth allowance is an issue that all country members are very concerned about. There was also an issue—and I still think it is an issue—where city based students in particular use the independence test to obtain income and then live at home. They get the benefits of both worlds. There is no doubt in my view that under the Howard arrangements there was rorting going on in the system. On extreme occasions two fathers would exchange cheques for $18,600 to prove that their children were independently earning income over a period of time and, therefore, could access the public purse for assistance. I can remember—and I think the member for Sturt can remember quite clearly too—how there were issues of retrospectivity which have since been cleaned up. Because of the various constituency bases in here there were issues of city based children who did have the option of living at home and attending a university accessing the public purse to the same degree as a country child at Walgett, where they do not have a university and have to leave home to study. The member for Parkes, which includes Walgett, is sitting in front of me. So there are still inequities—and they were in the coalition’s argument as much as they were in the government’s argument at the time.

Before moving on to the second part of the issue I want to bring some members of parliament and the community up to date on what happened in the previous parliament. During the coalition years the income test for students had a cut-off point that started at $34,000 to $42,000. It was $34,000 at one time and $42,000 at another. Students’ family income, once it reached $42,000, started to decline in terms of the capacity of that student to access youth allowance. That is not saying it disappeared immediately; it started to move backwards. I was supportive of the then Rudd government in addressing that issue, because there are a lot of kids, country or city, who could not go to university because their parents were relatively poor. The $42,000 ramp-down figure was far too low. The emphasis changed slightly and was done to within a dollar figure rather than trying to address the substantive issue. The government increased the income test. I have had countless parents in through my doors and I am sure other members have as well. When the debate is solely about the independence test, when you refer them to their accountant the penny very often drops and they say, ‘Oh, I didn’t realise that; I didn’t realise that my child could obtain youth allowance at relatively high income levels.’

I will give some examples. For a family income of $80,000 with two students at university, if they had taken the year off to prove that they were independent under the old arrangements or even under the current arrangements, the family would get $28,000 annually. That is not $28,000 each; that is the assistance that the family gets. Under the family income arrangements, based on the $80,000 income the family would receive $21,300. The cut-off level for that family would have been $72,000 under the old arrangements. They would have got nothing. For a $100,000 income in the same example, that family would still receive $17,300 under the income test. That is not as good as being independent, because the family would get $28,000, but it is still a substantial sum of money bearing in mind that the ramp-down started at $42,000 previously. Even at $138,000 family income those two students, where one is in year 1 and one is in year 2, would have the first-year student get $6,250 because of the various scholarship arrangements that were put in place. They were not in place under the old arrangements. The second-year student would get $3,250 plus a small youth allowance. But even a dollar youth allowance allows you access to the Start-Up and Commonwealth scholarships. So even at that level that family would receive about $10,000 assistance by way of youth allowance based on income. The cut-off level is actually $139,000.

I raise those issues because a lot of parents out there think the only way to get youth allowance is through the independence test—the gap year plus the 30 hours a week on average and all the things that we are talking about in this piece of legislation. So we are very supportive of youth allowance, there is no doubt about that. There is a deal that has been done. It is not a review; it is an arrangement. It will happen; there is no doubt about that.

The other point that we have to be serious about is the constitutional issue. I am as emotive about youth allowance as anybody else in this room, but we have to have a parliament that can actually function. I congratulate the senator for bringing this bill to the parliament because it has highlighted an issue that will now be addressed. The crossbenchers have been very active over the last few months on that particular issue. That is a good thing and it will be addressed as of January next year.

I have sought independent legal advice. I think anybody who has taken the time to get some independent constitutional advice on this would see and there is no doubt in my mind, contrary to what the Senate have said—and they can say what they feel; I do not have a problem with that—that under sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution this bill is not a legal entity in terms of the capacity to deal with it in the House of Representatives. In this hung parliament, I signed a document that guaranteed supply to the government. Supply is the budget bills. If we go down this route, we are going to start to develop an arrangement which allows any of us to bring in a money bill, which I have a no doubt that this is in that it appropriates money not from the education infrastructure fund but from the social security administrative standing fund. It is an appropriation bill in any language.

If it is an appropriation bill, I would accept the advice of the clerks. I think all of us have the highest regard for the clerks in this parliament. We might question the Speaker from time to time. I do not terribly often, irrespective of which side of the parliament the Speaker is from. I think I have once. We must respect the judgment and the knowledge of the clerks in terms of where we sit in the House of Representatives. I have also sought other independent constitutional legal advice and it indicates to me at least that there are some issues here. This means of introducing legislation through the Senate and appropriating money from existing funds is inappropriate. What do we do about that? What have the crossbenchers done about it? We have attempted to recognise that there are these two issues, which are different issues.

One is a vehicle to achieve an outcome which Senator Nash should be respected and praised for. It is an outcome that should have been achieved a year or more ago, whenever the legislation came to the parliament. Now we find that, if in fact this bill did get up, it would be unconstitutional and the government would have no recourse other than to advise the Governor-General not to endorse it. So nothing would happen to the substantive issue that we are trying to achieve here in getting a better outcome for students in inner-regional areas. The way to overcome that particular problem is to come up with a solution that addresses the substantive issue. That is being done in conjunction with negotiations with the government and will come into play, as the member for Lyne said, from 1 July and will then be implemented on 1 January next year. That is a good outcome for what I think most of us are trying to achieve.

The other outcome is to go through the antics of this constitutional challenge arrangement about whether it is an appropriation bill from a standing fund ,and whether the Senate can introduce a private members’ bill that appropriates money, including the whole argument about whether it is money because the word ‘appropriation’ has not been mentioned in the bill. I think we have to go past that and recognise that it is an issue, maybe it is something that needs to be sorted out in a legalistic sense on another occasion, and distance the two issues from each other. We get the best of both worlds in a sense. We have stability in the way our system works. In theory—and I know the member for Sturt would not go anywhere near this particular example that I am about to talk about—you could run a political campaign based on waste and mismanagement and deficit budgeting, create the deficit and the waste and then accuse the government of a particular agenda.

Particularly in a hung parliament I think we all have some degree of financial responsibility. If we start this merry-go-round going—and I know it is a great issue—we can create chaos in terms of the economic circumstances in which we live and that can have ramifications far beyond university students into interest rates and a whole range of economic parameters that exist. I will be supporting the government on this particular legislation. I am proud to have been involved with my crossbench colleagues who have been dealing with this issue for some time now. I am proud of the arrangements that we have been able to negotiate within the parameters of appropriation and the parliamentary process to achieve a much better outcome for country students in the inner regional areas.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that for an issue which has been described in some quarters as building to a constitutional crisis there appears to be an enormous amount of consensus in this chamber both this morning and this afternoon. I want to congratulate each of the crossbenchers for their contribution to the debate. It is very clear to me that they are seeking the very same outcome as those of us on the government side of the House—that is, a fair and equitable scheme which supports rural and regional students who choose to travel to attend a university.

I do acknowledge also—and the member for Sturt might be surprised at this—that there is a good deal of goodwill on the opposition benches as well. I do believe that most on that side want the same thing as the government and those on the crossbenches want and that is a fair and equitable scheme for those young people living in rural and regional Australia. The problem is that those on the opposition benches, like all of us who have sat on the opposition benches, have seen an opportunity to score a political point and so to build some political capital in rural and regional Australia. If you read their contributions today, you will be in no doubt that that is the case.

Contributors before me have made the point that, when the government made its original adjustments to the independent youth allowance for students, it was done in agreement with those who still sit on the opposition benches, so I think I am entitled to claim that there is a fair degree of politics creeping into this debate. I, as a person who represents a rural electorate, find it disappointing that they would seek to exploit the concerns and anxieties of some of those rural students just so that they can build their political capital in this place today.

I have two children who are beyond their teens—they are aged 20 and 21—and one teenage child. I have a longstanding habit of describing them all as teenage children, and the fact that they have gone beyond that point I suspect somewhat reflects my age and the time I have been in this place. But I have three children attending university, and long before this became a public debate they complained to me, rightly or wrongly, about how so many of their friends were receiving the youth allowance and living at home with parents who were earning very good incomes while they, the teenage kids of a politician, were unable to secure any assistance at all. I am not suggesting that those listening to this debate should have a great deal of sympathy for my children—I certainly would not suggest that. My wife and I are in a happy position to support them in their studies, but they also do a lot to support themselves in their studies. Each of my three children work an enormous number of hours as they work their way through their education.

Let us go back to taws and ask ourselves what this whole policy change was all about. As the member for New England pointed out, we previously had a qualification regime for establishing independence which was open to abuse—there is no doubt about that. There is surely no-one on the opposition side who would claim that the regime for determining independence was not open to abuse—of course it was. Running parallel to that, as the member for New England also pointed out, was a very tough means test which started the taper rate, I think, in the high 30,000s of income and eventually tapered off in the low 40,000s of income. In other words, rural students were knocked out of the prospect of securing income support from the government while they studied at university if their parents had a family income of around $40,000.

In this day and age, that is a very tough means test indeed—no-one could argue otherwise—so the government’s approach was to attempt to put equity and fairness into the regime. This was not a savings measure. I think that is a very important point. Members opposite are out there in their electorates trying to present this as a savings measure on the part of the government. It was never a savings initiative; it was about taking a bucketful of money of the same value and making sure it was fairly spread throughout the students who are seeking assistance in this country. As a matter of principle, no-one could argue with tightening the test for establishing independence but raising the means test so that students with families earning income above that $40,000 or $43,000 or whatever it was at the time were still able to secure income support. Then, of course, we had the debate in this place, and the government reviewed the situation, accommodated some of the concerns and—as I said earlier—made some changes in agreement with those who sit opposite. It is very sad today to see them taking the opportunity to score political points and to push the government beyond the agreement that was made.

On the question of the constitutionality of the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011], the Leader of the House has very well articulated the position, citing advice from Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General, the clerks and others. So we should not be wasting our time arguing about whether this bill contravenes section 53 of the Constitution; we should be sticking as best we can to the proposal on its merits. I am really fearful of the amendment moved by my good friend the member for Melbourne, because it creates something which I have never seen in this place: any time a backbench senator wants to introduce a bill and they meet with success, they can send it off to the House of Representatives and the precedent will be set for this House to potentially give assent to the bill and therefore have to worry about the fiscal consequences somewhere down the track.

I ask honourable members to think through that proposition. The government sets a budget annually on its best assessment—what it expects the revenue to be over the next 12 months and what it expects its outlays to be. It is not an exact science because those revenues and outlays will be determined by the strength of the economy and other factors. If we have people coming into this place on a weekly basis passing bills and then expecting the government to find the funding, it will make the whole budgetary process a farce. We will have to have a minibudget every fortnight to adjust the budgetary settings to accommodate the bill already passed by the parliament. No doubt the founding fathers had in mind when framing the Constitution the need for the executive to have certainty over its budget proposals so that it could accommodate its outlays over the course of the next 12 months with some confidence. I appeal to all in the House to continue to discuss and debate the issue. Today the Prime Minister talked about another review on the key issue—that is, how we accommodate and take care of our rural and regional students—but let us not undo more than a hundred years of convention in this place just to score a cheap political point.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to close this debate, which has been extensively participated in by members of the government, members of the opposition and the crossbenchers. There has been some debate on the substance of the bill that was moved in the Senate, but we have to remember that the motion that I moved is essentially about the proper procedures of this House. The member for Sturt said, ‘On this occasion, our view is that the government is hiding behind legal technicalities.’ The member for Wide Bay said, ‘The government is hiding behind legal technicalities.’ That was a theme.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you adopt our bill?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business gives it away yet again. He says, ‘Why don’t you adopt our bill?’ Inherent in that is his understanding that the bill is unconstitutional. You simply cannot say that the Australian Constitution does not matter, House of Representatives Practice does not matter, the standing orders do not matter, it does not matter what the view of the Speaker is, it does not matter what the view of the clerks of the House is, and it does not matter what the views of the Attorney-General and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel are. You simply cannot wish that away. That is not a responsible way for this House to act. The only thing missing from the speeches of some of those opposite was: ‘What makes this viable is the vibe,’ as Dennis Denuto said in The Castle. No legal argument has been put forward. Indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business made it very clear, consistent with his views over a long period of time, that it is not within the powers of this House to pass a private member’s bill or a bill that has come from the Senate which seeks to appropriate funds. He made that very clear. We did have a statement from the member for Murray, who, of all people, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was cited to override the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice, standing orders and appropriate processes.

I want to also say that the government opposes the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. We do so because that amendment, which suggests that the bill proceed when parliament has agreed to a method to finance the measures contained in the bill, does not override the constitutional concerns under section 53 and section 56 of the Constitution. I appreciate the fact that the member for Melbourne came into this House as a member of a political party that historically has been based in the Senate—therefore, a political party that unashamedly wants to see a shift in power from the House of Representatives to the Senate. That is not my view; that is not the view of this House. This House, under the Westminster system, has the responsibility to be the place where government is formed. That is the role that we play. The executive is derived from a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why the founding fathers constructed the Constitution in the way that they did. For opportunistic reasons, you cannot simply say: ‘We will ignore that.’

I respect the views of the member for Melbourne. I understand why the member for Melbourne has taken the position that he has. But I say to the other crossbenchers and, indeed, to the opposition—who have declared their opposition to this amendment moved by the member for Melbourne—that that opposition is indeed justified. Certainly, a number of members opposite who spoke—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven’t declared—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you changing your position now, member for Sturt? The member for Sturt is showing what this is all about. This is not about substance or about youth allowance; this is actually about trying to create chaos in this House, trying to make the position unworkable and trying to cause these issues. The member for Melbourne argued that the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010 was the same and was passed by the House, but, if you look at the advice of the Clerk, he makes it clear that this is not a helpful example. In his advice he said: ‘The PBS bill is not a helpful precedent for the regional students bill.’ That is because this bill was sponsored by the government, the expenditure was for agency operating costs, and government lawyers and drafters did not consider the bill an appropriation bill. This is because agency appropriations are separate and specific appropriations agreed by the government. As such, this bill did not need a message from the Governor-General and was not considered to increase an appropriation.

So have been no exceptions since Federation to the way that the government is dealing with this bill. But I say to the House that we should not go down the road of questioning rulings made by the Clerk of the House or the Speaker of the House, or the proper functioning of the House in accordance with the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice and standing orders. In all organisational forms, whether it be the parliament or the local football club or indeed the rules of sporting codes, you have to abide by the rules. Some of that is based upon stipulation, in terms of a strict application of those rules. Some of it is based upon convention—convention that people will stick to the rules that have been established. The standing orders are important and the House of Representatives Practice is important, but nothing is more important than the Australian Constitution. We are a parliamentary democracy. The foundation of the parliament’s functioning is derived from the Australian Constitution. I commend my motion to the House. I ask that the House not support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. I ask that we engage in this House in a way which pays due respect to the Constitution and to the rules and practice of this House.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question—in other words, at this point those who support Mr Bandt’s motion should vote no.

Question put.