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

The bill transmitted by the Senate gives rise to some important issues in terms of the role and responsibilities of the House of Representatives.

All members have had access to note from the Clerk’s office which goes into the standing orders and practice of the House which in turn reflects the interpretation and application in the House of the constitutional provisions, particularly those set out in sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution.

As I understand it, this bill provides for increases in payments that are funded by means of standing appropriations in the Social Security Administration Act. I understand further that House practice has been that such bills are proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, and that they require a message from the Governor-General in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution. I present a copy of the note that has been made available by the Clerk’s office, and I present a copy of a letter that I have received from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland, on the matter.

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

I move:

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.

This resolution draws upon three important documents: the Australian Constitution, House of Representatives Practice and Standing Orders. This House simply cannot place the parliament in the position whereby the House of Representatives ignores any of those documents, but in particular cannot simply choose to ignore, out of political convenience, what is stated very clearly in the Australian Constitution.

Under our constitutional arrangements it is the government of the day that is responsible for the management of public revenue and the budget. The government initiates all financial initiatives in the parliament, and that is for good reason. There are a range of initiatives which, by themselves, we could all agree on. We would all like to give extra money to particular groups in society, for example. But the reason that the founding fathers—and they were all men—considered the constitutional issues in the way they did was that they understood that as well as expenditure there has to be revenue; that governments of the day have to put up the budget. They also understood the respective role of the houses of parliament; that the House of Representatives is the people’s house and that the Senate is the house of review, representing states and territories.

The Constitution cannot be clearer; section 53 of the Constitution states:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

It cannot be clearer than section 53 of the Constitution.

Section 56 of the Constitution reinforces that:

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

There is no message of the Governor-General attached to this legislation—none; so it simply cannot be passed by this chamber.

Advice which I have received—and which has been tabled in the House—of the Attorney-General, of the clerks, of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and of any legal minds which have considered these issues considers the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] from the Senate to be a proposed law appropriating moneys. All you have to do is read it. The explanatory memorandum presented by Senator Nash states:

Financial impact is approximately $90 million per annum.

That is, if the bill were enacted an additional amount of approximately $90 million would be appropriated on an annual basis. This would be an increase to 2013-14 of approximately $272 million.

The requirements under sections 53 and 56 are not confined to laws explicitly appropriating from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Laws that cause money to be expended under a standing appropriation are also covered. By altering the purposes for which money may be expended, in this case the category of persons entitled to a benefit, the bill is clearly in contradiction of both sections 53 and 56.

The financial initiative of the executive is enshrined not just in the Constitution, of course, but in House of Representatives Practice and in standing orders. House of Representatives Practice has been used in this chamber since Federation. Page 408 of House of Representatives Practice clearly outlines the financial initiative of the executive:

• The Executive Government is charged with the management of revenue and with payments for the public service.
• It is a long established and strictly observed rule which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Executive Government.
• The Executive Government demands money, the House grants it, but the House does not vote money unless required by the Government …

Page 431 of Practice deals with section 53 of the Constitution and limitations on the Senate powers of amendment:

Section 53 of the Constitution, as well as limiting the rights of the Senate in the initiation of legislation, provides that the Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Further, page 567 of Practice states:

A private Member may not initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or moneys. This would be contrary to the constitutional and parliamentary principle of the financial initiative of the Executive—that is, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Government.

Indeed, this practice has been perfectly illustrated by the member for Forrest’s motion concerning this very matter. Advice was provided to the member that it would not be in order for a private member to present a bill to the House to extend the youth allowance in the way proposed in the bill, as it would contravene the practice of the House and be contrary to section 56 of the Constitution. So, rightly, the member for Forrest moved a private member’s motion rather than a private member’s bill. She accepted that that was the situation, as did the entire House of Representatives when we considered the private member’s motion on this matter last year. The same was the case when I put forward a private member’s bill in 2001 on equal rights for superannuation for same-sex couples. It had to exclude Commonwealth public servants because, as a private member, I could not appropriate funds. That is the role of ministers. I respected that. We have to respect the processes of this House if government is to have the respect of the people.

Indeed, a message from the Governor-General for the appropriation of public moneys may only be requested by a minister. Page 568 of House of Representatives Practice makes this clear:

It would not be possible for a private Member to obtain the Governor-General’s recommendation for an appropriation. Furthermore, of those bills requiring a Governor-General’s message, only those brought in by a Minister may be introduced and proceeded with before the message is announced. Therefore, only a Minister may bring in a bill which appropriates public moneys.

It cannot be clearer, and every member of the House of Representatives must understand that this is what we are debating, rather than the substance of the bill. People have views as to the substance of the bill that may vary. Certainly, it is the case, though, that we have to—and every member should—respect the Constitution and not engage in some form of anarchy where people, for opportunistic reasons, can take whatever position they like rather than respect the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice and the standing orders. We all know the rules of the game, and the Constitution cannot be clearer. That is why the standing orders reflect this as well.

Standing order 180 clearly spells out the principle again, and these standing orders were adopted unanimously by this House when this parliament convened. There were no objections by those opposite, there were no objections from the crossbenchers and there were no objections from government members. We all supported standing order 180, which says very clearly:

All proposals for the appropriation of revenue or moneys require a message to the House from the Governor-General recommending the purpose of the appropriation in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution.

For an Appropriation or Supply Bill, the message must be announced before the bill is introduced—

and—

For other bills appropriating revenue or moneys, a Minister may introduce the bill and the bill may be proceeded with before the message is announced and standing order 147 (message recommending appropriation) applies.

This bill would, if enacted, significantly affect public revenue and appropriate revenue by clearly increasing what would be paid under a standing appropriation.

The bill proposed by the opposition amends the Social Security Act 1991 to change youth allowance payments. The effect of the amendments proposed would be to increase the amount of money appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Senator Nash—only on 10 February, in her speech on the second reading debate in the Senate—said the following:

… this is not about fiscal responsibility of the government and bringing budgets back to surplus.

I say that it has everything to do with fiscal responsibility of the government, and our responsibility as members of the House of Representatives to act in accordance with our obligations under the Constitution. This is irresponsible behaviour from the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition still has not accepted that he is not the Prime Minister. It is one thing to oppose; it is another to try and wreck the federal budget and play politics with the national economy

If you support having this bill debated then next week we will have another bill appropriating money for another purpose that may or may not be worth while and that people may in general support. But the reason the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice and the standing orders are framed the way they are is that budgets have to be put together, with expenditure as well as revenue. And you do not have to just to believe me—believe the Manager of Opposition Business. He said last week on ABC Radio that he accepted that, even if the bill passed the House of Representatives, the government was not obliged to send it to the Governor-General and it would not become law. This is what the Manager of Opposition Business had to say—and it gives up the game of what they are really about on that side of the House:

It potentially would lead to a constitutional crisis. I mean, the weight of constitutional opinion would be on their side, that they did not need to present it to the Governor-General. That’s true, because the opposition and the private members can’t have money bills adopted. They have to be initiated and they have to be presented to the Governor-General by the government.

I say to the House of Representatives: game, set and match. The Manager of Opposition Business, who will speak after I conclude, was stating the exact opposite of what he said on ABC Radio last week, where he said:

That’s true, because the opposition and the private members can’t have money bills adopted.

I was the Manager of Opposition Business in the dark era of the Howard government, and I never once even thought about taking this opportunistic direction. Never once did we attempt this. It is contrary to the Constitution and contrary—

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

Ms Marino interjecting

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

We have more regional seats than the Liberal Party. Not once did we take this opportunistic view. Indeed, in 2008, when the opposition last tried this, the Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Hockey, interjected—it is in the Hansard of September 2008—‘What we want is the government to adopt this position’. He gave up again in that debate that private members’ bills can be moved in this fashion.

So we have a situation in which the High Court of Australia has considered some of these matters in the Pape case. We have the Attorney-General, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the clerks of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice, and standing orders, but those opposite say: ‘Don’t you worry about that. Let’s just consider this and pass it even though, because there is no message attached, it will not make any difference to anybody.’ Let me be very clear: there is no message from the Governor-General attached to appropriate money, so it does not make any difference, but they will engage in this as a stunt. They understood and accepted last December, when they moved a private members’ motion to put the views that members of the House had, as is appropriate.

We facilitated in this new parliament the voting on private members’ motions and private members’ bills. Private members’ motions are completely legitimate for members of the House of Representatives to express their views with. They have done that, and the government has taken on board the views of many members with the announcement that we have made today. I thank those members, particularly all of the members on the crossbenches, who have engaged in a constructive fashion regardless of what way they vote on this particular issue. They have engaged constructively and understood the balance that needs to be made between political objectives to achieve an outcome and behaving in a fashion that respects the role of this House of Representatives.

We have a great honour and a privilege in sitting in this chamber. It is an honour and a privilege that we cannot use simply for opportunistic purposes. It is an honour and a privilege in which we have to respect the law, the Australian Constitution, the House of Representatives, the standing orders and, in this case with my resolution, Mr Speaker, your determination on this matter. It is correct. It is in line with all of the history that has been conducted in this House without exception. That is why I commend the motion that I have moved to the House and support your determination on this matter.

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

Respectfully, I have to disagree with the motion of the Leader of the House based on the advice that you have presented to the chamber. The opposition does not agree with the government that this bill cannot be considered and we do not agree with your ruling, Mr Speaker, that the parliament cannot consider this bill. It is our view that the parliament is perfectly capable of considering this bill. It is quite capable of amending it, of defeating it and of passing it. We fully accept that, under the Constitution, once the parliament has passed a bill it is up to the government whether it presents it to the Governor-General for royal assent. That is quite clear in the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the parliament cannot even consider a bill, motion or any other action the House of Representatives wants to take. At election time the public elects 150 members of the House of Representatives. This is the people’s House and it has the capacity to determine its own rules and to do whatever it chooses to do. We are not in any way in breach of the Australian Constitution by sitting here today and considering a bill—considering what is simply a piece of paper in the form of a bill which would deliver justice for rural students rather than the government’s latest volte-face today, which is a review being brought forward 12 months.

Today’s vote is not about the legal technicalities of this bill, this House and the Australian Constitution. Today’s vote is about whether we vote for rural students or with the government’s review. Mr Speaker, we very rarely disagree with your statements to the House, but on this occasion our view is that the government is hiding behind legal technicalities in order to avoid what they have accepted is an unfairness. If the government wanted to it could right now adopt the coalition’s bill. It could immediately adopt the bill passed by the Senate. If the government had any good faith at all it could immediately adopt the Senate bill and make it its own bill. We would be more than happy to let it sail through the parliament today so that inner-regional students across Australia would be given the opportunity to have the same access to youth allowance as their cousins in other parts of rural Australia.

There is an inherent unfairness in the way the youth allowance has been developed by this government. Let me give you a very short, potted history. After holding out for 12 months against the government’s youth allowance changes introduced by the now Prime Minister because of their unfairness across all of regional and rural Australia, we were determined that money should flow to as many rural students as possible, so we did a deal with the government to pass as much of the youth allowance reforms as we could that would affect rural students in a positive way. We said at the time that inner-regional students were being discriminated against, we did not like it, we did not support it but we were not prepared to stop money flowing to other rural students in order to punish them in the way the government has punished inner-regional students. But we did in the Senate move a motion at that time—I think Senator Nash moved the motion and was supported by the entire coalition—that would have included inner-regional students in the definition of the criteria for youth allowance. That was defeated by a combination of the Greens and the government in the Senate.

So we are acting entirely consistently with the approach that we took at the beginning of this youth allowance debate. We believe that rural students do not have enough access to tertiary education. The Senate inquiry found that, while 55 per cent of students in metropolitan areas go on to tertiary education, only 33 per cent of students in rural and regional areas go on to tertiary education. It seems utterly remarkable to me that the Labor Party, which claims to be the party of social justice, would change the law in a way that would actually make it harder rather than easier for rural and regional students to get to university. I cannot fathom why they would go down that track but they have. So what we are saying today is that the House should be given the opportunity to consider this bill that has come from the Senate. We should be given the opportunity to consider it and we should pass it.

The legal technicalities that the Leader of the House has hidden behind are all very well for a government that refuses to accept the mistake that they made previously with the youth allowance. I say to the Independents and crossbenchers: if we consider this bill today, if we allow this debate to occur, it is open to the government at any point in the debate to adopt this bill and make it their own.

I know that this morning they gathered the crossbenchers together with the Attorney-General and told them that this is unconstitutional and cannot be done, and said that they will bring forward a review. The member for Lyne has put out a press release saying that they have reached another historic agreement with the government. But this agreement with the government simply brings forward a review by 12 months and accepts the unfairness of the eligibility criteria, because otherwise the government would not say:

… the government will ensure that the new eligibility arrangements which would be implemented from 1 January 2012 would eliminate the distinction between inner regional and outer regional students …

They have accepted the unfairness of their criteria and yet the crossbenchers have agreed apparently that they should change these rules that they have admitted are unfair on 1 January 2012.

If they are unfair, why wouldn’t they change the rules immediately? Why wouldn’t they ensure that all students, including those who graduated from year 12 in 2009 in inner regional areas, are able to access the youth allowance? If they know that that is unfair, why wouldn’t they act immediately to open the doors to the youth allowance for those students? They could apply at Centrelink tomorrow if we change the rules so that all those students from 2009 are not discriminated against. Under the government’s backdown today what we will end up with are students who qualified for the youth allowance before 2010, students who qualify for the youth allowance from 1 January, 2012 and a cohort of students in 2009 and 2010 who are operating on rules that the honourable member for Lyne, his compatriots on the crossbenches, the government and the opposition all say are inherently unfair.

So what I say to the crossbenchers is: wash away that unfairness, get rid of it. Make the rules for youth allowance apply immediately. Allow all those students from 2009 to apply. I can tell you what is going to happen. Students and their families in all our electorates after this latest shambles from the government—this latest backdown, which is just another embarrassing bandaid measure designed to cover their embarrassment because of their failure—will ask, ‘How come because I graduated in 2009 I should somehow not be able to access the youth allowance whereas my brother, my sister, my best friend or whoever, who graduated in 2010, will be able to access the youth allowance?’ It makes absolutely no sense.

So what I say to the crossbenchers and obviously to the opposition is: the government’s backdown does not solve the problem; it simply creates a new problem. I understand that the government have told the independents that they have given them an ironclad guarantee that what they do will have the same effect as the Senate bill, but what the Independents need to understand is that that is not true. What the government have promised you will not deliver what the Senate bill would deliver.

The Senate bill, if we pass it today, will mean that every student who should be able to access youth allowance because of their circumstances will be able to do so under the old rules. Whereas, if you stick with the government’s backdown position today, there will be a cohort of students who will not be able to access the youth allowance they otherwise would have and so you will have cemented in place an unfairness which would not be in place if the coalition’s bill is passed today. It is a very important distinction.

The government says it will give you an ironclad guarantee that they will adopt the coalition’s changes in the Senate. Just like the ironclad guarantees, I assume, on the solar panels program, on the emissions trading scheme, on the carbon tax promise before the election, on health reform which has been changed over and over again, on the start date for the national curriculum and on the mining tax. I could go on and on about ironclad guarantees. There was the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan which was a cast-iron guarantee before the 2010 federal election—

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

Cash for clunkers.

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

The cash for clunkers scheme! The list of government ironclad guarantees, hyperbole and over-the-top claims and announcements does not match their delivery. It never does and yet here is an opportunity for the crossbenchers to vote with the opposition to ensure that rural students are given the youth allowance that they deserve.

I know it is very intimidating when the government gathers together the Attorney-General, public servants and others and says, ‘You’re being unconstitutional.’ But the House of Representatives is supreme in this country. We are a parliamentary democracy. If the House of Representatives wants to debate a motion or a bill, we are perfectly entitled to do so. If it is passed, amended or defeated, that is the end of the matter, but it is certainly up to the government whether it is presented to the Governor-General. But that is a different distinction from whether we can consider it. If we do not consider this bill today, we will be establishing a precedent that the executive can intimidate the parliament into not debating a motion, a bill or any other matter which they deem to be an appropriation.

The President of the Senate, John Hogg, who is a Labor senator and not a member of the coalition, says the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] is not an appropriation bill because it does not create a new appropriation but simply adds to an appropriation that is already present. The coalition has found the savings necessary to fund this change to youth allowance through the Education Investment Fund at least until a review can be properly and thoroughly conducted that establishes how to get rural students to university—how to get them into tertiary institutions. These constant bandaid measures are not sufficient or acceptable. I note that, apart from one, every one of the crossbenchers represents a rural, regional or inner regional electorate. Our constituents will be watching very closely to see whether the crossbenchers stand up for rural students or are bamboozled by the government into not doing what they are quite entitled to do in this House, which is to consider a bill and then leave it in the government’s hands to reject it by not presenting it to the Governor-General.

I have said all along that we fully accept that, under the Constitution, the executive has to present bills to the Governor-General and that we cannot do that. That is a time-honoured tradition going back to the English Civil War, and we certainly have no proposals to change the way the executive deals with the Crown; but that does not mean that the parliament cannot consider a bill. If this debate had occurred in the 17th century, it would have been regarded by the English parliament as a vital debate about what the House of Representatives—or, in that case, the House of Commons—was capable of doing. I can assure you that our forefathers in previous parliaments would never have been intimidated into not considering a bill because they were taken to a room by the Attorney-General and intimidated into saying that they could not even consider a bill in the parliament—but that is what is happening today.

Finally, the House needs to understand that even if the government gets its way and stops this bill from being considered today—and even if it implements its backdown, which it announced in the dead of night last night to the Telegraph in the hope that it would cut off this debate today—there are thousands of students across Australia who will miss out on youth allowance. But the other choice is to consider this bill, pass this bill and force the government through political pressure to change the youth allowance immediately, starting from tomorrow, so that every student who is entitled to government support for their youth allowance to enable them go to tertiary institutions has the opportunity to do so. If we do not pass this bill today, and if we do not even consider it, families across Australia will think that their parliament has let them down.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note your statement, Mr Speaker, and I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House to affirm the constitutional principles as stated by you. I note that the Manager of Opposition Business has suggested various mechanisms to facilitate debate on the substance of the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] without passage of the bill, but that is not the issue at hand. These are not mere technicalities; these are fundamental constitutional principles and I will focus on those.

In summary, under Australia’s constitutional arrangements, the government of the day is responsible for the management of public revenue and the budget. The government therefore initiates all financial initiatives in the parliament, and this is reflected, as has been noted, in sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution. Section 53 specifically provides that such laws shall not originate in the Senate. Section 56 states that such laws shall not ‘be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has been recommended by message of the Governor-General’ to the House. The Governor-General’s message can only be given on the advice of the government of the day, and, as the Leader of the House has outlined, the House of Representatives standing orders reflect the government’s constitutional responsibilities. I will now run through those arguments in some detail. I also note that my letter to you, Mr Speaker, has been tabled.

The bill proposes to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and would have the effect of increasing the amount of youth allowance payments made from consolidated revenue under a standing appropriation. As has been noted, the explanatory memorandum itself suggests that the financial impact would be in the order of $90 million per year. The Leader of the House has referred to sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution. I will not reread those, but I will refer to the constitutional history that underpins those provisions. Essentially, the two provisions reflect the important principle of our constitutional heritage that the business of government in the Anglo-Australian context, reflecting our history and heritage, is conducted by the Crown—more commonly referred to in Australia as ‘the executive’. But that business, which necessarily requires a continual supply of money, is conducted with the approval and under the supervision of the parliament. Indeed, the constitutional history was noted by Attorney-General Barwick in his opinion on the operation of section 56 of the Constitution in advice dated 20 February 1962. Mr Barwick, as he then was, referred to the following extract from the British Budgetary System by Sir Herbert Brittain, which was published in 1959—a few years before Mr Barwick’s advice. It reads:

Underlying the Parliamentary procedure on Supply is a rule of the House of Commons which is of fundamental importance … ‘This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, unless recommended from the Crown.’

That last phrase is crucial. On the basis of that historical analysis, the author concluded:

Only the Crown, therefore, can initiate proposals for expenditure and in the House the Crown’s right and responsibility in this respect are exercised by Ministers in the Government of the day.  No private member, on either side of the House, can exercise such initiative or move for an increase in any grant above the sum proposed by the Government.

Again, that indicates that the initiatives come from the Crown and are exercised by ministers of the government of the day.

Indeed, a review of this historical context makes it clear that the underlying purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the government of the day retains control over legislative initiatives for public expenditure. In his opinion, Attorney-General Barwick highlighted the rationale of these provisions by reference to Hearn’s Government of England, a historic edition of 1886 reflecting the history that we have inherited. That sets out:

It is … a fundamental rule of the House of Commons that the House will not entertain any petition or any notice for a grant of money, or which involves the expenditure of any money, unless it be communicated by the Crown.

This was to avoid, as the historic text describes:

… the scramble among the members of the Legislature to obtain a share of the public money from their respective constituencies, of the ‘log-rolling’, and of the predominance of local interests to the entire neglect of the public interest …

In other words, the executive having the overall functions of government in mind before proposing initiatives.

Consistent with this view, the Final report of the constitutional commission of 1988 saw section 56 reflecting the well-established principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy:

… financial initiatives are the preserve of the Crown. The Executive Government is charged with management of the public revenues and other public moneys and it alone may request public authorisation of expenditures. This request is formally communicated to the House by message of the Governor-General.

This ‘fundamental principle’ has been confirmed by the High Court of Australia in 2005, in Combet v Commonwealth. In their majority judgment, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan and Heydon noted:

… it is the Executive Government which begins the process of appropriation. This the Executive Government does by specifying the purpose of the appropriation by message to the House of Representatives.

Similarly in that case, Justice Kirby referred to a discussion of the issues in Lane’s commentary on the Australian Constitution and concluded that:

… the initiative for proposed appropriations belongs to the Executive Government, in accordance with s 56 of the Constitution.

The constitutional history that I have just run through is reflected in the standing orders, and in particular standing orders 180 and 147, which, again, the Leader of the House has outlined. I will not again describe those.

As has been indicated, there has been the controversy concerning: what is a law appropriating revenue or moneys? Indicating a degree of historic rivalry, yes, it is to be noted that the Senate’s view has not always corresponded with that of the House of Representatives on these matters, and the Senate has taken a different view in respect of this bill. The fundamental difference appears to relate to the question: what constitutes a law appropriating revenue or money? But, with respect, I think that the view of the Senate on this point is incorrect. I base my views on the weight of authority, including Attorney-General Barwick, to whom I have referred. The weight of authority is that the requirements under sections 53 and 56 are not confined to laws containing a clause explicitly appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Laws that cause money to be expended under a standing appropriation are also covered, specifically a law that alters the purpose for which money may be expended under a standing appropriation—for example, by increasing the categories of person entitled to a benefit or changing the formula by which that benefit was calculated to increase the amounts that could be paid out is covered. This was a view adopted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its 1995 report on the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution. In the context of considering the first paragraph of section 53, the committee concluded:

… a bill which increases expenditure under a standing appropriation should not be originated in the Senate …

Indeed, more recently, in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation, the 2009 decision of the High Court of Australia, Justices Gummow, Crennan and Bell cited the following statement in the fifth edition of House of Representatives Practice 2005 when referring to appropriation bills:

… while not in themselves containing words of appropriation, would have the effect of increasing, extending the objects or purposes of, or altering the destination of, the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under existing words of appropriation in a principal Act to be amended, or another Act.

Again, that refers to ‘the effect of increasing’ being particularly relevant.

Further, in the opinion by Attorney-General Barwick dated 20 February 1962, to which I have referred, and in a separate opinion that he gave on 26 November 1962, Mr Barwick set out a similar view in relation to section 55, reasoning that it is equally applicable to the principles of section 53. In that 26 November opinion he stated that, under section 56 of the Constitution, a Governor-General’s message is necessary ‘to the passage of a bill to increase benefits under the Social Services Act or to liberalise the conditions under which such benefits are payable’. I emphasise those words: ‘or to liberalise the conditions under which such benefits are payable’. With respect, Attorney-General Barwick was entirely correct on the history that I have outlined. It is clear that the purpose and natural consequence of the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill would be to liberalise the conditions under which youth allowance benefits are payable and thereby to increase the amount of youth allowance payments paid from consolidated revenue under that standing appropriation in the Social Security (Administration) Act.

It follows that the bill is a proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution and, as a result, could not properly have been introduced into the Senate and could not properly be passed by the Senate. On the same basis the bill is a proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money within the meaning of section 56 and as such requires a message from the Governor-General to pass through the House of Representatives, and no such message has been obtained. It is clear, therefore, that there is no proper basis for the bill to proceed in the House of Representatives, and I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General has just given us a long, complicated lawyer’s speech, and I am sure the lawyers in the House are very impressed. I invite the Attorney-General to come to my electorate and give that speech to the students who have not been able to get a university education this year. We are dealing with a serious issue, an issue that surely all members of parliament with goodwill would want to resolve. In this country, students who live outside capital cities have far less opportunity to get a university degree than those who live in cities.

The government often want to herald their social justice qualifications—they have a Minister for Social Inclusion and they say they care about a fair go for everyone—yet they have allowed to be entrenched in this place a system of student support that guarantees that people living in regional areas will not have the same opportunity to get a university degree as those who live in cities. Surely, this is an issue that the government would want to address. They have had three years in office, they have created the problem and they have not been willing to address it. They have not been willing to make the key decisions which would ensure that all Australians got a fair opportunity to have a tertiary education.

When you do not get that tertiary education, that is not the end of your disadvantage; it gives you a disadvantage when it comes to seeking employment in almost whatever career you want to enter. If you have not had the opportunity to get to university because the costs of getting there are too great, then you are disadvantaged throughout your life. If that is not the case, why do we have universities at all? Why does anybody have a university degree? Surely the reason is that the government and indeed our whole society believe that that kind of education is important—to give people a fair go and to make them as productive as they possibly can be in our community.

So we have an issue here. It is not an issue about the so-called rights of the government and it is not an issue about the Constitution; it is about whether or not people in regional areas are entitled to access the independent youth allowance so they can get a tertiary education. The government are hiding behind legal technicalities because they are not prepared to deal with the issue. If they were prepared to give students a fair go, they could find ways within the Constitution and within the bounds of their own arguments which would deliver the result that the coalition is seeking through this legislation.

What is their last minute offer to the Independents and others who are critical in this issue? ‘We will have another committee of inquiry.’ Another review—as if we had not had reviews. There have been at least two Senate inquiries that have gone on for months. Thousands of submissions have come in. Most of us as local members of parliament have received scores of letters on the issue. We know what the facts are, we know how it has to be solved and we could do it now; instead the government is going to have yet another committee, another review, and a decision perhaps in time for students in 2012. What about the students of 2011? They have a classic gap year. They are the ones who are left out altogether. There is no funding for them to get the education they need to assure their future careers.

If the government are really committed to fixing this problem, they should not give us a stack of legal arguments and they should not give us a lawyer’s address that might impress the High Court; they should give us some answers and some reasons why we should believe the government are going to address this issue. Do not just fall over and believe that the government some time, way in the future, might actually be intent on taking action.

It was not very long ago that the Leader of the House was accusing us of stunts and opportunism—which might be credible if it came from somebody else—but he can solve this issue immediately. He can solve it by picking up Senator Nash’s bill from the Senate and making sure we get the message from the Governor-General so that it can be dealt with promptly and immediately, so that income support can flow to students now, not some time beyond 2012 if it ever gets to that stage.

It was not very long ago also that we had the Leader of the House boasting about how well the House is now functioning in the national interest, about how the parliament has adopted important reforms and about how he is cooperatively negotiating legislation. Here is a chance for him to actually prove it, to deliver results, instead of a long line of gobbledygook and legal arguments about why it should not be done. Indeed, there is only one thing that is more complicated than the government’s gobbledygook and that is students trying to access the youth allowance. The gobbledygook that the government is putting up will not cut the mustard when you talk to people who are trying to get access to university.

So what is going on? The government is trying to prevent debate on this bill. We are not even allowed to talk about it. The principles of this bill have already been agreed to through a motion supported by the House, so it is not as though the government does not know what the members of parliament think about this issue. We want it fixed and we have said so in a resolution of the House. It has now been debated at length in the Senate, it has been considered in great detail and obviously it is a matter of significant national interest.

Unfortunately, it did not get the support of the government in the Senate. Quite surprisingly, it did not get the support of the Greens. The Greens, who walk around regional Australia and try to suggest that they are the new-found friends of people who live in country areas, would not support a bill that would enable regional students to go to university. Now they want to do some kind of a deal to put in place another committee. Frankly, that will not wash with the students who want to be at university now; they do not want to wait for some endless committee process.

This bill addresses the government’s decision early last year to alter the eligibility criteria for the independent youth allowance. These changes mean that students from inner regional areas have to work more hours over a longer period before being considered independent. Effectively, we have students in those inner regional areas who have to take a two-year gap after leaving school instead of taking one year, and they have to work full time on a continuous basis. They have to find a job that simply does not exist in those sorts of towns. People are not prepared to put on someone they know is only a short-term employee who is about to go off to university. The government does not seem to recognise how blatantly unfair and discriminatory these requirements are or that these requirements will result in many people, who would undoubtedly be able to make fine professionals, not being able to get the qualifications that they need.

Let me ask the obvious question: why should someone who lives in Gloucester, in the electorate of the member for Lyne, have a greater opportunity to attend university than someone who lives in Port Macquarie, Taree or Wauchope? That is what the current laws provide. Yet it seems that some people think that should be entrenched for another year. I think that is unfair. Why should somebody in Gunnedah or Tenterfield in New England have a greater opportunity than a student in Attunga or Armidale? It does not make sense to me.

But let me give you a classic case, and this may be the illustrative example of Labor’s incompetence in this area. Have many people have heard of the town of Kaimkillenbun, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Maranoa? It is a little town of about 100 people on the black soil plains of the Darling Downs. If you live on one side of the street in Kaimkillenbun you can access independent youth allowance but if you live on the other side of the street in Kaimkillenbun you cannot. It is a town of 100 people. What is wrong with the people on the other side of the road? Why can’t they get the same benefits, the same university education, as somebody who is in a house on the other side of the road? It simply makes no sense. A town of 100 people is divided by this government’s legislation—and it is not prepared to fix it.

We have also been told that this particular piece of legislation is inappropriate because it would blow the budget. It is a bit odd for the government to say that the very day after they did a deal with the Greens to give them $360 million and find another $50 million for the member for Denison. They could find all that over the weekend—to try to get in place their new tax to pay for the floods—but the $90 million that is required to fix this problem in relation to the independent youth allowance cannot be found. Apparently that is too much trouble.

In fact, they do not have to go looking around for it, because at election time this was part of our fully costed budget commitments. We identified where the money was going to come from—from the Education Investment Fund. It is one of the few funds that the coalition left to the incoming Labor government that has not been totally squandered. There is still around $2 billion of uncommitted funds in the Education Investment Fund. That is about seven times the amount necessary to fund the bill over the forward estimates. Treasury costed this policy before the election and they found no fault with it. The money is there. The money is available. It is a simple matter of the government putting in place the mechanisms so that it can be transferred for this purpose and used to make sure that people in inner regional areas are able to get a tertiary education.

The Education Investment Fund has already been raided by the government. So it is not as though we would be the first people wanting to spend some of it. But we were going to spend it on an educational function, trying to get regional students a tertiary education. Labor raided it for $2½ billion last year to fund a clean energy initiative. They took $2½ billion out of the education fund so that they could fund a clean energy initiative—one of those I think they have axed now. But that is the way the government operate. Presumably, it is now heading across to their flood funding or some other purpose. In other words, it is all right to use the education fund to finance a failing carbon capture and storage project but it is not all right to use it to support tertiary education for regional students. I think that is hypocrisy.

The bill that Senator Nash presented to the Senate, which is now before the House—and which we are being told we cannot even talk about today—is fully costed. It redresses a clear case of discrimination against 20,000 regional students. It is a bill about social inclusion. It is a bill about social justice. It should be voted on. It should be debated in this House. A government review that will report back in some months time, without any real promise that we will get a decent outcome anyhow, is not a substitute, and it is particularly not a substitute for the students of 2011—the class of 2011 that will not now exist; the class of 2011 that are in the gap year, when there is no assistance for students in this situation.

I agree that in the longer term—and this was very much clearly a part of the coalition’s election platform—there ought to be a better way to fund students. There ought to be a better way to provide living support on a permanent basis so that those people who have to travel to get their university degree get the financial assistance that they need. That should be an objective that we all work towards. Some of this work was done by the Senate committees, and they have got some ideas that certainly could be progressed in this regard. The proposal that the coalition has on the table was always intended as an interim measure, until that more fundamental reform could take place. This bill provides an opportunity to put that in place. We can deal with it. It should be debated in the chamber.

If the government believe there are technical deficiencies in what we are doing, let them get on the front foot and come into the House with a way in which they believe this matter can be dealt with correctly and immediately, rather than trying to fob off Independents and others with yet another committee of inquiry. This is an important issue about social justice for regional students. The parliament has the opportunity today to redress this problem and give to people who are being denied an education this year the opportunity to set about getting the qualifications they need for the future. The parliament can fix the problem today and it should do so.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In opposing the government’s motion, and in moving an amendment that would put financial responsibility at the centre of this debate, the Greens are upholding the Constitution. We are upholding the Constitution because the bill currently before the parliament, the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011], is not an appropriation bill. There is a strong line of argument that explains why this is not an appropriation bill.

If the argument is that it is an appropriation bill because it is going to result in the expenditure of money, then arguably any bill that passes the Senate is an appropriation bill, because almost any bill that one could imagine that would pass the Senate may require a public servant to do something, it may require the government to do something, it may require a committee or a tribunal to act in a certain way, and that will involve the expenditure of money—possibly even greater than the government had initially anticipated. More importantly, there is a strong line of argument, equally as strong or stronger in my submission than that advanced by the Attorney-General, that says: where there is an existing appropriation that is unlimited, the parliament has already passed the appropriation bill and the parliament has said, ‘We do not know how much money this will cost, but we are prepared to write an open cheque to pay the money, because it is important.’ When parliament subsequently amends the criteria to access that pool of money, that does not amount to an appropriation bill within the meaning of the Constitution.

It is not only the Senate that believes that, it is not only the advice from the Clerk of the Senate to the President, and it is not only the President who believes that; in fact, this House did exactly that in 2007. In 2007 there was a bill that originated in the Senate. It was the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2007, and it created an entitlement to pharmaceutical benefits in respect of prescriptions issued by optometrists, and it was to be funded out of a standing appropriation in the principal act. That bill passed the Senate, it came to the House and it passed without demur from the then opposition. The reason it passed is that the House has accepted that, in instances such as this, it does not amount to an appropriation bill.

The Attorney-General referred to a number of authorities and I have had a look at those authorities. It is very clear that the courts say: ‘This is about the law-making process. We are not adjudicating on a final law. We will not trespass into that, because that is a matter for the parliament to resolve.’ It is a matter for the House, the Senate and the government exercising executive power, and the other members who make up the parliament, to reach agreement amongst themselves about how they are going to proceed.

In previous parliaments, for reasons that one can readily imagine, where the government has had the numbers in the House of Representatives, when a bill has come here the government has simply been able to say, ‘This does not amount to an appropriation bill.’ But that does not mean that that is necessarily the case, and it does not obviate the fact that the parliament still has to decide what it is going to do with it. We have not confronted a situation before where we have a minority government and where legislation has been brought before the parliament to determine how we are going to deal with it. Those past practices may be well and good, but they do not speak to the situation that we find ourselves in now.

I am concerned that by adopting the principle that anything to do with money is automatically an appropriation bill or that anything to do with an existing appropriation is automatically an appropriation bill we in this parliament are ceding an enormous amount of power to the executive—power that ought to lie in the hands of this parliament. If we are to say that anything to do with money requires the minister to have a message coming from the Governor-General, we are diminishing the role of the Senate to initiate legislation other than appropriations legislation and I think we are diminishing the opportunities that are available to the crossbench in this House.

As a matter of principle we should be able to debate this bill. I would not support this bill; I would vote against it. The Greens do not support this bill if we are able to debate it, but I should emphasise that that is not because of the substance that this bill speaks to. My electorate of Melbourne has the highest number of students of any electorate in the country, and many of them live in residential colleges and they have come from regional areas. I know the enormous difficulty that people have in getting access to the independent rate of youth allowance and having enough money to live on. That is why, for quite some time, the Greens have been saying that we need a new test that will make sure that rural and regional students are not put at a disadvantage and that we do not have a continuation of the figures that we see at the moment where we know that students who do not come from the city are twice as likely, if not more likely, to not complete their first year because of the unique pressures that they face. That is why we want to see a new universal test that would mean that if a student has to travel more than 90 minutes to get to their university, they should be entitled to an independent rate of youth allowance.

I cut my teeth as a student politician around cost of living and access to university campaigns. I have seen governments from both sides, over many, many years, reduce the level of youth allowance to the point where it is far, far less than unemployment benefits. And systematically governments of both persuasions have restricted access to it. I do note the irony in that these very criteria and restrictions that we are debating at the moment arose effectively out of a deal between the coalition and Labor to reform the youth allowance.

It is absolutely clear that rural and regional students need better treatment, and that is why we need a better test that will enable everyone to get access to youth allowance. But the reason that I would not support this bill if we were allowed to debate it is that it is financially irresponsible, in the parliament that we have at the moment, to put up bills that would involve additional spending of money without having before the parliament, either in law or in some other way, a means by which they are going to be funded. We are completely able to do that; that is within our means. That is why, when this bill was before the Senate, we moved a motion that a message be sent to this place to ensure that the mining tax was increased sufficiently to enable the payment of increased youth allowance.

That amendment did not succeed in the Senate, and that is very disappointing. Given the balance of this parliament, we should not be in a situation where we are spending money in an irresponsible manner without saying where it is going to come from. It is not good enough to say by press release, as the coalition has done, that we would cut this program or that program, especially when that program has already been dipped into by the Leader of the Opposition for flood reconstruction; you cannot double dip. It is not appropriate to simply issue a press release to say: ‘If we were in government, this is how we would fund it.’

There is a means by which the parliament could do it and that has not been taken advantage of. That is why the amendment that I am moving to this motion that has been circulated in my name—that the bill proceed when parliament has agreed to a method to finance the measures contained in this bill—seeks to put economic responsibility at the centre of how we deal with this question in this finely balanced parliament.

The Constitution and the authorities that have been referred to send a very clear message—that is, it is up to the parliament to decide which bills it will pass and which ones it will not. We need to put the question of economic responsibility at the centre so that we can have a better deal for regional and rural students, and so it is funded in a fair way that does not leave a hole in the budget.

I am concerned that we find ourselves potentially in a situation where we diminish opportunities in the future that are available to this crossbench and to this parliament to legislate in innovative ways. I note that, despite some of the claims that might have been made by the Leader of the House by voting against this motion, it ought not be taken in any way as dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. This is not a matter of dissent from the ruling of the Speaker; this is a matter of the House collectively deciding how it will conduct its own business on a very important matter. It is not within the standing orders in the form of a motion of dissent from the Speaker; it is simply an opinion about how the House ought to conduct its own business.

I move the amendment in the terms that have been circulated. I hope that we are all able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by this new parliament. I hope we are able to have debate about a very important issue, and we do not respond simply by shutting down debate about an important constitutional issue. Ultimately, I hope we can get a better deal for rural and regional students but in a way that is economically responsible. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the bill proceed when parliament has agreed to a method to finance the measures contained in the bill”.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

We in this House should be able to debate this bill today. I represent the students who are most affected by this in the south-west of Western Australia. I hope that they and their families are watching this today. I hope that they can see to what lengths this government is prepared to go to continue to discriminate against their right to a higher education. I hope they are watching.

This is a shame; it is worse than that. I have been working on this since 2009, since this government chose to discriminate against students in rural and regional areas like the south-west of Western Australia. It is an indictment on this parliament that the two houses of this parliament have voted for the rights and the opportunities of regional students, and yet now we have this opportunistic process to try to prevent that debate.

Senator Evans actually wrote to the President of the Senate. Senator Hogg’s response was:

You have sought my assistance in ‘drawing this matter to the attention of Senators so that steps may be taken to ensure that the Bill does not proceed—

a preconceived outcome. The President of the Senate continued:

While I am happy to table your correspondence and the Attorney-General’s advice (and this reply) for the information of senators, it is quite inappropriate for you to ask me to take steps to ensure that a bill does not proceed on any basis, let alone on the basis that the House of Representatives has a different view of its constitutionality.

These are the lengths that this government is prepared to go to to prevent rural and regional students from having access to youth allowance. That is a real indictment on this government. We all know that the Australian Constitution is a grand document and the framework for this debate but the spirit of the Constitution is as important as its wording. Section 53 says:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate …

But it is pertinent to this debate to ascertain whether the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 does in fact appropriate money—and it does not. According to the Clerk of the Senate, in her submission to the Senate committee which examined this bill:

The Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 is not a Bill that appropriates money. It does not contain any clause that could be characterised as an appropriation.

She makes the important point in her submission that appropriations are already made for youth allowance and the Social Security Act of 1991 provides for income support for students in Australia. The funding for this act does not set a limit on expenditure; that is, the Social Security Act of 1991 does not identify a cap on spending.

The discrimination against some students based on where they live is not a result of the act setting a cap but of the policies of this government putting that discrimination into legislation. The changes to youth allowance did not put a cap on expenditure; they simply applied a discriminatory basis against recipients in certain geographic areas—like my own. So young people in my electorate who are already disadvantaged, who are already less likely to be able to access higher education, are being further discriminated against. The Clerk of the Senate also referenced this point, in saying:

When the parliament agrees to a standing or special appropriation, the relevant agencies have effectively been given a perpetual blank cheque for payments to be made. This means that a change to a bill of entitlements, such as providing wider access to income support, does not need to appropriate any money because the appropriation is already in place.

To make this clearer, I ask that members look at the legislation that passes before them every day. We have heard that nearly all the legislation has a financial impact and most of it involves an additional expense, even if it is simply in administration. But how many of these are appropriation bills? Most are not, because our constitutional forebears recognised the need for common-sense and practicality. They saw the need for acts of parliament that managed programs without calling them appropriation bills.

The Constitution of Australia implicitly directs the government and the parliament not to discriminate against any individual on the basis of where they live in our great nation. I can see Senator Nash nodding her head. She understands this very well because that is what we have seen here. Students today in my electorate are being discriminated against and the 2011 cohort and their families are currently being affected by this. They are moving from their regional area to a metropolitan area. We are losing some fantastic people and families—some wonderful resources from regional areas—on the basis of this discriminatory legislation.

We can fix it today if we debate this bill. It is inappropriate that you should be discriminated against just because you live in a regional area. It is an indictment of this government that it has allowed this to continue since the budget of 2009. This could have been fixed at any time. The government is well aware of this. This parliament—through the election of 150 people to this House, and through the Senate—has said that it needs to be fixed. So let us take the opportunity to fix it and fix it now. My students, my families and the 20,000-plus students and families around this nation are asking and begging for this. They beg me and I am sure they beg Senator Nash. If you had families and students affected by this, you would be standing up here like me and saying, ‘End the discrimination now. Let us debate this bill today.’

We all know the disaffection that regional students feel. It is alive and well, every day, and that is why we are so committed to this. We know what it is doing. I meet the families on a daily basis. I meet them in the supermarket. I meet the mums and dads that are saying, ‘We might now have to take an extra job.’ I have young people whose whole lives and careers have now changed. What is worse, I have young people who are actively not choosing year 11 and year 12 courses that lead to university because they know their families will not be able to afford it, on this basis. I have families who say to me, ‘We have to choose which one of our family members can go to university,’ as a result of this. They choose one member. Would you want to be one of those families? And how do you think the siblings feel? That is all wrapped up in this.

We are not taking this lightly, because this is as serious as it gets in a regional area. We need this to be fixed and fixed now. Another review is not what we need. It is not what the families need. It is not what those families who write to me, ring me and email me on a regular basis want. We know that the elected members reflect the will of the people—and the will of the people has been expressed by both houses. That is the will of the people. The government could and should agree to a fair and just system of access to Youth Allowance, right now. They could do that in the May budget if they chose to. They could do it today. It would indicate the strength of this parliament and the strength of the people’s voice in this parliament.

I believe that last year this House expressed its will in directing the government to act on Youth Allowance. It continues to refuse to do so. It continues to not allow this issue to be debated or action to be taken immediately. The students whom I represent in the south-west of Western Australia and all of the other great young people around this nation who deserve equity of access to youth allowance and therefore their higher education should have this access.

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

The original question was that the motion be agreed to, 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.

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

In opposing the government’s motion I endorse the comments of the member for Forrest because this debate is all about a fair go for regional students. I would also like to reflect on what we are seeing here today: the true colours of this government and its so-called education revolution as it attempts to effectively gag this debate on one of the most important issues facing rural and regional communities.

The Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011] has passed the Senate and should be debated in this chamber. If the government wants to hide behind constitutional issues it can bring in its own legislation to reflect the intent of the Senate bill. A failure to do so is an insult to the thousands of young regional Australians trapped in the mess that was created by the former Minister for Education, Julia Gillard.

Make no mistake, the government’s attempts to block debate on this bill have nothing to do with the Constitution, nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of student income support; they have everything to do with protecting the hide of the current Prime Minister. From the day the former education minister started amending the system of student income support, she talked big and she delivered a mess to regional Australia. This was no education revolution; it was tinkering around the edges and it distorted the system to such an extent that regional students have borne the brunt of the changes. The government at that time insisted that the changes were budget neutral, but at the same time this government was throwing $900 cheques around like they were confetti at a wedding. It is an appalling message that they sent to the students of Australia: the Labor government believed that plasma TVs were more important than giving regional students a fair go and handed out $13 billion in cash handouts and have shafted regional students in the process.

I congratulate the Senate, and in particular I congratulate Senator Fiona Nash, for introducing this bill. I thank her for her doggedness and her determination because she understands the plight of regional students. She is a woman of substance, much like the member for Forrest and the member for Murray and others who have spoken in the past on the need to get a better deal for regional students.

We have heard from several members on this side already, and many on this side understand the problems with the current system of student income support. There are a few on the other side who I believe understand as well but they are just too scared to come out publicly and raise their voices. Whatever happened to this government’s promise to let the light shine in? Let us have this debate, let us do the right thing by regional students and start fixing the mess. There is absolutely nothing to stop this government adopting the bill and introducing it themselves if they are so worried about its constitutionality. Minister Evans has already publicly acknowledged there is a problem with the current system. He is trying to cut a deal with the Independents for a review and changes to be made next year. But if that deal goes ahead, we will have another class of forgotten students—the class of 2009—who will be out of the loop in respect of the issue of inner regional independent youth allowance. I say again: the government has the capacity to fix the mess now and deliver a fair go for all regional students rather than the discriminatory boundaries we currently have between inner regional and outer regional.

The Leader of the House claimed earlier that his side has more regional members of parliament—and finally one regional MP has made his way into the chamber—so let us hear from them. Let us hear from the regional MPs from the Labor Party’s side. The member for Corangamite, the member for Bendigo, let us hear what they have to say because their students are also being discriminated against in this process. They clearly did not care enough to come in here and listen to the debate here today, or perhaps they have been gagged as well?

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

Where are your mates? You’ve got none!

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

I would invite members from the other side to come over and participate in the debate.

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

Where are your mates? Where are they?

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

I take up the Leader of the House’s comment about where are they? Where are your regional MPs? Why aren’t they speaking out? Have you gagged them as well?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: it is a bit rough when there are no members of the National Party in the chamber to hear him speak, for him to be critical of—

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

What’s your point of order?

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

He is casting aspersions on members, which is against the standing orders!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

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

I invite regional MPs from the other side to speak up on youth allowance, to speak up on the issue of inner regional and outer regional boundaries. I invite them to speak up because the member for Corangamite has towns like Colac, which is considered inner regional. They have to have different workforce criteria for participation in the independent youth allowance, so I invite them to come out and speak and raise their voices on this issue.

The bill, which has passed the Senate and should be debated in this House, is not the final solution, but it is a lot better than the current mess of inner regional and outer regional boundaries which exist today and discriminate against so many regional students. What we need is a complete overhaul of the system of student income support with a focus on levelling the playing field. In the interest of fairness and equity, regional students should have a tertiary access allowance they can access which compensates them and their families for the additional costs of moving away from home, which metropolitan students do not incur.

This government cannot keep hiding behind its ‘education revolution’ slogan. It has to deliver a better deal for regional families, and this bill should be debated. By declining to consider the bill, the House is denying a fair go for regional students.

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

There is another very important right which we need to consider in this debate today—that is, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1948—that long ago—it stated:

… higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Is this government claiming that we are all dumb and stupid in rural Australia, that the merit that is found in rural Australia is not equal to that found in urban or metropolitan Australia? The consequences of what they are trying to do today—that is, to shut down a possibility of ruling out the inequities of inner and outer regional criteria for independent youth allowance—are denying thousands of country students access to tertiary education. The outcome of that is to remove a generation of rural professionals. Are we to look overseas for all trained doctors, nurses instead? Are we going to spend the same millions on trying to orientate them to Australian cultural circumstances, because there will not be rural generated professionals? The only professionals who, in too many circumstances, will come to country areas are those from the country. We are eliminating their chances of getting qualifications because so many Australian rural parents cannot afford the $20,000 or so it takes to have a student kept in accommodation, food, transport et cetera beyond their home.

It is just a tragedy. This is all about the current Prime Minister, the former Minister for Education, refusing to swallow her pride and acknowledge that she got it very wrong. It is one thing to come into this chamber and say, ‘Look, this attempt to get the thing right, somehow it is against the Australian Constitution’, but we have out there right now more than 10 to 15 per cent of students unable to access university from country areas—an inequity which is not only against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is also against any sense of Australian decency. The Prime Minister should be deeply ashamed. She should right now be talking to her Leader of the House and asking, ‘How can we fast track a debate where we simply restore the criteria of the coalition for both inner and outer regional students, and then we move swiftly towards a far better way to fund youth students in rural areas into the future so they can afford to go to university?’

People in my electorate have been rallying. We have had deputations. We have had parents in my office weeping because all their lives they have hoped to have their child reach their full potential by going to university and now they are seeing those hopes dashed. We have just come out of seven years of the worst drought on record. We have now experienced the worst flood on record. There is no cash for my families, but those families are designated ‘inner regional’. Their students are supposed to find 30 hours of work per week over an 18-month period within two years—and those 30 hours are not the average; they are the minimum for each week. Those students are supposed to survive a two-year gap period when very few universities in Australia will contemplate making an offer with a two-year gap—

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

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.