Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow Senator Wortley in this debate because she made some very good points that I would hope to build upon. Before I commence on the detail of the private member’s bill, I want to take a moment to reflect on the process farce that has occurred on us coming here. I will save deeper reflection on what has occurred in managing opposition business on this occasion, but it does need to be highlighted that what has occurred in the Senate today has trashed a deal that was done eight months ago on this issue. And as Senator Xenophon rightly pointed out in the failed motion to suspend standing orders to deal with a private member’s bill, nothing has changed in these issues. Yes, there may well have been, as Senator Mason pointed out, an election, but in terms of the arrangements for student income support and people from remote and regional areas, there has been nothing in that context that is different, nothing at all, other than that Senator Mason has been pounced upon by the Nationals and has highlighted once again the fragility of this coalition—the fragility that exists in terms of sensible policy process from the opposition. That is the issue that leads us to where we are in terms of the private member’s bill or the matter of public interest that is now before us.

Let us have a look at the detail of exactly what this is about. Rather than it being about the government mismanaging student income support, I draw on, as Senator Wortley did earlier, the point made by Senator Mason. Yes, the Bradley review did show that things were going seriously backwards for regional students. It was interesting that Senator Mason made this point because, if you look at the period of time when the government should have ensured appropriate processes to manage student participation from regional and remote Australia, it was indeed the Howard government—it was the Howard government who failed the students. I thank Senator Mason for highlighting what the Bradley review highlighted, because the measures that were introduced under the Howard government led to that decrease in participation. That decrease in participation, mind you, did not only occur in tertiary education for remote students; it also occurred in secondary education. We had dismal figures. The completion rate in secondary schooling went backwards under the Howard government. So how the Nationals can come into the Senate now and try and claim some credibility on this matter is astounding.

Let us look at what is being peddled here. The private member’s bill they sought to have us debate now was about applying the same eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for students residing in the inner region zone as currently applies to students residing in outer regional, remote and very remote zones. As has been pointed out, the fact remains that the special provisions for disadvantaged students from outer regional and remote locations were agreed with the opposition when the reforms to student income support were passed in March this year. As Senator Xenophon pointed out, there is nothing new. The suspension of standing orders was not supported because there is nothing new other than that Senator Mason was mugged by the Nationals on this occasion and the Manager of Opposition Business foolishly played along. That was the only new thing here.

Under the agreement that was negotiated with the coalition, students from remote, very remote and outer regional areas are excluded from the changes to the workforce participation criteria provided they need to move away from home to study and their parents’ income is less than $150,000 per annum. The opposition is now suggesting that these arrangements be extended to students living in inner regional areas as well. The opposition is aware that this whole package of reform measures was carefully designed with the aim of budget neutrality. The opposition has stated that the funding to support its proposal would come from the capital investment fund—(Time expired)