Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are dealing with the Greens amendments.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume these are amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 6007. Is that correct?

The Temporary Chairman:

Correct.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw those.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the opposition’s amendments on sheet 5968, there are four of them. I will discuss all four of them if I may. With respect to item (1), this and amendment (3) extend the time frame for the government’s proposals so as to ensure that the students currently in their gap year are not disadvantaged. This is a transition measure to allow those students who have started under the old rules to continue under them without disadvantage.

With respect to item (2), we are removing this requirement in the context of extending the gap provisions because it is retrospectively applying to all students who have made decisions regarding their study arrangements this year based on what the government, through Centrelink, teachers, careers advisers and so forth, told them last year when they were finishing year 12. At present the government’s proposals as outlined by Ms Gillard and reflected in this legislation are that only some 5,000 of the 30,000 students affected will be entitled—that is, those that live more than 90 minutes from university by public transport. So, in effect, this is the opposition’s amendment that will overcome what we see as the retrospectivity of this bill. Students who, in good faith, received advice that the law operated in a certain way enabling them to become independent and qualify for youth allowance would in future be able to do so. The law was being changed midstream. While I agree that it is not technically retrospective, it is retrospective in operation.

In relation to item (3), that is simply an extension of the independence time frame reflected, of course, in the Greens amendments that Senator Hanson-Young withdrew before. In relation to item (4), this is about the amount of student start-up scholarship payment. From 1 January 2010 all recipients of youth allowance will receive an annual start-up scholarship. The government said it would be $2,254 in 2010, and I think it is thereafter to be indexed and paid in lump sums. This scholarship will be paid to about 146,000 students in 2010, growing to 172,000 students by 2013. What the opposition’s amendment does is to reduce this amount from $2,254 to $1,000 per year. We are not taking away any moneys that students are currently receiving; we are merely reducing the amount of money they would have started receiving as a new initiative from next year onwards. In effect this is a savings measure to pay for the opposition’s other proposals debated earlier this evening. A saving of about $700 million over four years is achieved through this amendment, and it will go towards financing the extension of the gap year provisions to the students currently affected by Labor’s proposed changes and the opposition’s other amendments that were passed earlier this evening to maintain the most important workforce participation tests for rural students who must leave home to pursue higher education.

That is the gamut of the opposition’s amendments. They relate to fighting the effective retrospectivity—that is very important to us—and also, of course, in effect the finance measure to pay for those amendments. That is what the opposition’s amendments seek to do.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wish to clarify this with you, Senator Mason: do you wish to move those motions? I do not think you formally have. Do you wish to take them together or move them separately?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5968 together.

The Temporary Chairman:

And (4) separately?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want (4) separately or (1), (2), (3) and (4)?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Hanson-Young wants to move Greens amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 5957 before we move opposition amendment (4).

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest to the chair that we move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 5968 and then go on to the three remaining amendments after that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what I suggested, yes.

Leave granted.

I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5968:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 13 and 14), omit “30 June 2010”, substitute “31 December 2010”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph 1067A(10C)(e).

(3)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 23), omit “1 July 2010”, substitute “1 January 2011”.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge that the reason the Australian Greens withdrew their previous amendments just before Senator Mason spoke to the opposition amendments was that we believed that the opposition amendments are doing a similar thing. The Greens amendments perhaps went a little further in reversing that retrospectivity by ensuring that we caught all current gap year students, but I think that the opposition amendments provide a much better position than the current legislation, and that is why I am willing to support them.

I want to point out from the outset that any type of policy that has a retrospective nature is a bad way to go. It does not matter whether we are talking about student income support, health measures, other education measures or climate change. Whatever it is, you do not as a general rule introduce laws that are retrospective. It is just not a good principle. Aside from the fact that these young people have been caught and have had the rug pulled out from underneath them as the rules have changed, and despite the fact that they were advised by government officials themselves to take a gap year to get a job to earn $19½ thousand, the government is proposing to change the rules.

I just think the whole idea of retrospective law-making is quite outdated and archaic. It is not something that a government which wants a visionary approach to the future would be taking. We need to deal with this, and I would have liked to have seen the government deal with the retrospective nature themselves before they introduced the legislation and brought it to the Senate. They did do a little bit of a backflip but we all know that it did not actually deal with everybody. If you agree that retrospectivity is bad for some, surely you agree that it is bad for all.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is indeed a matter of fairness. I think it is fairly simple for those in this chamber and elsewhere to realise that it does not matter if you live further than 90 minutes by public transport from a tertiary institution or not—the students on either side of that barrier are caught in exactly the same set of circumstances. That set of circumstances is the fact that they embarked upon this gap year in good faith on advice from Centrelink, from school counsellors and from a range of people that it was an appropriate way forward for them to gain access to independent youth allowance.

The government has simply changed its mind midstream and pulled the rug out from under the feet of those students. It was only forced into a partial backflip, but those exact same issues relate to all students. Regardless of whether or not they live further than 90 minutes away by public transport from the tertiary institution, if the government is going to argue the cost factor, that is simply ridiculous. This should not be about dollars and cents. This is about students’ education and them being told by the government what was an appropriate avenue to access that assistance. They simply had the rug pulled out from underneath them, and it should be reinstated.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposition that has been put before the chamber seeks to delay the new independence criteria by one year for all students, including those living at home, rather than endorsing the government’s much more targeted approach of a six-month push back to the current gap year for students who need to move to study. What this will effectively mean is that there will be some $700 million removed from the scholarship program. That will effectively become a permanent cut equivalent to $50 per fortnight for around 150,000 students for each year that they are at university. That is what item (4) does. As a fig leaf to certain student elements there is an attempt to establish what they call a ‘new scholarship’. There are no details on the value. There is no detail on the numbers. It is said to be worth $120 million over four years, and that is to be funded from the $700 million. So what we have is a very, very substantial gap in the opposition’s mathematics. This new scholarship will go to students who miss out on receiving youth allowance, presumably because their parents’ income is above the income test. So what we have is a series of propositions where the coalition’s numbers clearly do not add up.

The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations estimates that there are some 23 per cent of students from rural and regional areas at universities on student income support. This means that, of the almost $700 million that the Liberals want to cut out of the scholarship scheme, a significant proportion of that will mean a permanent reduction for students in regional areas. You have actually undermined your own case, Senator Mason. On our calculations, you are taking from families who are eligible for the youth allowance—those who earn less than $76,000 and have one student at home, those who earn $92,000 and have one student away from home and those who earn up to $141,000 and have two students away from home—in order to give families who earn larger sums of money than that a benefit.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have here, Senator Mason, are some rather misguided approaches that the coalition are seeking to pursue on this issue. If they are serious about taking up the issue of regional participation, they want to stick to the current arrangements, which, according to their own former shadow minister:

… particularly disadvantages many students—particularly those from the country—who have to leave home to study …

But they would be better than the proposals that you have. The coalition, frankly, should drop these amendments if they are serious about engagement with students from rural and regional areas. Their proposals would in fact mean that 150,000 new scholarships would be blocked.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find the government’s attitude amazing: it is all about saving money. If these students just gave up the gap year and went on the dole the government would gladly give them $453 a fortnight but not $371.40 a fortnight to carry out their studies. Life is about fairness. These students finished year 12 last year and they sought advice from Centrelink, careers advisers et cetera, and you have changed the rules halfway through the game. That is unfair. As I said, you will gladly give someone who leaves year 12 and who does not get a job $453 a fortnight and you gladly spend a billion dollars extra for the ceiling batts, but when it comes to educating our students in a tertiary degree to provide the essential services that all Australians require you are now pulling the pennies. It is unfair, it is retrospective in effect and that is why this amendment should be passed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to point out that, despite my concerns about the scholarship issue, that is not actually the amendment we are dealing with, so you may need to repeat all those comments at the next amendment.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

• (1)      Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit “1 July 2012” (twice occurring), substitute “1 January 2011”.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1), (4) and (5)

These amendments bring forward by 18 months the date of effect of provisions that relax the ‘personal income test’ for students, increasing the amount they can earn before they begin to lose their entitlement to youth allowance payments. The provisions in the bill would increase the amount of the payment received by a class of people. The additional expenditure expected under these provisions is offset by savings elsewhere in the bill, however it appears that the combined effect of introducing these provisions and bringing forward the date of their commencement would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999.

Amendments (1), (4) and (5) should therefore be moved as requests.

Amendment (3)

Schedule 1, item 2 of the bill imposes conditions restricting the entitlement of some students to the receive the youth allowance at the independent rate. In this respect, the effect of the bill is to restrict the class of people who would be eligible for the payment, and reduce expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999.

Amendment (3) would add a new class of eligible students and increase expenditure under the standing appropriation, as compared to the provisions in the bill. It is not clear, however, that the effect of the amendment would be to increase expenditure under that appropriation above the expenditure authorised under the Act as it currently stands.

Amendment (3) should therefore be moved as an amendment.

Amendments (6) and (7)

The combined effect of these amendments is to exempt certain scholarships from income tests under social security legislation. Although the effect would be to enable a small class of people to receive increased benefits, it has been argued that the cost will be negligible. It is not clear that the effect of these amendments would be to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999 when compared with the expenditure under the Act as it currently stands.

Amendments (6) and (7) should therefore be moved as amendments.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation.

On the basis that amendments (1), (4) and (5) would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.

It is also in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that amendments (3), (6) and (7) not be moved as requests. Although those amendments would increase the expenditure authorised under the bill, it is not clear that their effect would be to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation.

These amendments are in relation to the issues that came about after the government realised there was such a backlash to the retrospectivity aspect of cutting the gap year halfway through people’s journeys of raising the $19½ thousand on their way to achieving independent status for youth allowance. In her wisdom, the Deputy Prime Minister, not wanting to admit that this was a badly conceived policy scribbled on the back of an envelope, decided she would punish those other students further down the track by pushing back the ability for them to continue to earn a little more money in the personal income threshold in order to help pay for their education and living costs. The need to increase that personal income threshold has been paramount for years.

Last night in my speech in the second reading debate I spoke about how low the maximum rate of youth allowance is. It is far below the Newstart allowance, let alone anywhere within reach of the Henderson poverty line. For young people who are struggling to pay for all their living costs—rent, textbooks and everything—the fact is that they then get penalised for taking a part-time job and can only earn a certain amount, and that amount is set quite low. There has been a long campaign from student groups right around the country to try to lift this.

It was good, in the beginning, that the government saw this needed to be done. It was obviously a recommendation from the Bradley review, which was fabulous. But the Deputy Prime Minister, in her cruel and twisted way, decided to punish those students because she did not want to fess up that she had stuffed up the policy in the first place by being retrospective. We need to remove this, because it is virtually unfair now to push back one of the more positive aspects of this package. I was one of the first people to acknowledge that this was a positive aspect of the package, but in her cruel and twisted way she has pushed that back in order to save face where the removal of the workplace criteria was retrospective and she has pulled the rug from underneath other students. We need to ensure that we remove that because it is simply unfair.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition cannot support these amendments simply because they have budgetary implications that we would not be prepared to undertake.

Question negatived.

I move opposition amendment (4) on sheet 5968:

(4)      Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (line 17), omit “$1,127”, substitute “$500”.

I did traverse this issue before and I just repeat that for the coalition this is very important, because this is the savings measure by which we pay for all our proposals. Let me leave it at that.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have indicated our position on this: we are opposed to the proposition.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have indicated already that I cannot support this for the same reasons as I could not support the government’s proposal in the bill about pushing back the personal income threshold. I see that it is an issue of robbing Peter to pay Paul at a time when we need to invest in education and therefore invest in student support. I understand that there are budgetary issues, but that is the problem when you seek to save money when investing in education and to save money from students. It is really not appropriate. We need to see more money put into this pot. You cannot expect to enable 100,000 extra students to get something without putting more money in, because everybody gets less—even those people who need it the most. I just cannot support that. I understand why the coalition are doing it, but I do not think it is appropriate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Mason’s) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

The Temporary Chairman:

The division has been cancelled.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the Senate. This was a very important savings measure that the opposition desperately wanted. We recognise that we do not have support in the Senate for it. Because the Senate is nearly out of time to debate this, I will leave it at that.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that opposition amendment (4) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (6) and (7) on sheet 5957:

(6)    Schedule 2, item 13, page 26 (lines 31 and 32), omit “to the extent that the payment does not exceed the person’s threshold amount for that year;”.

(7)    Schedule 2, item 14 page 27 (lines 19 to 34), omit subsection 8(8AB).

This is the last set of amendments after a marathon run, as I think we would all agree. These amendments seek to address an issue that affects those postgraduate research students currently in receipt of a scholarship. I stress that the Greens welcome the government’s commitment to extend the exemption of scholarships other than the Commonwealth scholarships when it comes to assessing income support for students. In December last year the House of Representatives handed down a report into how we can better support postgraduates in research training places. We believe that the amendments before the committee today address this issue of equity in ensuring that those research postgraduate students who may be in receipt of a parenting or carer payment will still be able to receive their income support without it being docked. Clearly this is an important issue for postgraduate students. By virtue of being postgrads and being an older generation, they face extra issues.

We already know that research students are a group of students that already struggle. By removing the threshold amount that the government has set, this small but important change could really assist the postgrad students who are in receipt of a parenting payment by exempting them from losing their income support. I think this is an important amendment. It was overlooked in the government’s legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to rectify the situation.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the failure of the opposition’s savings measure that has just been defeated by the Senate, we are unable to support these amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for these amendments. These are important amendments because too often the plight of postgraduate students in our universities can be neglected. Our up-and-coming researchers on research scholarships need to be working as well. That is why I think these amendments are sensible and important. The government may well say that this is a cost that it cannot support; rather I say it is an investment. I support these amendments.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.