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

I table two supplementary explanatory memorandums relating to the government amendments and request for amendments to be moved to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]. The memorandums were circulated in the chamber on 23 February and 16 March 2010.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I. move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 6094:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 23), after “(10B)”, insert “, (10BA)”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 4), after paragraph 1067A(10B), insert:

(10BA)    This subsection applies if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is required to live away from home and has had to relocate a distance of not less than 100 kilometres from their main place of residence to attend a higher education institution.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 20), after “(10B)”, insert “, (10BA)”.

These three amendments deal with retaining the existing pathway to access the youth allowance by students who have to relocate more than 100 kilometres. This is to ensure that those students can relocate. If these amendments do not pass, then people in regional areas that are not covered by the amendments that the coalition and Labor have agreed to—these people that have to shift more than 100 kilometres—would miss out and therefore would have to hold off their studies for two years.

These amendments have the same effect as the amendments I put forward back in November, so this is nothing new. It is to make sure that regional areas and even people in the city area that have to shift away from home to get to university are looked after. It is to make sure that the old rules, the old criteria, for youth allowance still apply. This is at least some way of enabling regional areas to not miss out and to make sure they get to university and to make sure they are not treated like second-hand citizens.

Unless this amendment is passed, students in towns such as Ballarat, Bendigo, Sale, Shepparton, Traralgon, Wangaratta, Warrnambool and Wodonga will basically have to qualify for youth allowance and therefore have a two-year gap rather than just the one year. So I commend these amendments to the Senate. I am hoping that there will be support to make sure that students in regional areas at least have some support if they have to relocate some distance to get to university.

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

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The first relates to the question of further relocation concessions. The advice I have been given is that the cost to the bill of acceptance of that measure will be $815 million. We are not accepting that. The second is the question of further concessions on the independence criteria. The advice I have been given is that the cost to the bill would be $1.7 billion. The government clearly cannot accept such an impost.

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

I first of all thank Senator Fielding for his strong advocacy for rural students during this long debate. I would like to remind both Senator Fielding and, indeed, the Senate that if it were not for these negotiations rural students would be worse off. The coalition has secured over the next decade or so hundreds of millions of dollars to assist rural students go to university. That is a fact. The coalition did that. If the coalition had not done it, the money would not be there. Let us put that on the table fair and square. The coalition did that through negotiations with the government. We are proud of it and we make no apologies for it. We cannot support these amendments. We will be moving our own amendments which have a similar thrust very shortly. I should also note this: if the coalition are elected later this year, we will review student support, particularly in relation to rural students. This may indeed, Senator Fielding, as you have flagged in this amendment, be a policy we can look at. But at the moment certainly the opposition will not be supporting these amendments.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth not letting this go too quickly. It is interesting that the Rudd government, through the minister, can say the cost is too high. What was the cost of that pink batts fiasco? What was the cost to the Australian taxpayers of that fiasco? The government are quite happy to turn a blind eye to that, but when it comes to our kids’ future they do not want to invest in them at all. They do not want to invest in our kids’ future, but they are quite happy to waste money the way that they have. Then they come in here to say they want to penny pinch with our kids. This is an investment in our future. This is an investment in our kids, the next generation coming through. Rural and regional areas need doctors and dentists and accountants. They come from rural and regional areas. Fewer people coming from there that go to university means fewer people going back to rural and regional areas. It is a fact. Here we are not able to support making sure that regional areas—places like, and I am sure Senator Ronaldson will be interested in this, Ballarat, Bendigo, Sale, Shepparton, Traralgon, Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Wodonga and other regional areas of Australia—all miss out on youth allowance. It is very hard to allow that to happen. Surely we should be looking after these people. Surely there should be more done.

They were all done and all silent, even the National Party, on this issue about an amendment for regional kids. The National Party should be standing up for regional areas. They have sold out again. The media release from Christopher Pyne yesterday said that last year the coalition sought three changes. They did that with us. It was Family First votes that forced the government to rethink this as well. And here they are saying, ‘We wanted to get a pathway to exist for regional kids.’ The media release yesterday said that the coalition had succeeded in ensuring a pathway for rural, remote and very remote students. There is nothing about regional areas—nothing at all. You have backed down and sold out regional Australia. You cannot explain it. Even one of your coalition senators came in, and they cannot explain why this area is supported and that area is not. This is a way of including regional areas in some way. Surely it should get supported.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to speak briefly on this, and I will speak briefly during the opposition’s amendment. Let us be absolutely crystal clear about this. The coalition was presented with a legislative fait accompli which would have completely and utterly ripped the guts out of non-metropolitan students. We were presented with a proposal that would have ripped the guts out of regional and rural kids. This started off with a government who proved again it did not give a damn about rural and regional kids because it is a government that does not understand regional and rural kids. For the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, who is at the table today, to be talking about this being a pantomime is an indication of what his view is of this bill.

This is just a political game for the minister. It is just a pantomime that you play with because you do not care and you do not understand. You have viewed this as a pantomime. You have viewed regional and rural Australia as a pantomime from the very moment you stepped foot in this place. You do not care. You view this as a game. You do not understand the pressure on regional and rural families and their kids. Your pantomime involves coming in here and attacking others when you are quite comfortable living in your big house in Melbourne and making the occasional foray into marginal seats. That is the minister’s interest in regional and rural Australia: the occasional foray into a marginal seat. You do not understand it. You live in your McMansion in Melbourne and do not understand regional and rural kids.

I will tell you what it is like, Minister—someone who lives in Melbourne and does not give a damn about it. I will tell you what it is like to have to make choices about whether your kids do or do not get higher education. What a fantastic choice that is! This government embarked on this because it does not understand what it is all about. It does not understand what it means for a husband and wife to sit down and make a decision about which of their kids is going to be given the opportunity to go on to university or other higher education. That is the decision country parents have to make. That is the decision they have to make. As I said in this place two months ago or whenever the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 last came up, when I was the member for Ballarat—and the minister, again, has no understanding of this—I had a family from Stawell come down to me and ask, ‘On what basis do I make a decision about which of our kids is going to go to Melbourne to study?’

It was on the back of that that the previous government made changes to give kids a chance; to give country families a chance. You tell me what is equitable about country kids and country parents having different options to those of metropolitan parents. What is fair about that? This piece of legislation, as originally introduced, was going to be the damnation of rural and regional kids. We have had to claw it back. I might not actually disagree with some of the things Senator Fielding said. We are being presented with a fait accompli whereby a decision has to be made; hence the reference to the letter from the shadow minister for education.

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

Better than it was.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. Again, I give my thanks to the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, and, while I am at it, to Senator Mason, Senator Nash and others who are here, who have fought very hard to get us into this position. But let us not delude ourselves about the outcome of what the government is doing. No, it is not the best option, and we do not pretend it is. We have an amendment in relation to inner-regional communities. But I say to the minister: when you have an understanding of the pressures facing country kids and their parents then let us have a talk about it, but do not have the gall to come in here and describe what we are doing as a pantomime. That is not a reflection on us; that is a reflection on the families in country Australia. They do not view this as a pantomime; they view this as nothing more and nothing less than the future of their kids. Their kids should have the opportunity to do what their metropolitan cousins are doing. That is what this debate is about. The government should hang its head in shame for putting us in this position. Have we fought for those country kids and their parents? Yes, we have. Is it an optimal outcome? No, it is not. We do not pretend that it is, but it is 1,000 per cent better than it was originally.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Family First amendments 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I move government amendment (6) on sheet BV265 revised:

(6)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (after line 9), after subsection 1067A(10D), insert:

    (10E)    This subsection applies to a person if:

             (a)    the person’s family home is in a location categorised under the Remoteness Structure as Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia or Very Remote Australia; and

             (b)    the person is required to live away from home (see section 1067D); and

             (c)    the person is undertaking full-time study (see section 541B); and

             (d)    the person’s combined parental income (as defined in point 1067G-F10 of the Youth Allowance Rate Calculator in section 1067G) for the appropriate tax year (see Submodule 3 of Module F of that Calculator) is less than $150,000.

    (10F)    For the purposes of paragraph (10E)(a), Remoteness Structure means the Remoteness Structure described in:

             (a)    the document entitled “Statistical Geography Volume 1 Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) July 2006”, published by the Australian Statistician, that was effective 1 July 2006; or

             (b)    a document specified in a determination under subsection (10G) to be a replacement document.

    (10G)    The Secretary may, by written determination, specify a document for the purposes of paragraph (10F)(b). The document must be one published by the Australian Statistician.

   (10H)    A determination under subsection (10G) is not a legislative instrument.

Following negotiations with the opposition, the government has moved amendments to maintain the workforce participation criteria for independence for young people from remote and rural areas who are required to relocate to study. The government has been reasonable and gave this concession to secure passage of the bill. We have written agreement, as I have indicated, from the shadow minister for education that the bill will pass following these concessions. Under the government’s amendments, young people who are in full-time study will be able to get support under the old arrangements if they are required to live away from home to study when their family home is in a location characterised under the Australian Standard Geographical Classification, ASGC, as outer-regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia and their parents’ income is less than $150,000 per annum. To fund this amendment, the value of Student Start-up scholarships will be reduced from $1,434 to $1,300 in 2010 and from $2,254 indexed to $2,128 in 2011, indexed in subsequent years.

This is, effectively, the nature of the arrangement that had been entered into between the government, through the Deputy Prime Minister, and the shadow minister. If honoured, it will deliver passage of the bill. What we have seen here today is the political posturing of senators who are seeking to move a motion to include the inner-regional areas, which they know the government cannot accept. We have had Senator Ronaldson come down here and talk about where I live in Pascoe Vale in Melbourne—a well known centre of wealth! This is a man who abandoned Ballarat to take up refuge in the Senate but wants to talk to us about relative disadvantage.

This is an issue that we hold dearly. We think that this is a measure that can be delivered. But to blow out the budget to include provisions that the opposition now seeks to include, outside the terms of the agreement that they have struck, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and blow up to a half a billion dollar hole in the budget. It would require, alternatively, massive cuts to the value of student start-up scholarships. Such a reduction in support to those in need would undermine the integrity of the reform package as a whole, including the key pillars of adequate scholarship payments and a fairer parental income test. Young people from inner regional areas generally have more options in terms of how and where they can choose to study. Young people from inner regional areas who face limited study options may be able to receive assistance from the $20 million hardship fund that the bill also provides for.

Let me make it very clear: the opposition did not push the inclusion of the details they are now seeking to include, in terms of inner regional areas, in the deal that they negotiated with the government. This is a new element that they have discovered, after the announcement of the terms of the compromises that have been made to secure passage of this bill. What we are seeing now, at the last moment, is this new element introduced. I can only question their commitment with their playing of these games. In politics leadership requires you to say no when you know what is being proposed is wrong, when you know that such a proposition cannot be accepted. That is why I say this is a pantomime. It is not about whether or not people are concerned about the welfare of individual students; it is about the political posturing of the coalition when it comes to playing games in relation to the deal that they have struck with the government.

The government will reject amendments which are outside the terms of the agreement struck between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Pyne, which have been acknowledged under the terms of Mr Pyne’s letter of 16 March, where he says:

As agreed with you we will ensure passage of the legislation this week so that Commonwealth scholarships can be made available as soon as possible.

To play out this game other than that is to engage in a pantomime, and that is what is going on right now. What we have now is a position where the coalition will be called upon to honour its word. That is what is going to happen. And sooner or later the realisation of the meaning of that concept will become apparent to all of those on that side of the chamber.

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

Subject to the amendment that I will be moving shortly on behalf of the opposition, the opposition agrees with the government amendments. We are rapidly approaching point zero in this debate. After months and months of debating this issue, it comes down to this: the government, quite rightly, and Professor Bradley in her report of late last year, quite rightly, point to increasing access for young Australians to university as being a key challenge for this country. The opposition accept that; we accept what Professor Bradley said. Professor Bradley is quite right to say that Indigenous kids suffer disadvantage—she is right. And she is quite right that kids from low-socioeconomic backgrounds suffer disadvantage—we accept that; the government and Professor Bradley were right to say that.

But the government has never really understood this: rural and regional kids also suffer distinct disadvantage in entering higher education. That is perhaps the absolute crux of the debate: to us the government has not sufficiently understood that rural kids face an extra challenge going to university. That is why, Minister, this is no pantomime. We are desperately concerned that more kids from rural sectors get to university. As you and I have discussed, both here and elsewhere, we both know—and I know Ms Gillard knows this—that fewer and fewer kids are coming from rural areas to university. That is bad not just for rural kids but for our country. That is why for months we have been negotiating this.

Over the next 10 or so years, because of these negotiations, the coalition has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for rural kids. It is not perfect—I accept that. Senator Fielding is right: there are anomalies. And Senator Macdonald is right: it is not perfect; there are anomalies. When you draw a line on a map, you are dead right—that is what is going to happen. But this is the best deal we could muster, and I am proud of it. It is not perfect, but we have secured hundreds of millions of dollars extra for rural kids over the next decade—and, I hope, access for all Australians: rural, regional, Aboriginal and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. I hope all of them have greater access. The coalition has done its best, despite some of the cynicism in the Senate today, to secure more for regional kids. I accept it is not perfect, but by God it is a hell of a lot better than it was six months ago.

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

I want to reiterate my concerns about the negotiations and the agreement between the government and the opposition over this amendment. I am glad we are getting something moving. We all know that we have 24 hours now to get something through before we break. Students could be left with nothing if we do not agree on something by Thursday afternoon, because the HECS census date is March 31. I am glad that there has been some agreement to get something through, but, no, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2] is not perfect. This is a total compromise. The result is that we have picked winners and losers, and that is not good policy. It is not good policy for any government to be picking winners and losers based on the fact that it did not put any extra money into the bucket. I take the point of the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research that we do not have an endless bucket, blah, blah, blah. If you want to implement major reform you have to fund it—that is the crux of the problem. If you want to put money into the hands of students through scholarships, bravo! Student advocates have been advocating that for years, and I must say that they were advocating it to the coalition when it was in government as well. For years, students have been asking for some money to help at the beginning of each semester. This was not the government’s idea; this was something that the government decided to run with. It was never their idea. This was an idea that came from students themselves, but the government did not fund it—the government wanted to ensure that it had a budget neutral package. You cannot put up a major reform package and not fund it properly. That is why we are in this sticky position.

The basis of this amendment means that we are passing something that picks winners and losers—bad policy. We are saying that some kids deserve to be treated independently but they still have to defer their studies—we are still punishing them—and yet other kids do not have that avenue at all. All I need to do is look at my home state of South Australia. Families and students from right around South Australia have contacted me—as they have from the rest of the country—asking, ‘What is going on?’ They are confused about the situation. They are in limbo and are desperate to know what is going to happen. Students from Loxton in South Australia have contacted me out of concern. They want to get to university and need support to do that. They will be able to defer their studies, earn $19,500 and get independent status, get that support and get on to university. They still have to defer their studies, which we know means that most of them will not actually go on to university. But kids from Mount Gambier do not even have that avenue. It is unfair. We have picked winners and losers. It is bad policy.

We need to get something through. I accept that. I do not want this issue to continue to be a political football about who supports students most, because we know about their credibility out there. The government has not put any extra dollars into the fund and the coalition did not do it when it was in government. I think the scores on the board are fairly even, actually. What we need to do is look forward and ask what we are going to do. I hope that, at the very least, the taskforce with the $20 million can help us move some way forward. There are going to be students who will be affected next year by these changes or lack of changes. There are some ways forward on this.

I am disappointed that it has taken until this point for the government and the opposition to agree on something and that it has turned out to be a bit of a dog’s breakfast. Let us move on. I am concerned that we now have 24 hours to get something passed in order to ensure there is some money in the hands of students. I am prepared not to stop debating this issue until we get something through before we leave here this week. If people do want to play games about this, play them out there in public; do not play them in here where they are actually going to affect the lives of individuals. Parents have taken out mortgages on their homes because they have not known what is going on and their kids needed to start university this year. They need to start making repayments on those mortgages. We need to get the money into the hands of students sooner rather than later. We cannot delay this any more.

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

I move an amendment to government amendment (6) on sheet BV265 revised:

(1)    Government amendment no. 6 on sheet [BV265-Revised]:

Paragraph (10E)(a), after “Remoteness Structure as”, insert “Inner Regional Australia,”.

As I flagged in my speech in the second reading debate, this amendment reflects the coalition’s continuing concern for rural students and also, in a sense, reflects that whatever happens there will be anomalies. Whenever lines are drawn on maps there will be anomalies. This amendment will cater for more students and make more funds available for, let us face it, one of the most disadvantaged groups when it comes to access to higher education. That is why the coalition is moving this amendment. But we also move it in the spirit that there is no easy answer here. When we are dealing with disadvantaged groups and their access to higher education, all we can do is our best. The coalition believes it is important to put a marker in the sand about what we consider to be one of the most disadvantaged groups in terms of access—we do this unapologetically. I think I flagged in my second reading contribution that if the coalition is elected at the next federal election we will review student support and, in particular, matters of equity in relation to rural students because for too long those kids have missed out. I agree with Senator Hanson-Young. Okay, there is a lot of politics in this but in the end we have to do the right thing by 100,000 or 150,000 students and we have to do it pretty quickly. But politics always intervenes. These kids have missed out in the past and we are unapologetically very, very concerned about their access.

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

I would like to very briefly reiterate my earlier comments. The amendment simply says that all regional students should be treated the same. By including the inner regional zone, all regional students should be treated the same. The government has this view that all men are equal but some are more equal than others. We think all regional students should be treated equally, not just some.

We have said all the way through this debate that we do recognise there are some parts of this legislation that are good: the increase to the thresholds, the relocation allowance and the start-up scholarships. We recognise there are a lot of students out there who are very keen to see that those happen, which is why we have been trying to negotiate an outcome so that those students who are keen to see those three areas of change go ahead are accommodated. We recognise that, but at the same time the negotiations were about ensuring that all regional students were treated fairly. The fact that this government has brought forward a deal that does not include fair and equitable treatment for all regional students is just appalling, and that is why we have moved this amendment.

On this side of the chamber, we are the coalition and we are in opposition. We hope that does not last too long, but we are in opposition. It is this government’s responsibility to deliver legislation for this country. It was Prime Minister Rudd and the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, who made the decision to treat regional students unfairly. Do not anybody ever forget that. No matter any of the outcomes of this legislation, the coalition is in opposition and we have done our absolute best to make sure we get the best outcome for regional students. At the end of the day, it is the Labor Party in government and it is its choice to treat regional students unfairly. Quite frankly, the people of Australia should rally against that.

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

I add to the comments of my colleague Senator Nash. This amendment brings some fairness into this equation. We have a situation in New England, where I live, where people in Tamworth, who are classed as inner regional, are excluded from the benefits being negotiated, yet we have areas such as Cairns and Townsville which are classed as outer regional. It is simply unfair.

We make the point that this whole debate has been about a fair system for getting people in regional areas into tertiary education. Unfortunately, about 30 per cent of people in regional Australia who complete year 12 go on to tertiary education, whereas some 55 per cent of students in the urban areas and city areas go on to tertiary education. We need these people in regional areas to undertake tertiary education. They are the ones most likely to return to regional areas to give us the services we so desperately need such as doctors, dentists and nurses. If we have any obstacles in front of them to restrict them from getting a tertiary education, then those regional areas will pay the price.

This legislation was brought forward by the Rudd government in the May budget last year. It has stalled. It should have been here and settled months ago. We even changed the agenda last November, when the government brought on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, to settle this issue on youth allowance. We wanted it settled. The government has made the changes and the changes are unfair. With the amendments, we will make it a little bit better for some of those people in regional areas, but there are many others in those inner regional areas, as defined on the index, who will simply be treated unfairly.

On dependent youth allowance, parents on a $70,000 per annum combined income receive for their student $100 a fortnight to go to university, which is fine if you live in Sydney around the corner from a university—$100 a fortnight is probably good financial assistance to them—but in a regional area where you have to travel and where some $20,000 cost is the burden on you for accommodation and meals what is $100 a fortnight? It is nothing.

The whole youth allowance system needs to be looked at. In my opinion, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt so we have a fair system where people in regional Australia can have the opportunity to get a territory education and deliver those essential services back to regional areas. Already we have got the Prime Minister this week saying the government will spend some $600 million to get more doctors, specialists and nurses to regional areas. This is a start. Get an education system where those people in regional Australia can have the opportunity to get a tertiary education. That is why I strongly support the amendment put forward by my colleague Senator Mason. Areas such as inner regional should be included in this backflip by the minister as well. People in Tamworth and similar areas should not have to miss out.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very interesting to hear Senator Carr say that the coalition, which is the National Party and the Liberal Party, did not include inner regional in their agreement with the government. That is interesting. Where was the National Party when you were sitting down with the minister agreeing to a deal that cut out rural and regional areas? Where were they? They are here now. But where were they when the minister said that they did not include inner regional in the deal? That is funny. The National Party did not seem to want to stand up then.

Now they have come back with this amendment. I will support this amendment because it does do something for regional areas, but I am surprised now that you are coming back in here after you have done the deal. You are allowing the government to walk all over you. They pick and choose when they bring legislation into this chamber. You know that. They have waited to the last minute to start to sit down and negotiate on this issue and you have fallen for the trick. You have blinked too early. You have sold out regional areas and now you are trying to scramble and claw them back. It is a joke. You should have realised they were always going to do this at the last minute and say, ‘We need to get this through.’ You folks have allowed them to mismanage this whole situation.

First of all, the Rudd government took away the scholarships early last year. I warned them, ‘You shouldn’t have done that unless you dealt with youth allowance at the same time.’ You could see this coming. The government have been devious from day one with the youth allowance changes, and I am telling them that they are getting caught out by people like the Rural Education Equity Alliance, whose media release is headed ‘Dismay at youth allowance deal’. The government have been deviously working on this all the way through, have come in here at the last second and have only really started to negotiate at the eleventh hour. It is disingenuous. It is just a joke to think that we are here, at the eleventh hour, trying to look after regional areas. I will support this amendment. It will be interesting to see if we divide on it, because I will be calling for a division, and I hope those people in the National Party who are here will call for a division as well.

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

In reply to Senator Fielding’s comments, I understand that Senator Fielding has contributed enormously to this debate over the past 12 to 14 months, and I know he has been a consistently passionate advocate for rural students. I accept that. But I have to remind the Senate that we are the opposition. My friend Senator Carr represents the government here. The government wanted to take away rights, welfare and access from rural students. That was the government’s proposal. And the coalition has secured greater access for those rural students. We have secured, over the next 10 or so years, hundreds of millions of dollars to enable those students to go to university. I accept and I think everyone in the opposition would accept that it is not perfect. I know that, and I know a lot of my colleagues are not particularly happy about it. Some of them think we could have done better. But do you know what? We are the opposition. This is the best deal we could get, and it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years or so. Never forget that it was the government’s intention to narrow those pathways to independence and that we fought so hard against that. The government wanted to reduce it to one pathway. The coalition, by virtue of its negotiations, has retained those three pathways. It is very important that the Senate remember the context within which this debate has been so keenly contested over the past 15 or 16 months. I think the coalition overall has done a very good job in securing what it can for rural students. But it is not perfect.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I vividly remember being at two meetings in Corangamite organised by the Liberal candidate for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, in relation to these changes when they were first floated. I remind everyone in this chamber that the first round of these changes disenfranchised young people who had finished school in 2008 and who were taking a gap year. Let us get this debate into some perspective. We started this fight on the back of 2008 students who had taken a gap year on the back of what they had been told by student counsellors and—

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

Centrelink.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Centrelink and others. I appreciate some of the things my colleague Senator Fielding is saying, but let us go back and see what this fight was about and how far we have come. We have come a long way. It fascinates me. Where were those Labor members back when this debate first started? Where were those Labor members on behalf of their constituents? Where was Darren Cheeseman in Corangamite when this debate first started? Was he supporting the kids who had taken a gap year for 2008? Was he there to be seen? Was he in the Geelong Advertiser or the Geelong Independent or the Colac Herald? Was he in there saying, ‘This is a shocking decision!’ No, he was not. He rolled over; he did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the kids in Corangamite, for which he will be penalised very strongly. I will finish on this note, but I want to take you back, Mr Chairman, to when this debate first started—back to the fact that kids who finished in 2008 were going to lose their entitlement because of a retrospectively effective piece of legislation. We have taken this a long, long way.

Question put:

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

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Carr be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5), (7) to (13) and (15) on sheet BV265 revised together:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 8 to 11), omit subsection 1067A(4), substitute:

        (4)    For the purposes of Part 2.11, this Part and section 1070G, a person is independent at a time in a period specified in an item of the table if at the time the person is at least the age specified in the item:

(3)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 1, insert:

1A  Application of amendment affecting independence age

Subsection 1067A(4) of the Social Security Act 1991 as amended by item 1 applies for the purposes of working out a person’s eligibility for, or amount of, youth allowance for a day, or fares allowance for a journey on a day, that is on or after 1 April 2010.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 23), omit “or (10C)”, substitute “, (10C) or (10E)”.

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

(7)    Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 10), after item 3, insert:

3A  Application of amendments about workforce participation

(1)    Subsections 1067A(10), (10A), (10B), (10C) and (10D) of the Social Security Act 1991 as amended by items 2 and 3 apply for the purposes of working out a person’s eligibility for, or amount of, youth allowance for a day, or fares allowance for a journey on a day, that is on or after 1 July 2010.

(2)    Subsections 1067A(10E) and (10F) of the Social Security Act 1991 as amended by item 3 apply for the purposes of working out a person’s eligibility for, or amount of, youth allowance for a day, or fares allowance for a journey on a day, that is on or after 1 January 2011.

(8)    Schedule 1, heading to Division 3, page 6 (lines 14 and 15), omit the heading.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (lines 16 to 23), omit the item, substitute:

5  Application of amendment

The amendment made by this Division applies for the purposes of working out a person’s eligibility for, or amount of, fares allowance for a journey on a day that is on or after 1 April 2010.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 7), omit “January”, substitute “July”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 18, page 13 (line 3), omit “January”, substitute “July”.

(12)  Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (line 19), omit “$717”, substitute “$650”.

(13)  Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (line 22), omit “$1,127”, substitute “$1,064”.

(15)  Schedule 2, item 14, page 27 (line 25), omit “1 March”, substitute “15 April”.

These are essentially consequential amendments to give effect to the arrangements entered into between the government and the opposition in terms of changes to the start-up dates and changing the age of independence, which have effects for student start-up scholarships and relocation scholarships, relax parental income tests for payment of youth allowance and tighten workforce participation criteria for payment of independent youth allowance.

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

The opposition supports these amendments. They are consequential to the government’s previous amendments, and we support them.

Question agreed to.

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

I present the statement of reasons and a statement by the clerk:

The statements read as follows—

Parliamentary Counsel - Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 BV265

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment (14)

The effect of this amendment is to expand the circumstances in which persons will be eligible for student start-up scholarship payments and relocation scholarship payments in 2010. It is covered by section 53 because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendment (16)

The effect of this amendment is to provide for a new scheme requiring the expenditure of $20 million for assistance for the undertaking of higher education by certain people. It is covered by section 53 because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

——————

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2] SHEET REVISED BV265

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

Amendments (14) and (16)

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation, although this interpretation is not entirely consistent with other elements of the established interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution.

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

Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.

Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.