Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, in terms of what Labor is prepared to accept in this bill: 12 elements to a total saving of $2,698 million. Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you may remember that yesterday in this place the Assistant Treasurer made comments about the ALP's 'bloody-mindedness' in not moving forward to accept legislation that was before us and actually restraining the process over some technical issue. That is not true. We were clear from the start that we would not vote for elements that affected those changes to which we objected. We suggested earlier that new legislation be brought forward. That new legislation has been brought forward. We will support that.

But just on one other point: when we had the discussion about the previous bills, I and a couple of other contributors on this side made reference to part of the human rights committee report that commented on only two elements that did not meet the requirements of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. A contribution was made that said we had not understood the process, that we were not doing the right thing by drawing attention to those elements. I think it is important to put on record that certainly in my contribution and in the others that I heard there was not any claim that the whole legislation was not accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. We actually focused on one element—the proposals I had already mentioned around young people who were unemployed and the impact of significant periods of lack of any social welfare support.

So, I really want to make it clear that I have absolute respect for the very important work the Joint Committee on Human Rights does for this parliament and did for the previous parliament. I also put on record that sometimes things that come through that process do not find favour with government, either the current government or indeed the previous government. But I am very keen to put on record that there was no way that I attempted to misreport the report of the human rights committee. It was very clear from my perspective that I had read the report and also the tabling statement and that it was only the elements of the unemployment changes that I drew attention to in my contribution—that I felt that the human rights committee had said that some of the proposal did not meet the human rights standards that we would hope it would. That has also been put forward by the range of people in the community who spoke so strongly against that change, and we would never support that change.

It is important to see that there has been fulsome discussion and debate around the issues that were in the previous legislation and that are now in this legislation. We take our job very seriously in critically looking at any proposal brought to this chamber on consideration for changes in legislation and around budget. We scrutinise carefully—which, indeed, is our job. In this case there were some proposals in the legislation that we accepted and many that we did not. We did not hide our position; we made it public, both to the government and to the community. So, the legislation we have before us is a response from government to requests we had made over a period of time. It is interesting that now, finally, we do have a result, which will make savings. We believe that is the way the system should operate—that you actually negotiate change. Just bullying and yelling at people who disagree with you will not come up with an effective result. Rather, you negotiate and you come forward with what you can agree on, and you are very clear about what the impact of any proposed changes will be.

We support the changes that are in there. Some of those are difficult, and I put it on record for all the people who have contacted us about their concerns, particularly around the area of the disability support pension. We need to continue to work with the people who are in receipt of those payments, their families, and those organisations that support them to ensure that there is an equitable response and an understanding of special needs. Regarding the change for people under 35 who are on the disability support pension, to have a greater interaction between those claiming payment and the wider community, particularly in employment, to see that there is engagement in the process, we know that these things need to have continued scrutiny. There is no change in our system that should be just put in and forgotten.

It is absolutely critical that any change to our social welfare system have an ongoing review process, ongoing scrutiny, to see that it meets the intent for which it was designed. For the 12 changes that we do support, we expect that they will continue to be scrutinised to see that they do not in any way have a negative impact on people who are relying on the social welfare system and that they are helping people engage with the workforce rather than just providing some punitive aspect. We need to understand with family payments that the impact of changes to indexing arrangements and augmenting processes is taken into account, taking into consideration any other change that may come into place as a result of the budget.

As our shadow minister Jenny Macklin said this morning, we support the bill that is now before us. We would have supported a similar bill if it had come forward earlier. We have made it very clear, in respect of the two previous pieces of legislation that have been before us since the budget, that it is only the only the 12 changes in the current bill that we were ever going to support. We hope that in future the system will have greater consultative processes so that we will not be in the situation of having the government have to close down some form of legislation and bring in new bills in some response that could have been brought forward much more quickly.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us make no mistake here—Labor is helping the government ram through measures that will have impacts on families, people with disabilities, single parents and students. That is what the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Bill does. We are firmly on record that we did not support the provisions of the other two social services bills, but Labor combined with the government to ram them through. They were not subjected to the full debate that they should have been subjected to, and Labor have now combined with the government to try to push these measure through on the last day of sitting before we have a two-week break.

These measures are opposed by many people in the community. I want to take a moment to reflect on the context in which these budget measures were brought forward in the first place. They were brought forward in two bills that had the cruellest of the government's budget measures in them, which impacted across the community—on young people, families, people with disabilities, carers, single parents—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You left us with no money, Senator.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, every time Senator O'Sullivan comes into this chamber and sits in the whip's chair he constantly undermines speakers. Could you please ask him not to so that we can contribute to this debate in a sensible manner?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have called the senator to order. All senators are aware that interjecting across the chamber is disorderly and I ask honourable senators to allow Senator Siewert to conclude her remarks in silence.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that is much appreciated. The measures in those bills were a hodgepodge of measures designed to attack the most vulnerable members of our community. We know that because NATSEM clearly pointed out that the burden of these government measures fell on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our community. They were cruel and carefully targeted to undermine our safety net. These measures are similar in that they hurt families by changing the family tax benefits. They particularly hurt people with disabilities, they hurt single parents and they hurt students. I know my colleagues will be making a contribution on the impact on students and the abolition of the relocation allowance—something that the Greens have been concerned about and working on for a very long time. When we had the Senate inquiry into the other two social services bills, Nos 1 and 2, the NUS were very clear in their opposition to the measures that affected the relocation allowance because they undermined students' ability to study and relocate. They were really clear in their message that they opposed that measure, along with other measures and in particular the measures that are not contained in this bill that affect young people that the government has put into other bills that they will continue to try to get through—and we will continue to oppose them. They rip at the fundamentals of the income support system in this country.

This government obviously still has not got the message because they still want to bring these measures into this place. They will continue to be rejected, I hope, time and time again. But on this particular bill these are measures that the ALP has agreed with the government to support. We will oppose these measures because, as I said, they are the start of the slippery slope down to undermining our social safety net. Labor well know that these measures are not supported by the broader community—they are clearly not supported by the community, and I know that because of the number of phone calls we have been getting about them.

I turn to the impact on people with disabilities. Here we have Labor agreeing with the government to reassess thousands and thousands of people under the age of 35 on the disability support pension, not with a view to assessing whether they have an ability to work but with a view to dumping people onto Newstart, which is a much lower payment—in fact, it is below the poverty line. If the government really cared about helping people into work and out of poverty, they would be looking at increasing Newstart, for a start. Instead, they go the other way and demonise and punish people. Labor started this process, so I am not surprised that they are supporting it. They started this process by bringing in the 'you have to try to find work for 18 months before you can even apply for DSP' system. Labor started it, so why should I be surprised that they are continuing the process and are now agreeing to reassess people under the age of 35 with a disability? People under the age of 35 with a disability are extremely worried and concerned about their future, and I share their concern. They are concerned that they will be dumped on to Newstart—dumped into trying to live under the poverty line with a disability. We know that poverty is a barrier to finding work. If it is a barrier to finding work for somebody who does not have a disability, imagine what it is like for a person with a disability. It doubles or at least significantly magnifies the impact of living in poverty for a person with a disability.

They have to manage living with a disability below the poverty line, but there are other barriers that they face from living in poverty. That was clearly articulated to the community affairs committee when we were looking at previous measures that meant that people were not going to be able to access the disability support pension, and that they would have to look for work on Newstart. I can remember a number of witnesses who raised very valid and important concerns about issues about just being able to get transport to work and how they would be able to access the disability support services employment services that were not adequate. They worried too about being able to maintain that work and cycling in and out of work because they would find it harder to maintain connection with work with a disability and they would not get the support in the workplace that enables them to maintain that connection with work. People from regional Australia raised concerns about people with disabilities, particularly those living on Newstart in regional areas and having to participate and meet their workplace requirements.

This is an ill-thought through measure that is designed to save the government a little bit of money, but which will cause a great deal of anguish and concern to people with disabilities. Instead of dumping people with a disability off the Disability Support Pension and on to Newstart, we should be investing in more support to help people with a disability to engage with work. We also need to make sure that we are providing the best possible support for our disability support employment agencies and for Job Services Australia agencies, because a large number of people with disabilities also access Job Services Australia rather than disability support employment organisations. We should be focusing our attention on helping people to overcome their barriers to work, to access work and to maintain that work.

Then we come to the measure of reducing the portability for people on the Disability Support Pension to four weeks. According to their explanatory memorandum for this particular bill, that saves the government $5 million—although they do say that that is indicative only, as it refers to 'whole-of-government financial impact, including administration and implementation funding.' Labor—why have you supported this measure? Why did you agree to this measure? This is an appalling measure. Lowering down their portability from six weeks to four weeks—why? It is because they are saying: 'We are punishing you. How dare you travel overseas with a disability.' It beggars belief that they would think that this is acceptable. I have had an overwhelming number of people who are highly distressed about this particular measure contact my office to say that they have been saving for years to be able to go on a trip. Sometimes it is to spend time with their family; other times it is actually to see the world—to see a country they have always wanted to visit, just like everybody else wants to travel. Guess what? Somebody with a disability wants to do that too—to travel overseas. What the government saying is: 'No—we want to remind you that we control you.' People with a disability want to be able to travel. They have saved up—and believe me, when you are living on a disability support pension you are not living in the lap of luxury. Yes, you are living on more money than you would be living on Newstart, but Newstart is below the poverty line. Talk to any person with a disability or in fact someone on the aged pension, because they are the same—they are still scraping to make ends meet. They manage to save a bit of money to be able to go to see their family or to travel overseas, and what the government is saying now is: 'You can only go for four weeks. That is it, because we are trying to punish you for having a disability.'

There is no logical, rational explanation for wanting to reduce this portability from six weeks, which has already been reduced under previous governments, to four weeks. There is no rational, fair-minded reasoning for this particular measure, other than their being mean and in demonising. We do not support it. We do not agree with the deal that has been done between Labor and the government because it is just mean-spirited. It is nothing more than a mean-spirited attempt at demonising people with a disability because they want to drive the broader budget savings, they claim, by going for people with a disability.

Then you have the measure—and I have raised some concerns about this before—relating to relocation scholarship assistance for certain students. When considering this measure, you have to put it in the context of what else the government wants to bring in, the other measures that will impose extra costs on students and make it even more difficult for them to study. The government is making it more difficult for young people to study, to learn, which is what the government say it wants them to do. The government says it wants young people to earn or learn, but when they try to learn the government puts more and more barriers in their way.

If the government had had their way, they would have been putting in yet another barrier—increasing poverty even more—by removing income support for young people. Thankfully the community backlash has been so strong that they cannot get that measure through. The Greens and I will keep campaigning until the government completely and utterly drops that measure. It is a measure that would totally undermine Australia's safety net. It would have implications right across the community and it would have lifelong impacts. We will continue to oppose that measure and we will continue to fight for an increase in Newstart and youth allowance in order to help young people create a future for themselves. We will continue to fight to keep the government from taking away young people's hope for the future. Removing income support would take away their hope, because they would be living below the poverty line, living hand to mouth. What the government is doing here with this measure on relocation assistance is putting another barrier to learning in the way of students, particularly rural students. We already know that people living in rural and regional areas have much higher barriers to overcome in order to attend university.

Another area we have strong concerns about are the changes being made to family tax benefits. These measures will make it harder for families. I strongly agree with the point made by the National Welfare Rights Network that we need to look at these measures and the changes to family tax benefits in the context of the other budget measures this government is planning to bring through. In other words, we need to look at the cumulative impact, which is very significant. If you add the changes to family tax benefits to the co-payment measures and the higher education measures—although I am still anticipating, and certainly very much hoping, that these other measures do not get through—the cumulative impact on families is severe. You cannot look at the measures the government wants to inflict on families in isolation. It is extremely important that they are looked at in their entirety and not in isolation.

We are extremely disappointed that Labor has agreed to let the government bring this bill on with very little time to debate it. I assume the government hopes they can get it through quickly now so that people do not notice. Do they think people are going to forget that these measures have been rammed through the House of Representatives? Do they think people are not going to notice that some of these measures are going to have significant impacts on students, people with disabilities, families—across the board? The other measures, the co-payments and so on, are still there as well. We will never support them. We will not support these bills because they have unacceptable impacts.

The government needs to change its thinking, if that is possible, about the way to look after the most vulnerable in our community. Punishing and demonising people does not work. A better way to go is to adopt an inclusive approach, a supportive approach that helps people, that does not undermine them, that does not take money out of their pockets. Fundamental to that is adequacy of payments. When is the government going to realise that living in poverty does not help people engage with work? When will it realise that we need to make sure that people are not living in poverty and that they have access to the types of supports they need? Keeping people in poverty and subjecting them to work-for-the-dole programs that provide no training and no support does not work.

The Greens will not be supporting this bill. We do not agree with the deal that has been done between Labor and the government. Labor are trying to imply that these measures do not have an impact on our community when they do. Changes to the family tax benefit do, changes to the disability support pension do and changes to the relocation allowance have an impact, an unacceptable impact, on the most vulnerable in our community. We do not support these budget measures. We will not be supporting this bill.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The community has been resonating with anger about this budget. There have been Bust the Budget rallies all around the country. It is extraordinary that, four months after the budget came down, the anger is still there. At many of these rallies, people have heard from Labor MPs standing up and condemning this government. Time and time again at these rallies they have heard Labor members of parliament speak out against the budget. Yesterday, the government was on the skids with this very ugly part of the budget and this very bad legislation. The attempt by Treasurer Hockey and Prime Minister Abbott, with the support of Liberal and National members of parliament, to load pressure and hardship onto ordinary people, onto disadvantaged people, looked like it was just about over. And what have Mr Shorten and Labor done? The absolute deal of all deals. Talk about a get out of jail free card! They are helping this government, a government that is on the nose, that is so doing the wrong thing to the very fabric of our society by loading problems onto families, people with disabilities, students and so many others who will really have to think about how they are going to make ends meet.

My portfolio of higher education is an area, again, where I have shared many platforms recently with Labor MPs, condemning the government for what they are doing to higher education. In this Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Bill 2014, there are some things that will make life much harder for students. But what have we seen today from Labor? They have just voted it through in the lower house and now they want to rush it through here. This is really extraordinary. Today, 2 October 2014, is a very ugly day now in Labor Party history—a day when they did a deal not just with any Liberal government but with the Abbott Liberal government, a government that within a year of taking office has brought forward some of the most notorious, destructive policies that we have ever seen from a conservative government.

Again, I think it is informative to contrast what Labor are doing today with what they have said. Obviously, when they are speaking at Bust the Budget rallies, they are up there whipping up the crowd about how terrible the government is, that they will stand firm and the budget must be rejected, but they have also got down to specifics. Opposition leader Mr Bill Shorten, on 11 August, actually signed a public pledge which stated:

I, Bill Shorten, pledge that the ALP will block proposed changes to higher education in the senate …

This is a change to higher education that we are dealing with in this social services bill. Yes, there is a big bill that Minister Pyne is spruiking around the place, but there are very significant aspects of this legislation that will bring hardship to many students and that, for many, will be the difference between being able to do their studies and not being able to do their studies, if they can find the course that they want to do at the university that they have chosen. In monetary terms, what the ALP are doing is supporting the coalition's $400 million cuts to student welfare—student welfare in the form of relocation payments and also overseas portability.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They should be congratulated for their foresight.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do acknowledge the interjection just made. It is interesting that it was from a member of the Nationals, who so often go around saying how they are the friends and supporters of regional universities. But the Nationals senator who just interjected and his colleagues are solidly there with the government at every turn, working—

Senator Siewert interjecting—

I acknowledge the interjection from my colleague as well, that this is very dishonest territory that the Nationals are entering into. They are out there trying to make out that they stand up for regional universities and students from country areas, but they are about to vote for legislation that will change benefits for regional students to a degree that will bring them further hardship, hardship that will multiply as the years roll by. My guess is that they have probably convinced themselves, 'Well, it's not much'—not at the moment, but in time it will be.

These relocation payments are something that I have found, from my own experience of meetings at universities, a number of students raise with me in terms of what a difference they have made. For instance, I met some students from the Blue Mountains and from the suburbs of Western Sydney who were able to get relocation payments to move closer in to the city to be able to take the courses that they wanted to do at Sydney university. In one case, it was vet science; in another case, it was an economics degree. That would not be possible now because of the way eligibility for relocation payments is going to be judged. If your parents live in a major city—major cities being defined as capital cities, including Newcastle, Wollongong and even the Central Coast and the Gold Coast—you will no longer qualify for this assistance. That will make it particularly hard for disadvantaged students and students from working-class backgrounds, whose families cannot afford to help them to move to another capital city, another centre, another university so they can continue the studies that they have their hearts set on.

It is another insidious aspect of this government's policy that they are incrementally looking to change higher education in ways that will return our university system to being the domain of wealthy, white, often men, if the changes in the higher education bill that Minister Pyne is bringing forward go through. But right now the changes to relocation payments will really make it harder for young students, young men and women, who come from families that cannot support them. A lot of families would obviously try to assist their children so they can go ahead and study. But you should not have to rely on your family for that assistance. You should be able to access this relocation payment which Labor is about to help the government ditch.

As I mentioned, these cuts adds up to $400 million, and the largest component of these cuts will remove access to relocation scholarships for students whose parents live in a major city—and I will say them again because the Nationals senators in this chamber need to hear it, because they are always telling us how they are the only voice for regional areas—such as Wollongong, Newcastle or on the Central Coast. They are areas where at times the Nationals have even had MPs, and surely they should be representing their interests, as they should be across the board.

For many students, this relocation scholarship payment has made a difference in terms of their ability to move to university and get established. If you talk to students, particularly undergraduates but also a lot of postgraduates these days, the cost of living is really hard for them. Relocation costs for an individual student add up to about $7,000 over the years that they study. This is money they could use to assist them with their rent, transport, food and other daily living costs. That money can make a real difference when you are really counting your pennies, working out how you are going to get through the week and whether you can pay the rent that week, buy a present for your mum—all those things that make up one's life.

Let's just remember that we have heard time and time again from Labor MPs about how bad this budget is, about how they are standing up for students and for universities and about how they are the voice for public education. They have spoken at rallies, meetings and universities. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten. He, along with other Labor MPs, have signed this pledge. It is very specific in terms of their commitment to block—that is the word from their pledge—proposed changes to higher education in the Senate. That is what we are talking about today.

He cannot just try and quarantine that to Mr Pyne's bill. It is not that simple. Life is not linear in little boxes. We are dealing with legislation now that, if it were to pass, would add to the challenges, the hardships and the difficulties so many students face, particularly students from families where nobody has ever gone to university before. They are very proud of their son or their daughter who has gone to university. It is often very hard for them because they have not grown up in a family where people have had that opportunity. They are giving it everything they have got. But money comes into it, and that needs to be considered.

The other aspect we have here in the deal that Labor has done with the coalition in regard to higher education is overseas portability. This was just a very basic bit of humanity, in that your Centrelink payments were not cut off if you went overseas for less than six weeks. In a country like Australia, with so many people in our society with relatives, families and loved ones overseas, to visit them for an emergency, periodically they will need to go over—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot be serious. You want to know if they are overseas and you want to worry about it.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that interjection from our National MP from Queensland, showing his caring attitude to students who have every right to be able to go overseas for whatever needs that they have identified. It was only for six weeks. Your payment was not cut off by Centrelink. That was one of those reasonable things so life can work in a more humane way and people are able to deal with whatever comes up and with whatever challenges that they might face. But that is to be removed. Again, it is another measure that Labor has decided it is time to axe.

The sum total of what Labor has done here is a monumental deal. Just in higher education alone, it amounts to $400 million that they are cutting from student support. That is on top of what this legislation will mean for people with disabilities and for a whole range of families, particularly single parents, as well as students. My colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who has led for the Greens on this issue, has spoken many times on it in this place and has addressed many rallies, met with stakeholders around the country and identified what it will mean very clearly when she spoke today. What we are seeing here is that these are the people being loaded up with the costs because, in the May budget, this government—with the work of the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, and signed off by the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—came up with a very ugly budget cutting out billions of dollars. The money has to come from somewhere, and it is loaded onto ordinary people by cutting the entitlements that they have every right to.

This is where we need to identify what Labor is doing. How did they come up with this plan? Do the Labor senators in this chamber know anything about this, or has it just been handed to them on a plate by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten? These are very relevant questions, because yesterday the government was on the run. Labor actually had some backbone on this very issue. The fight was on. The message of the bust-the-budget people was being heard here by, from what I could see, the majority of senators. Then, all of a sudden, Mr Shorten caved. We have seen him do that on the terror laws. We have seen him do it on the war in Iraq, and I heard today that he is starting to do a bit of backtracking there by saying that there could be mission creep going on. The leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne, identified long ago that mission creep was one of the first things that would happen. It is good that Mr Shorten has caught up with that so he is starting to look for a bit of wriggle room. But he did sign off with the government, and he signed off with the government on these terrible so-called antiterrorist laws that deny people so many basic rights and risk them being abused by this government. Now we have another one on higher education—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would that be like your arrangement with PUP.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the further comments from the Nationals senator which show his caring attitude and how far that extends, particularly now that we are not even on students but are on the whole exploitative aspects of this legislation. This is legislation that should not be passed under any circumstances. From what I can see, the Labor senators are not coming in on the debate, which starts to answer the question. I am not sure if it is the correct answer, but you look for answers when you get into these debates and you see such sudden shifts in how parties conduct themselves. Yesterday this legislation was being widely condemned, with detailed speeches from many colleagues from the Labor Party about how problematic it was in so many areas, and now there is silence. I hope I am wrong.

I notice that Senator Kim Carr has just come into the chamber. I think it is very important that they do come in on this debate and explain why Labor has now decided to vote for this legislation. It was voted through in the House of Representatives quite quickly this morning. I will be interested to look at who were the Labor MPs in the House of Representatives who signed that pledge. As some senators have just come into the chamber, I think it is worth repeating because it really highlights the essence of contradiction—that would be one polite word, but you could say betrayal—from Labor with this policy. This is the pledge that Mr Shorten and a number of Labor members of parliament signed:

I, Bill Shorten, pledge that the ALP will block proposed changes to higher education in the senate …

We are now in the Senate. Maybe Mr Shorten could use the excuse that we could not do anything about it in the House of Representatives. We can here. Labor and the Greens can vote together. We can put a good case to the crossbenchers. We can stand up for the people of Australia. We can stand up for Australian students who are out there with very little money trying to do their best, do a bit of work, do their studies, get by and come forward with good marks. But now we have put some real obstacles in their path.

So what is Labor's position? Are we going to hear from Labor on this most important issue? The last speaking list that I saw indicated that that is not going to happen, but it is certainly needed. What has happened here is extraordinary. As I said before, 2 October 2014 is going to be a very dark day in the history of Labor because it is the day in which a monumental deal has been done—a deal between Labor and the coalition to do over so many people. Labor is giving—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the one between the Greens and the PUP?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I acknowledge the interjection from the Nationals senator. Labor has given the government a 'get out of jail' card. There has been such widespread condemnation of this budget. Who can remember when a federal budget was still being discussed, still making people angry and still resulting in meetings and protests around the country more than four months after it was delivered?

Just on Sunday, I was at a meeting—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Try 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge that interjection too. I think you are helping my argument. On Sunday I was at another 'bust the budget' rally—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or 83, 84, 85, 86.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge the interjection. On Sunday, in Campbelltown, I was at another 'bust the budget' rally. It was very impressive. There were a range of speakers. There were Greens members there; I understand there were some Labor members there—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you tell them about the debt you left behind?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge all your interjections. This was more than four months after the budget was handed down, and at the rally there were TAFE teachers, nurses, people from the Australian Education Union, the National Tertiary Education Union, the Nurses Association and a range of young people talking about the call centres that they work in. It was a very informative meeting, but again that white-hot anger about the budget is still there. I wish that that Campbelltown meeting was this Sunday so I could be telling them about Labor has done. It is extraordinary.

We should be hearing from our colleagues on the opposition benches about what has happened here. The turnaround within 24 hours on something so fundamental to the very fabric of our society, let alone the economy, is quite breathtaking. If Labor go ahead and vote with the coalition on this, we will see $400 million ripped out in the higher education area. What they have done is deeply wrong. Again, I congratulate the 'bust the budget' people for the huge—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You supported them for six years. For six years you kept them alive.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge the National Party senator's interjection. He has obviously been distressed—

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

Will he speak?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will he speak? That is an interesting question, because the Nationals—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order Senator O'Sullivan. Proceed Senator Rhiannon. You only have 55 seconds.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge the interjections and take your advice. We have talked a lot about Labor, and I think it is useful to talk a little bit about the Nationals. They are experts at walking both sides of the road. In this parliament, they vote solidly with the Liberal Party. When they are in country areas, they tell their constituents: 'You need us in parliament to stand up to the Liberals and to stand up to Labor; we are the only voice; we are the only opposition.' It is absolutely untrue. They are absolutely in lock step with their Liberal colleagues time and time again.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's called solidarity. The alternative is anarchy.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard the senator say it is solidarity. What we have now are Nationals, Liberals and Labor in solidarity, in lock step, on one of the most dangerous and irresponsible pieces of legislation, which rips money off so many people.

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

I rise to speak to this sham piece of legislation we have before us today—that is, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Bill 2014. Let us put into context what has happened here. We have had debate after debate in this place, on the streets and out amongst the Australian community over the harsh budget that was handed down by none other than Mr Abbott and his cigar-smoking Treasurer, Joe Hockey. They introduced a budget that was all about whacking those least able to afford it and making deep cuts into the pockets of those who are most vulnerable.

We had in this place was a show of solidarity against the harsh budget up until today. We now have the Labor Party in a grubby deal with the Liberals to rush pieces of this legislation through the chamber in less than a few hours. That is what these guys are all up for. Labor were really worried about people. They were out at the 'bust the budget' rallies. Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, was out there saying: 'Look, I will take Tony Abbott on. I will take him on. I will be the opposition leader that this country needs.' On the day that the opposition leader should have been staring down the Abbott government and their harsh cuts, he blinked. No wonder they call him 'Blinky Bill' when he folded at the last hurdle.

Here we are in the Senate, the house of review, where we should be standing up to the harsh cuts of the Abbott government, yet Labor have gone weak at the knees. You can just imagine little Bill Shorten out there at the front of the 'bust the budget' rallies with half a flag.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. This has never occurred before and probably will never occur again, but the senator cannot continue to make disparaging remarks about another member of the parliament, in this case—sadly—the Leader of the Opposition.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure if Mr Shorten's colleagues did not feel great offence then we can assume that Senator Hanson-Young should continue.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on that point of order. I believe in dynamic debate in this place. I did not take point of order on some of the comments made by Senator Hanson-Young but I do think that she should be reminded, as always, to refer to people by their title rather than just calling them by their name. It would be really useful.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. I am sure Senator Hanson-Young will observe that strictly.

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

I could not help myself but allow a member of the Nationals to stand up in this place for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. Doesn't that just say it all? We have this grubby deal. Labor has folded into the arms of the coalition, desperate for somebody to love them. And here came Mr Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition, and his ALP cronies. They are going to vote on this legislation today but they have no idea what harsh cuts this is going to cause students, the disabled and single parents. You have to be wondering what it is that the Labor Party stands for, because they are not standing up for the disabled, they are not standing up for single mothers and they are definitely not standing up for students.

One of the reasons I wanted to speak on this legislation today is that the cuts to the relocation scholarships of students is one of the meanest things this government could be doing, and one of the most hypocritical things the Labor Party could be agreeing to. I have been in the Senate for over six years now and how many times have we debated and inquired into the need for extra support for rural and regional students across Australia. We know that the barriers they have in accessing higher education and higher education opportunities are above and beyond what their city and suburban peers have to face.

In the past the Greens have worked with members such as Senator Fiona Nash, who I see has just walked into the chamber. It would be good to hear from Senator Nash about how she feels about cutting almost half a billion dollars straight out of the pockets of students, particularly rural and regional students, who are about to be hit hardest because of the cuts to relocation scholarships.

Honest to God, this is an attack on students, on the most vulnerable in our community, those on disability pensions and on single mothers. And what have we got from the Labor Party? 'Sorry, Mr Abbott, we did not mean to make so much noise. Here, let's just flick it through on the last day of this sitting fortnight'—a half a billion in cuts to students alone, let alone all the other mean things this government is wanting to do. I wonder if after this Bill Shorten is going to sit out the back and be invited by Treasurer Joe Hockey for a bit of a puff on the old cigar. 'Thanks mate, we got it through.' Seriously, how grubby does this deal have to get?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left and my right!

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

How grubby do the major parties have to be in order to ram through legislation on the last day of parliament, just to give Tony Abbott his harsh budget-cut savings.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I will take the interjection here from Senator Lambie: 'What is next?' What are we going to expect in the next fortnight? We cannot trust what the Labor Party says any more in relation to the budget. What are you going to flick through next? You are being salami-sliced by Mr Abbott, and he knows it. It is going to be egg on the faces of those who have stood up for this harsh budget in the past, and rightly so. Now you are being salami-sliced all the way through to pass each and every piece of terrible legislation and more harsh cuts that this Treasurer and the Prime Minister want to see passed.

I grew up in a rural and regional area. To get the little extra help they need to move into the city and access higher education opportunities is absolutely vital for students from rural and regional areas. It is not just vital for them, but we know it is vital for their communities, because who is it who comes back as the doctors, teachers and specialists in our rural and regional areas? It is those students who have moved away for university and have come back to stay there. The impacts of these types of cuts are going to be harsh, not just on the individual students but, in years to come, on the communities they come from. We know that that is what has happened.

The Senate has inquired into this issue for many years. It is why the relocation scholarships were developed in the first place. It was to help rural and regional students to get the same educational opportunities as everybody else. And here we have the Labor Party and the government lining up to whack through almost half a billion worth of cuts. Half a billion ripped straight out of the pockets of students. What will the shadow education minister's press release be this afternoon? How are they going to explain what they are doing to the most vulnerable students across the country, who thought that the Senate was going to stand up for their welfare and their right to access good quality education?

And what about the single mums, who are about to be dumped onto lower payments, because Labor has gone weak at the knees here? What explanation are we going to see given to them for the fact that no longer do we have an opposition party in this country prepared to be an opposition party? They are just folding into the arms of the coalition government, because they were desperate for somebody, just somebody, to back these harsh budget cuts.

I do not agree with a lot of things that Senator Lambie, for example, says. But I will tell you this. She is going to stand up in a minute and say how terrible these cuts are. Why? Because she has listened to people out there on the street. It will be just as we heard earlier this week from Labor senators who did stand up in this place and say the cuts were terrible—and they were absolutely right. They were harsh yesterday and they are harsh today, and we should not be flagging them through just because a grubby deal has been done between the Labor Party and Tony Abbott's coalition.

What is the Labor Party going to say to people on disability pension, who have just been given another whack from this place because the Labor Party was not prepared to stand up and stand firm against Mr Abbott's and Mr Hockey's harsh cuts. Why is it that because somebody is on a disability pension they do not deserve to be able to go to visit a sick relative overseas, without having their pension cut? Why is it that they should be treated as second-class citizens in this country, simply because they are on a disability pension? That is not fair. That is not how we should be treading our most vulnerable Australians.

This is rushing through this legislation, at a stroke to midnight, just because a grubby deal has been struck. It beggars belief. Thankfully, there are still some people in this place who are willing to stand up and stand firm. Single parents are going to be shaking their heads today, thinking, 'I thought we had won this debate.' Clearly, their pleas for help have fallen at the feet of the Labor Party and they have been ignored. I am most concerned, as I said from the beginning, about the hypocrisy of cutting half a billion dollars straight out of the pockets of vulnerable students, while Gina Rinehart and her big mining mates get off scot-free. That is what is going on in this House today.

Why did we not tax Gina Rinehart in order to pay for the government's harsh budget savings measures? That is because taking on Gina was too hard of a task for the Prime Minister and so we have attacked single parents, those on the disability pension and students instead. This legislation is outrageous and should not be pushed through this place.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those people who are following this debate and are not clear about what it involves, it is worth explaining it in a little bit of detail. This bill that is before the parliament is an omnibus bill. For those people who have not heard that term before, if you are listening in, an omnibus bill deals with a whole range of seemingly disconnected acts of parliament, looks to cobble together a whole range of different legislative amendments and puts it in the form of one piece of legislation. What we have got is an omnibus bill that deals with things like supports for people with disabilities, issues around single parents and issues around young people. I think of this bill not as an omnibus but as omni-bulldozer, because it just seems to be a bulldozer through the rights and supports of people with disabilities, single parents and young people.

I want a focus on one issue in particular and that is the issue of the supports provided to people who are seeking to get an education. This is something that the National Party should be most interested in. If you live in a regional or rural community, as I do, getting an education often means packing up, leaving your local community and moving to a big city, finding accommodation and meeting all the expenses associated with accessing an education that is far removed from the place that you live. In fact, it is a really important support for those people in my community. What we are doing is effectively ripping out half a billion dollars—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where do you live? You live in Weerabi!

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. The people of the south-west of Victoria would be offended if they were compared with people living in urban community. I live on a 50 acre property in the Otway Range, in a small community of 2,000 residents called Deans Marsh. It is in between Colac and the coastal town of Lorne. It is a rural community. There are people who live in my community who rely on these supports.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a Brunswick latte!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right. Senator Di Natale will be heard in silence.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing is half a billion being ripped out. The great surprise here is not that the Liberal Party has proposed this change, because after the last budget nothing could surprise me about the cruelty that could be inflicted on the poor, the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable by the coalition. The great tragedy is that we have got the once proud Labor Party—who stood up for the rights of the poor, the sick, the vulnerable and the young—now doing a grubby deal with the Liberal Party in a backroom and ramming these changes through. This was the party who stood up and said, 'We will stand against this cruel budget and we will fight against Abbott's changes to education and health care and so on.' Now they have done a deal with them!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is Prime Minister Abbott, Senator Di Natale.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have done a grubby deal with the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is the party who attends rallies and who stands up with megaphones saying, 'We are going to stop this budget.' Now what we are hearing is that there is a deal done between both parties to ensure that young people no longer have access to supported to get education. Considered in the context of the broader education changes, where a higher education degree is now out of reach, it represents everything that is rotten with politics. We get the rhetoric and we get the action. The rhetoric and the actions very, very rarely come together.

We have got the rhetoric of this cruel and harsh budget and the Labor Party was standing up against it. Now we have got a backroom deal between the Labor Party and the coalition saying, 'Let's just keep this quiet. Let's remove supports from young people, single parents and people with disabilities. Let's ensure that those people who need these supports no longer have them.' Why? I do not know. You have got to ask this question of the Labor Party: 'Why on earth would you do this at this time, when we are seeing the harshest attack on the Australian community by a coalition government ever witnessed? They are taking on pensioners, people with disabilities, single parents and young people. Why would you capitulate and support these changes? Why would you do it?' I do not get it. It makes no sense. The only context in which someone can understand it is that there has been a grubby deal struck; that there is more to this. In fact, once again, the Australian community is being sold out in the name of grubby politics.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE

IN THE 2014 AUTUMN SITTINGS

SOCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2014 BUDGET MEASURES No. 6) BILL 2014

Purpose of the Bill

The bill will reintroduce several 2014 Budget measures previously introduced in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 and the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014:

The bill will also add the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision of 29 August 2013 as a pay equity decision under the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Act 2012 , allowing payment of Commonwealth supplementation to service providers affected by the decision .

Reasons for Urgency

Several of the measures in this bill are intended to be implemented from 1 January 2015. Passage in the 2014 Spring sittings would therefore be necessary.