Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to amend means testing for youth allowance and Austudy recipients to make it consistent with other payments. It also creates an automatic entitlement and issue of a health care card to all recipients of youth allowance and Austudy.

Youth allowance is payable to students studying at university or TAFE, including Australian apprentices. Changes in this bill will align youth allowance and Austudy with existing rules for Abstudy, and other changes in this bill will also apply to Abstudy. This bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1991 to allow for the most recent Australian statistical geography standard remoteness structure to be applied when assessing whether an applicant for youth allowance lives remotely.

Schedule 1 amends means testing for student payments in a number of ways. Independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients are currently exempt from assets testing if they are a member of a couple and their partner receives an income support payment. This bill would remove the assets test exemption for this group of recipients. Current payment recipients will remain eligible for payment, unless they and their partner have assessable assets over $375,000.

Under existing legislation, independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients' interests in private trusts only are considered for means test purposes. This bill will make the means testing of interests held in private companies and trusts by independent youth allowance and Austudy recipients consistent with other income support payments. Currently any periodic gifts or allowances received by recipients of youth allowance or Austudy from family members are included in the means test. This bill will exempt these gifts from means testing.

Eligibility for dependent youth allowance recipients is subject to a parental income test. Currently, the parental income test does not include any tax-free pensions or benefits. This bill will change the parental income test to include tax-free pensions or benefits. This will make the test the same as the calculation of income for the purposes of family tax benefit. Families must report their income to the Department of Human Services annually for the calculation of family tax benefit. By making the two tests the same, the reporting burden on families and the department will be lessened.

This bill will create an automatic entitlement to a health care card for recipients of student payments. Student payment recipients are the only income support recipients who are not automatically entitled to receive a health care card. The health care card will entitle them to access the extended Medicare safety net threshold and discounted prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Student payment recipients who live in remote areas of Australia can be eligible for additional benefits, such as a relocation scholarship. The Social Security Act currently refers to the 2006 remoteness structure, which is now eleven years out of date. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to instead consider the most recent remoteness structure. It will amend the Social Security Act so that it automatically considers the most recent remoteness structure, instead of requiring a legislation amendment to this effect every five years.

Since the bill was introduced into the parliament in October last year, an amendment has been added—specifically, schedule 4. This amendment will make it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Currently, students from regional or remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study can qualify as independent if, since leaving secondary school, they have:

In the 2016-17 financial year, this amount was equal to $24,042.

Their parents must also have earned less than $150,000 in the previous tax year.

This amendment will allow applicants from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent after only 14 months of paid employment, as per the other conditions above. Claimants can check whether their address is classified as regional or remote for youth allowance purposes on the Centrelink website. It is expected that around 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify as independent as a consequence of this change. It is argued that this measure will allow students to take a gap year following the completion of school and still qualify for youth allowance as an independent in time to commence study the following year.

Labor will support these changes to youth payments, which will ensure consistency across income support. Labor welcomes changes that will ensure that all recipients of youth allowance automatically receive a health care card. Making health care cards available to all independent recipients of student payments at least acknowledges in part that young people have limited earning potential while undertaking their studies. Labor also supports reducing the period regional and remote students are required to work before qualifying as independent and thereby become eligible sooner for youth support payments.

It can be a difficult and expensive for young people to move from the country to the city to study. There is a significant regional divide in the proportion of school leavers who go on to higher education. While 37 per cent of school leavers in major cities go on to study, this drops to 20 per cent in inner regional areas, 16 per cent in outer regional areas, 13 per cent in remote areas and just four per cent in very remote areas.

Labor remains deeply concerned about a whole range of cuts to young people that this Liberal government is trying to inflict on young Australians. If the National Party is hoping that this bill will placate young people and their parents in regional areas concerns about access to quality education and training, they should think again. The Turnbull government appears to be making it easier for regional and remote students on one hand, but on the other they will make it harder much harder by slashing penalty rates.

In order to be deemed independent in the 14 months, young people will have to earn $24,000. That is made much harder when your Sunday rates have been cut. The cut to penalty rates will mean that young people take longer to earn the required amount, and some will not be able to do it in 14 months at all. If this coalition genuinely wanted to support young people then they would not be cutting penalty rates and they would not be endlessly putting forward their 2014 zombie budget measures.

Last week their social services omnibus bill was passed in the other place before being subject to secret deals with the Senate crossbench before it came before us here in this place. When Senator Cormann was in this place last week he was clear that the zombie measures would be back. He said, and I quote:

... the government is persisting with them.

And then:

Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Senate will be prepared to go on this occasion, and that is what we are putting forward.

This government have no intention of backing away from their zombie measures. He has made that clear.

These measures will push young people into poverty. In this current integration of the omnibus savings bill the government are proposing that jobseekers under the age of 25 wait five weeks without any income before grudgingly paying them their Newstart allowance. In the 2014 budget the Abbott-Turnbull government wanted to make young people wait six months before accessing any income support. A six-month wait is what they really wanted. Then they decided that one month might be acceptable, in addition to the existing one-week wait. There was no basis in evidence. They just made it up.

This Liberal government wants to leave young jobseekers under 25 with nothing to live on for five weeks—just fresh air. No amount of window-dressing can hide the fact that this Liberal government has consistently squeezed young people to carve out budget savings. The Turnbull government's plan abandons young jobseekers by leaving them with nothing to live on for five weeks, which will hurt tens of thousands of young Australians and do absolutely nothing to help them get a job. This coalition government wants to force young people aged from 22 to 24 onto a lower support payment, which is a cut of $48 a week—almost $2,500 a year. How are our young people expected to live off that type of income and keep themselves in the running for decent work? It is cruel and uncaring and completely uncalled for.

Last week, with the assistance of One Nation, the Xenophon Team and Senators Hinch and Leyonhjelm, the government froze the income-free areas for all working-age and student payments, which means that for three years the income test applying to jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the costs of living. With one hand the coalition are delivering young students some concessions—and we support those—but, with the other hand, they are working relentlessly to have their zombie measures passed and to cut penalty rates. This is what young people and students have to look forward to from this federal coalition working with those crossbench senators. This is the same government that want to hand over a $50 billion tax cut to big business. How do they reconcile that in the context of their 'budget repair' agenda?

We know that access to education and training is a key predictor of future prosperity. It is vitally important to ensure that all young people are in a position to be offered and to be able to take up opportunities. Forcing young people and their families into dire financial straits limits their access to education and training. Governments have a duty to account for disadvantage where it exists and to overcome it. Arbitrary markers like the privilege people are born into and the misfortune that families may encounter should never determine their access to education and training. The Liberal's elitist $100,000 degrees are a prime example of their disregard for principles of equity and fairness in education. Let us be very clear: this government want to make it harder for young Australians to go to university unless they have money. Labor believes that your parents' bank balance and their credit card limit should not determine whether or not you go to university.

TAFEs are fundamental anchoring institutions in our vocational education and training system. They provide opportunities for young people to get a vocationally-based education and set them up for good careers. They work collaboratively with local businesses to identify skill needs and then offer the courses that link young people into those jobs. They provide a quality, second-chance education for students who struggle in a school environment. They provide tailored and quality services to improve foundation education for community members. They are the trusted deliverers of quality vocational education in the system—unlike the rorting, unethical and profiteering providers exposed under VET FEE-HELP—and they are a particularly valued and important hub in regional and rural communities where they are often the key or sole provider of vocational education and training.

At the moment in this country we are witnessing the decline of TAFE. One-third of the TAFE workforce has been cut. We have seen institutes and colleges closing and the standards of facilities degraded and declining through lack of investment. The share of government VET funding for students going to TAFE dropped 20 per cent over the five years to 2015. But, despite all of that, they remain the institutions to trust—accountable and engaged in their local communities. What is this coalition government doing to ensure the future and sustainability of the TAFE workforce and TAFE infrastructure? I would think that the National Party would show some interest given the importance of TAFE to their constituents and to the prospects of young people in regional areas. What action have we seen? Nothing.

This government have been abrogating their responsibilities in failing to make new national partnership agreements on skills and workforce development and failing to work with the state governments to take action on TAFE. The current agreement expires at the end of June. The last meeting they held to discuss the issues, in November 2016, did not even achieve a quorum. How extraordinary! What did they do? Nothing. They may try to pretend that they are the students' best friends with this bill, but Labor knows the Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the interests of Australian students. If the government expect that young people are either earning or learning then it is their responsibility to ensure that the learning on offer is accessible, valuable and of high quality. If this government have their way, young people seeking a brighter future through their education and training will find it harder and harder to do so.

The government like to say how the measures in this bill will help students, but you do not hear them talk about all the cuts they are attempting to impose on young people or about their failure to support our key learning institutions. You do not hear them talk about plans to deregulate university fees; you do not hear them talk about the government's failure to fund the Gonski education reforms, which will ensure Australian children will get the best start in life; and you certainly have not heard them talk about their plan to support TAFEs, because they do not have one. Labor will support this bill today, but we will not lose sight of what this Liberal coalition government is really doing to young people: cuts to penalty rates, cuts to Newstart, cuts to universities, cuts to hospitals, cuts to apprentices and cuts to skills, and standing by while TAFEs are threatened. That is this government's terrible record on supporting young people. Labor will not forget it, and we will not stop fighting for young Australians.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 here in the Senate, with a great sense of satisfaction and pride, supported by senators from across parties.

I am a proud member of a government that is focused on addressing the outcome gap between rural and regional students and city students accessing, in particular, in relation to this bill, higher education. Indeed, we are focused on improving regional education outcomes for all. As we know, there are three issues for regional students: firstly, access to higher education; secondly, increasing the aspiration of country kids to attend higher education; and the third barrier they need to overcome is that of achievement. When it comes to access, we need to ensure that they have online service provisions in their local communities. It is no good attending a local state school, where they have broadband and are able to do their school work, only to catch the bus home half an hour out of town and be unable to do their year 12 tasks in order to achieve the ATAR needed to attend the higher education institution they want to attend.

Firstly, this is about physical campuses in the regions—campuses attached to an urban university and, indeed, the regional university networks—and ensuring that we support them appropriately. Importantly, it is ensuring that we give those students who do choose to move away from home to study—because they should have exactly the same choices available to them that other year 12 students have—the financial support that they need. We know, from evidence given to us, that that is in excess of $30,000 per student per year to go and live in a capital city.

Secondly, in terms of increasing aspiration, that is a role for all communities. Young people need access to role models in their own communities and to aspire to something greater than maybe what they are living in their everyday lives. There are many, many students in the regions who make decisions about their futures based on what they see around them rather than being exposed to the variety of experiences that students in the city can avail themselves of.

Thirdly, with respect to achievement, what we do know about regional students is that they have a lower year 12 completion rate—it is very hard to get into university if you have not even completed year 12—and lower ATARs for those who do. That is not because kids from the country are any less able. I absolutely and categorically reject that. There is resilience, creativity and intellect that resides in the bright young things out in the regions. What restricts them and restricts their choices is not their capacity but a result of the system itself. It gives me great pride in the measures that we are bringing before the parliament today to address some of those systemic issues.

Turning to Senator Polley's tirade earlier: I am very proud of the government, because it is not just this suite of initiatives that it is focused on in addressing regional inequity in terms of educational outcomes. When we look at the previous initiatives brought before this parliament, we have taken farms out of the asset test for youth allowance. We are targeting those students who are from farming families so that that will be taken into account when assessing their eligibility for youth allowance. With child care in regional areas, our focus has been absolutely on low-income families who predominantly make up families in the regions. We are committed to a needs based funding model when it comes to school education, where rural and regionality is a key parameter in setting the government's funding model. I am very proud of that commitment from Minister Birmingham.

Today, we are substantially addressing the key findings of a series of forums that were held across regional Australia, from Port Augusta to Rockhampton and from Wangaratta to Narrabri. We heard about the need to simplify the process and that we needed to expand access to independent youth allowance. That those very students and families that we were seeking to assist were being cut out of getting the vital assistance that they needed to have the simple choice that every other young person in Australia has: 'Where do I want to go to study? How am I going to get there?'

The changes in this bill are a result of the hard work of so many coalition rural and regional MPs and senators. I would like to thank my dear colleague here in the chamber Senator Back for his continued advocacy in this space. I would also like to thank Nola Marino, Dan Tehan, Mark Coulton, Michael McCormack, Michelle Landry, Rick Wilson, Rowan Ramsey, Melissa Price, Luke Hartsuyker and many, many others over a long period of time for their dogged determination to not let this issue rest.

I will briefly go to some of the specific measures because I know we are very keen to pass this bill today. The schedule will amend the rules governing when a person is to be regarded as independent for youth allowance and relocation scholarship purposes by reducing—hallelujah, after a very long time—from 18 months to 14 months the period that young people from regional and remote Australia have to earn the amount required to satisfy the workforce independent provisions. So, for the very first time, a gap year will actually be a gap year for country kids. Typically, in the past they have had to wait 18 months—universities do not let you defer for 18 months; they only let you defer for 12 months. So there were a lot of complexities and decisions being made by young people from the regions who deferred their university—not to then attend when they were eligible to. We will not have to delay their commencement of study. Young people who finish year 12 in 2016 will be able to take advantage of the reduced period to meet workforce independence criteria for youth allowance before commencing their university or tertiary studies in early 2018. Approximately 3,700 students will qualify for youth allowance as independent under this measure, 2½ thousand of these qualifying four months sooner than under current arrangements. That is fantastic news.

The agenda to simplify student payments for the social security system is a welcome change. We heard evidence of the complexity of the process of applying for youth allowance. I remember one accountant father in Albany, WA saying that, if he was having trouble filling in the form as somebody with a CPA, what hope did others have? It almost seemed that you needed a degree before you had even got to O-week in order to access independent youth allowance. So the schedule simplifies the processes, adopting the latest version of the Australian statistical geographic standard. We also look at the family home, classified in a rural, regional and remote location, making sure that these changes are quarantined to those that need them most. I am so proud of this government for our careful and astute focus and targeted, strategic application of where taxpayers' funds go. We are putting it at the coalface where it is needed, not supporting those people in our community and those students who do not necessarily need this additional assistance.

There are a range of measures I will not go through, because I know others are keen to get going. This has been an incredibly long process. We have known the policy outcome—increasing educational participation by rural and regional students in higher education—sits with the Department of Education and the ministers for education and the financial assistance sits with ministers for social services. Sometimes it is a very siloed approach to government. We needed to get those people together and we did that a couple of years ago. I would like to thank all the ministers that have been on that journey with us for their capacity to come and engage with coalition rural and regional MPs and senators and to deliver outcomes over a long period of time. To former minister for education Pyne; former social service ministers Andrews and Minister Morrison; the current education minister, Senator Birmingham; and, indeed, the Minister for Social Services, Minister Porter for delivering real action on an issue of significant concern to so many within coalition ranks.

There is much more to be done in this space, and we are not resting on our laurels at all. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, announced during the election campaign our commitment to holding an independent review into regional education to look at those other issues I touched on at the beginning of my contribution: the other aspects of an educational journey of a young person from regional Australia and how we can better support them not just as a federal government but right throughout the system to overcome the disadvantage.

I was very proud that we announced our independent review into regional education to be chaired by Professor Halsey. Look our for a discussion paper near you; it should be arriving by the end of April. I encourage all who are passionate about this area and keen on ensuring that young people from right across Australia have every opportunity available to them to get involved and have a say, because postcodes should not matter when it comes to educational outcomes in a country like Australia in the 21st century. I am very proud to be in a government absolutely committed to educational equity. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I am delighted to stand to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017, to associate myself with the comments of my colleague Senator McKenzie, to recognise those she has named in being instrumental over time—backbenchers and ministers—and also to acknowledge the work that she has done in her capacity as chair of the committee.

You know, this really shows that persistence lasts. I think I came into this place in early 2009, and it was one of the first issues with my background, coming from a rural and regional area in Western Australia and having been involved in rural and regional primary, secondary and, particularly, tertiary education. It was seen as an area of such difficulty and one that so urgently needed addressing. It is fantastic to be here today to actually see the support across the chamber. I acknowledge the comments of Senator Polley—particularly her introductory comments—with regard to the bill, though there are a couple of points I may take issue with toward the conclusion of Senator Polley's contribution.

It has long been the case that students from rural, regional and remote Australia have been significantly disadvantaged in comparison to students from the capitals and major regional cities. Acting Deputy President Marshall, you were, as I recall, a member of a Senate committee which I chaired back in 2012 that looked at teaching, learning, why students were not learning and why teachers could not teach. It was in that report that we identified, of course, rural and regional students as one more of the disadvantaged groups of children in our society: those of Indigenous background, those with disabilities and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. We identified in that report very strongly that students from rural, regional and remote Australia needed to be included in the key pillars of groups who were disadvantaged.

Coming from WA, I pick up the difference in the academic standards of, for example, young people who may have been from the beginning of their school through to year 6 in regional, rural and remote areas. The cohort splits. One group stays in a rural community. The others go on, for example, to city schools—very often boarding schools. By year 12 you see a remarkable difference in the education outcomes of those students. In comparison with their peers in city based schools, you do not see a difference in the academic outcomes of those year 12 students whether they come from city urban or rural and remote areas. But, when you speak to examiners, invigilators and others, they will tell you immediately that those who have come from rural, remote or regional schools have lower education standards and outcomes. And it is the case in this country. There is no reason why there should be a disadvantage based on that element.

Senator McKenzie has outlined the difference in cost for a student to attend, for example, a city university or a TAFE or higher skills development location. It is not just the cost in dollar terms—as we know, those of us who had to go away from our homes for tertiary education. It is not just the dollar cost. It is the emotional cost. It is the support base that is needed. It is the fact that a 17- or 18-year-old does not have their own home to come back to at the end of the day. They are either in private rental accommodation or in a university college, or similar, if their parents can afford it. We know—and I know from my own personal experience—the added cost, but at least, if we can address the financial cost, that will go a long way.

It was in June of last year that I recall putting out a release congratulating the coalition and stating that, should we be successful in government, we would implement many of the strategies that we see in place today. It is most important that people understand that the reduction from 18 months to 14 months for a student to a prove independence after leaving school is of critical importance. By the time you take the month of December in the year they leave school, and the month of January, 13 months later, you get the gap year and the two added months. In other words, the net loss to a student in leaving school but not going immediately to university is only one year—one gap year, during which time they should work.

Those of us particularly associated with education in the agricultural space would be interested in Senator Siewert's comments as an agricultural scientist. If people who leave school have one year away before they start university, a higher proportion of them actually go on to uni. For those who must wait a two-year period, which is effectively what 18 months causes, the dropout rate, or the non-attendance rate, is vastly greater, and that is something we cannot afford.

I say—through you, Acting Deputy President Marshall—to the young people in the student gallery who are watching now: whatever you do, should the opportunity present, keep to the minimum the time interval between your leaving school and when you start your further studies. Because of the distraction after, certainly, one year away, the likelihood of you returning to university or other higher education studies two years later is reduced significantly. I say to those who might be interested in this process: it is so important that students do get on and start their program. If they have a gap year they work during that gap year, then they obviously have the financial independence, wherewithal and that added year of maturity. I agree with all those things. What I have great difficulty with is the loss of those two years, which this bill addresses. We will not see that loss of two years.

The other point that must always be borne in mind is the whole question of student aspiration. Through you, Acting Deputy President, I appeal to the young people in the gallery watching this discussion. We are talking about STEM—science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Of itself, STEM is only a stepping stone to a phenomenal future for the young people of Australia, who must not see STEM as just the endpoint. It is the familiarity with the knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics that will see you young people embrace the phenomenal spectrum that is ahead of you: 3D printing and everything that goes with 3D printing; the advances we are seeing already in modern medicine; the announcements of the government of more than $100 billion in new naval shipbuilding, which is going to require skills across the board—at the certificate level, the diploma level, the degree level, the post-degree level—that will see you all not only achieve your ambitions and get yourselves into good, long-term, high-paying jobs, but, ultimately, your own children too. You will be so employable around the world, because everything we are talking about now is international. It is not confined to Australia. We are not doing these things purely for employment and opportunity in Australia. We are doing them for our role in the world.

Again, I say that the initiatives that have been taken in these changes we see today—simplifying student payments—will allow rural and regional students to also participate in those opportunities this country is on the cusp of. Just one example is the result of the work of Professor Fiona Woods after the horrific Bali bombing. In Perth, Fiona Woods with her team were able to develop technology where they could take the skin of people in a laboratory environment and create a spray of that skin which could then be sprayed back on to the horrific burns of burn victims. Just imagine this in five years time, with the advances we are making in science and technology: if a person needs a kidney transplant, they will take the tissue of the good kidney, produce it in the laboratory, and with 3D printing they will be able to put back into that patient a new kidney that is that person's own kidney. They will not have to worry about needing a donor. They will have their own kidney.

I say—through you, Acting Deputy President—to the groups in three areas in this chamber: it is you who will be the people making those advances. If you take nothing else away from your time in Canberra and Parliament House, take away the excitement of the opportunities that exist for you.

I know there are others wanting to speak. I know it is not the time to be talking about penalty rates today, and I will not take issue with it except to Senator Polley—through you, Acting Deputy President—if I can make two observations. The first is that on the weekend I spoke to a person in Perth who owns clothing stores in outer metropolitan areas, not in the CBD, and this person said to me, 'With these changes, I will open those stores on a Sunday, when I cannot afford to open them now.' So that is one observation I would make.

The other one goes back to 2009. I think it was the first committee that I sat on. I cannot remember whether Senator Polley was a member. I do remember Senator Bilyk being there. I just ask you to reflect on this: up till then, before the changes that were introduced by the then Labor government, pharmacy students could on a weekend be involved in the preparing of Webster packs and blister packs for patients in nursing homes, hospitals et cetera. Not only did they have the opportunity to be employed on a weekend, to earn some extra income on a weekend, but of course there was the value to them as pharmacy students of working with pharmaceuticals, of learning about them and of discussing the relativities of what was compatible with that medication. That was completely lost, simply because the necessity to pay those penalty rates was such that the employers were saying, 'Well, we can have this work done from Monday to Friday by unskilled or semiskilled people, but unfortunately we can't employ those pharmacy students on a weekend, particularly a Sunday, because of the penalty rates.' Today is not the day to be talking about those matters, but, since it was raised, I have just made two very simple observations.

In conclusion, I am delighted to see the work that has been done by the backbench, that has been done by committees and that has been undertaken by the ministers that sees us today able to agree to the amendments in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 and to recognise again that the barrier to education for rural and regional students will be in some way broken down. The best evidence of that barrier is that, whilst people from rural and regional Australia represent a quarter of the general community, less than 20 per cent are represented at Australia's universities. From our own state of Western Australia, that figure would be much lower. I thank the chamber for the opportunity.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, I would like to start with two questions of you, Mr Acting Deputy President: what is today's date, and is it 1 April? Before going on to answer those rhetorical questions, I want to make some comment about Senator Back's comments. I genuinely, sincerely admire his contribution in the Senate and especially in Senate committees. But I would like to address some comments he made to the students in the gallery upstairs. While I agree that the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017 is necessary and I support it, please do not think that it is essential to go to a university to be a very effective and valuable contributor to our society. Assess whether a university is needed, because universities these days, sadly, are teaching people what to think, not how to think, and it is the 'how to think' that is really important.

I say that because I have an honours degree in engineering from one of the world's top universities, the University of Queensland, and I have an MBA from the University of Chicago, one of the world's very top finance and economics schools, and I won a prize there for my academic achievements. I am pleased I went there, but it is not for everyone. I am very disappointed at the standard of university education these days because, apart from the University of Chicago, where I did my MBA, very few schools are teaching people how to think. So please assess for your own mind. The other thing I say to you all is: do not look to parliament for solutions. The solutions come from within every one of us in this country. We are a country that is blessed with very talented people and—at the moment—free people.

The purpose of this bill—to get to the point—is that it tightens a few minor loopholes that allow some people to qualify for student payments despite possessing significant amounts of wealth. For example, holdings in trusts will now be considered as part of assets tests, and that is fair. Amendments are made to cause payments that vary depending on the remoteness of a student's location to take account of new data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics when it is relevant. This removes the need for future legislative tinkering in this area. That will add to efficiency. Income support recipients will be automatically issued health cards.

The net benefit of these measures will be a very small saving to the budget in the order of $13,000 per year—$13,000 per year. While we encourage the saving of even one cent, I wonder what the cost of senators and members debating this bill is. I will say it is much more than $13,000. We need to discuss these issues, but we also need to be mindful of costs. Has a cost-benefit analysis been done on this? Sadly, our taxpayer funds in our country rarely receive cost-benefit analysis in our federal parliament.

What about corporate tax that is being avoided by multinationals worth tens of billions of dollars a year? I had an interesting conversation with the Commissioner of Taxation on Friday. I asked him if he could advise me on the amount of tax that will be collected by modifications that are being proposed by the government. It took him 20 minutes to simply say that he could not. We have innovation programs being funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet throughout history innovation has come from people with skin in the game—people who have something at stake.

Then we come to climate and energy. In his speech during the debate on the previous bill, Senator Sinodinos, in response to my comments on the lack of any specific empirical evidence, hard data or physical observations, said that we need a 'no regrets' decision. We must do something and, if there is no problem, we have done no damage. Yet in Australia climate policies are causing the waste of billions of dollars every year and are driving the destruction of the economy in South Australia, in Victoria, increasingly in our state, Queensland, in New South Wales and even in Western Australia if the new Labor government fulfils its commitments. Senator Sinodinos rightly raises the uncertainty that we have been told does not exist and he inadvertently confirms that he has no specific evidence for his government, the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Xenophon punishing the Australian electorate with massive waste of billions of dollars. If he has any specific evidence proving that the human use of hydrocarbon energy is a detriment to our society, to our civilisation and to the natural environment that we feel is so precious, let him provide it. He never has. He was chief of staff for Prime Minister John Howard, who introduced the RET scheme that is destroying our states and our country, and manufacturing and even agriculture within our country. Prime Minister John Howard was the first leader of a major party to introduce an emissions trading scheme, and he also stole farmers' property rights, based upon something that Senator Sinodinos now implicitly admits has never been justified with specific evidence. If anyone has any specific evidence proving human cause, let's have it, because no-one has ever provided it.

I have challenged Professor Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, my university, and John Cook, a subordinate to Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and climate communications fellow. I have challenged Professor Tim Flannery and Senator Larissa Waters three times, including in writing. I have challenged the ALP shadow minister, Mr Mark Butler, and yesterday the federally funded Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, after a two-hour meeting with me, withdrew from his previous acceptance of a challenge on my part to debate him on climate. He had accepted; yesterday he withdrew from that debate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, I am just wondering whether you might come back to the question before the chair.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have also chased the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies out of replying simply by using his own data. He now has failed to respond yet again. The Chief Scientist, the CSIRO, Minister Greg Hunt, Senator Wong and Mr Greg Combet have never provided any specific evidence proving human cause, and yet this parliament has passed billions of dollars worth of spending based upon it. What about regulations—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think you were very generous in trying to guide the good senator back to the bill before us. I just ask you to draw it to his attention.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Roberts, I think we have been quite generous in letting you speak about matters that are not the subject before the chair, but you really should now come back to the question of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That I will, and thank you for your tolerance. What I am trying to paint is that we are in a parliament that is subject to massive amounts of regulation. Regulations around property rights, energy costs, and taxes are destroying business in this country. People in south-west Queensland, including business owners, farmers and everyday Australians, are talking about this. This is yet another example of regulations taking over people's lives in this country. We are allocating to spend $50 billion on submarines, and that is in excess of $30 billion. The Liberals, Labor, the Greens and the Xenophon team are wasting money.

That said, Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you for your indulgence—sorry, thank you for my indulgence. We have a sense of humour, don't we! I do support this bill. It does protect people in the regions. I just raise the point that all of us need to protect our taxpayer funding and give people the opportunity to use the enormous talents that we have in everyday Australians.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In deference to the Senate's time, I will not reread the summing-up speech from the other place, but I will particularly note the contributions of my colleagues Senators McKenzie and Back outlining the nature of schedule 4 of this bill and its contribution to further enabling the involvement of students from rural and regional Australia in post-secondary education. I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.