Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to raise what I think is a very serious issue for this parliament. Recently I introduced the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010, which is a bill to make access to independent youth allowance fair for regional students, regardless of where they live. Last week, unfortunately, the Greens and the Independent senator Nick Xenophon voted with the government to block the bill and stop debate on that very important bill.

What I want to raise tonight is subsequent events. Interestingly, after I spoke on that bill last week, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, who is also the Leader of the Government in the Senate, wrote to the President of the Senate. In the letter he was, in essence, asking the President to stop my bill being debated. I quote:

I enclose advice from the Attorney-General which explains that there are constitutional problems with the introduction of the Bill as it would, if enacted, appropriate revenue by increasing payments of youth allowance under the relevant standing appropriation.

On that basis, I would be grateful in your assistance in drawing this matter to the intention of Senators so that steps may be taken to ensure the Bill does not proceed.

It sounds awfully like the Leader of the Government in the Senate is heavying the President. This is quite extraordinary stuff, to have the leader of the Senate writing to the President asking that steps be taken so that a private senator’s bill not proceed. What is even more interesting is the response from the President of the Senate to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans. The letter says:

… it is quite inappropriate for you to ask me to take steps to ensure that a bill does not proceed on any basis, let alone on the basis that the House of Representatives has a different view of its constitutionality.

While this is a complex issue, this is very important to note. I say to all those people listening out there—driving in their cars or perhaps in their homes, but taking time to pay some attention—sure, this is about the independent youth allowance debate, but this is about a Senate process which is quite extraordinary. The leader of the Senate has written to the President asking for debate on a bill to be stopped.

My bill does nothing more than ask for regional students to be treated fairly, and it is hard to understand why the government is going to such lengths to stop debate on this bill. Can I just indicate to the Senate that there is now going to be an inquiry into this bill, and there has been a submission to that inquiry from the Clerk of the Senate. It is very important that I place this on the record for the Senate. The Clerk says:

… a bill to change entitlements, such as providing wider access to income support—

such as my bill does—

does not need to appropriate any money because the appropriation is already in place. Such bills are therefore not appropriation bills and may be introduced in the Senate by any Senator.

This is the very important bit:

Bills of this nature have previously been introduced in, and passed by the Senate. A recent example is the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 …

The House apparently declined to consider the bill, but the government gagged it, so there was never any explanation or analysis of the issue. The Clerk goes on to say:

Another example is the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2007 which created an entitlement to pharmaceutical benefits in respect o prescriptions issued by optometrists, to be funded out of a standing appropriation in the principal Act. A Government bill introduced in the Senate—

a government bill, colleagues—

It was subsequently agreed to by the House without demur.

This is the really important bit:

These bills are the equivalent, in all constitutional respects, of Senator Nash’s bill which is the subject of the committee’s inquiry. The only difference in their treatment by the House of Representatives was that one was a Government bill and one a private senator’s bill.

So here we have two examples that previously happened in the Senate. Why didn’t the Leader of the Government in the Senate write to the President on the single age pensioners bill? Why didn’t he raise that particular issue with the President? Why didn’t he say, ‘Gee, we’ve had the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 on the list, Mr President. I would ask you to take steps to ensure that that does not proceed.’ Why did he not do that? Why my bill? Why the independent youth allowance bill? Why the bill that does nothing more than require fairness for all regional students? The government has split regional Australia into four zones. One of those zones is being treated differently from the others. The students in that zone cannot use the gap year criteria—taking one year off to access independent youth allowance—and the other zones can. That is blatantly unfair, and it is about time this government realised the disadvantage that is being placed on those students.

Why would the government go to such lengths to stop my bill? This is the really interesting question. Why get a 6½-page bit of advice from the Attorney-General and then go the President and say, ‘By the way, Mr President, can you take steps to stop Senator Nash’s bill?’ Why would they go to those lengths? I cannot for the life of me fathom why they would go to those lengths. Are they worried that, if it actually does get through the Senate, it may get to the House of Representatives and it may actually be passed? We know that the notice of motion, which does exactly the same thing that my bill does, was passed in the House of Representatives just recently. Is the government worried that if it does get through the Senate it will be passed in the House of Representatives? It would be a matter for the House of Representatives to determine if this bill would be debated. Are they worried about that? Perhaps, more importantly, they are worried that it would set a precedent. If the House of Representatives determined that it was appropriate to debate that bill, would that set a precedent?

What is the reason the government is so determined not to debate my independent youth allowance bill? Perhaps they are worried that it would set a precedent. If the House of Representatives determined that it was appropriate to debate the bill, would that set a precedent? Why is the government is so determined not to debate my independent youth allowance bill?

Last week they stopped it on a procedure motion. Straight after that, we see a letter to the President, saying, ‘Take steps to make sure this bill is not debated.’ People need to ask the government—anybody listening or reading this speech should ask the government—why won’t they fix this? This is unfair treatment of regional students. Why won’t they fix it? They say it is because it is going to cost $90 million a year and they cannot afford it. We know the government has $172 billion worth of debt, but they can waste $1 billion fixing up the pink batts debacle and more than $80 million paying employees to administer an emissions trading scheme that does not even exist; yet they cannot find $90 million to make sure regional students get treated fairly. That is absolutely appalling.

Isn’t it interesting that part of the agreement made between the Australian Labor Party and the Independents to form government had to do with private members’ business and private members’ bills? The Independents were very concerned that they would have time for private members’ bills. I wonder if they realise that this government is going to try and stop any private member’s bill and any private senator’s bill that requires appropriation. Guess what, Independents: they are not going to allow debate on any private member’s bill or private senator’s bill if it requires funding—if this government is true to form and from what we have seen from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That is what is going to happen to all of those bills that you thought you might bring up and have debated. I would imagine, colleagues, that that would blow a big hole in the intent of what the Independents were trying to achieve when they signed that agreement.

This is just wrong. This Independent youth allowance bill should be debated. People out there in the community need to know the lengths that this government is going to to stop this bill being debated. They can waste billions of dollars on programs and they cannot find the money to treat regional students fairly. The question needs to be asked of this government: why did Senator Evans try and heavy the President to stop this bill being debated?

Regional students deserve to be treated fairly, regardless of where they live. The Greens and the Independent senator Nick Xenophon, who voted against this the other day, should hang their heads in shame. Not only should we be debating this bill; the government should be fixing this legislation to ensure that all regional students can be treated fairly, regardless of where they live.