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

I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. We have clearly seen the colour of the opposition parties on this matter. I think there were some 17 speakers in this debate. We have seen a demonstration that the chamber will not be supporting the government’s program. It is quite clear that a series of hostile amendments will be moved and will be carried in this chamber which the government will not accept.

The government is not able to accept measures which will have a net cost impact on the budget. The package that the government has put forward is carefully costed and designed to be revenue neutral. The coalition have acted without credibility in seeking to impose additional costs on the country. They seek to disadvantage 150,000 people; they will take some $42 million away from the most needy students in this country while defending wealth and privilege, as they have done for generations.

The current system which they are so keen to defend is fragmented and has failed to deliver support to those who need it most. It has been poorly targeted and has meant that the families who are extremely well off are able to secure a disproportionate share of support from the Commonwealth while students who are poor and in most need of assistance have not been able to receive anywhere near their just entitlement.

University participation rates for regional students in low socioeconomic brackets have actually fallen. These are the so-called friends of the poor in the country. It is the old story of the wealthy hiding behind the skirts of the poor in their defence of inequality. That is what we have here. I have clearly indicated that the government will not accept the amendments moved by the Liberal Party, and the bill will be sent back to this chamber if it is amended along the lines that the opposition have indicated. I would suggest that it is now appropriate for the second reading question to be put.