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

It seems there are three different approaches trying to solve a problem that the government is in denial of. We will probably, maybe, settle on one out of the three. There is a 100-kilometre rule that Family First have put forward. The Greens have put forward a 90-minute criterion. The opposition have put forward a move-away-from-home type guideline. The interesting fact is that the rest of the chamber, other than the government, believe there is a serious problem here, and the government are in absolute denial. So the arguments they are using here are going to be applied to all three, which is a bit of a worry.

Senator Carr, you may have got your education for free, like I did. I think it is a bit rich to say that this is going to cost a lot. I think the cost is for rural and regional areas and a lot of kids that rely on youth allowance. There are going to be 26,000 worse off and 13,000 getting nothing with regard to youth allowance. You have totally underestimated this, and you are going to find a fairly major concern in rural and regional areas. You stand there and say, ‘It’s because of money.’ I think you are penny-pinching, frankly. Your government have come in here and spent billions and billions of dollars—borrowed it—but you will not take care of our kids that need to get to university.

A clever country would make it easier for our kids to get to university, not harder. Rural and regional areas are already struggling with the professions that require a university degree. You have made some changes to income assistance. Some of them are positive and will help others. But you should not make people worse off, especially when you are prepared to spend billions and billions. When it comes to our kids and their education the Labor government are doing the absolute reverse of what people thought you would do. You are making it harder for a bunch of kids to get to university. You may be helping some others, but you sure as heck are going to deliver a kick in the pants to people from rural and regional areas and treat them as second-rate citizens when it comes to education. That is disgraceful from Labor. It is not a fair go.

You have decided to take a sledgehammer, penny-pinching approach here, when you are prepared to spend billions elsewhere. It is so short-sighted it is not funny. Rural and regional areas will hold this government accountable. This is about education. This is about helping the next generation get ahead. It is about making sure rural and regional areas are not left behind. This is more serious than you are making out to believe. I urge Labor to rethink this and support one of the three amendments being put forward, whether it is the 100-kilometre relocation, 90 minutes or moving away from home. There is a serious issue in that the government have absolutely, categorically, steadfastly refused to admit they have a problem. They have held out and held out. Somewhere along the line they said: ‘Look, we’ll throw a bone. What we’ll do is exempt some of the gap-year students that are currently taking a gap year.’ But you deferred the problem; you did not fix it. You acknowledged there is a bit of a problem but thought: ‘What the hell. We’ll just do that. Maybe that’s enough to camouflage it and get it through.’ You have deferred the problem, not fixed it.

One of these three amendments is going to have to get through, because Family First will not support this legislation. You will say, ‘You’re stopping scholarships.’ Well, you folks have waited until the last week and a half to come in here and face the facts. I said at the time you passed the previous bill which was linked to the scholarships that you should not have these two bills together, so that you would not try and force us into this situation. You are reckless in the way that you have gone about this. You are trying it on. You are trying it on to hold us accountable. Hopefully we will pass one of these three amendments. I am hoping it is Family First’s. One of the three has to get through. We have a serious problem here. You are making it quite clear upfront, using bullyboy tactics again, saying: ‘We’re not going to support any of the changes you do in this regard. That means you’re going to bounce it back up again.’ Let us see what happens the second time around.

It is not on and it is not right and you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed not to acknowledge you have a problem. You have taken a sledgehammer to this problem and you should not have. You should have thought it through a bit more and made sure rural and regional areas are looked after and that those kids that have to relocate are looked after. The relocation money that you have provided elsewhere is just not going to be enough. It is not good enough. So I urge this chamber to support this amendment. If it is not this one then maybe you could support one of the other two. This is an important issue and I urge the chamber to support this amendment.

Question negatived.

There has been a revision to my amendment.