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

My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans. I refer to the minister’s letter of 16 November to the President of the Senate requesting that the President intervene to ensure that my private senator’s bill regarding the independent youth allowance criteria and the requirement for all regional students to be treated fairly not be debated. Indeed, the minister said to the President:

I would be grateful for your assistance … so that steps may be taken to ensure the Bill does not proceed.’

Is this not a clear case of the minister trying to deny justice to rural and regional students?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the question from the good senator because what she draws attention to of course is the government expressing the view that has been held by successive governments about initiation of money bills in the Senate. Successive governments have received the same advice and have acted upon that advice.

It is also the case that traditionally the Senate Clerk, both the previous one and I think the current one, has taken a different view about the role of the Senate in relation to money bills. But it has been the view of the previous government and this government that those money bills ought not be initiated in the Senate. I sought to provide that advice to the President regarding Senator Nash’s private member’s bill. I would advise the Senate that Senator Nash’s bill was referred to a Senate committee for inquiry in accordance with normal practice, despite her attempt to guillotine through the parliament in an hour her bill without any reference to a committee to try and sidestep the normal processes of the Senate in order to pursue a political stunt.

I would also remind the Senate that this bill sought to walk away from the political arrangement which the coalition entered into only some six months ago; that in fact Senator Nash sought to rat on that arrangement because it was now politically expedient to do so. The coalition not only sought to rat on the arrangement; they sought to overturn their long-term commitment to not abusing the processes of the Senate in dealing with bills. So I suspect Senator Nash ought to look at her own behaviour in dealing with this matter.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the chamber wishes to debate this issue, it can do so at the end of question time.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Unfortunately, we cannot debate it; he will not let us. Given the President’s reply to the minister’s letter, and I quote:

... it is quite inappropriate for you to ask me to take steps to ensure that a bill does not proceed on any basis—

isn’t this embarrassing for the minister to be so shown up as to his complete lack of understanding of proper Senate processes; and why is the minister going to such lengths to inappropriately interfere to stop the bill proceeding?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank the senator for her supplementary question. She is about two weeks late, but congratulations for getting there. One of the things that this does highlight is the independence of the Senate President, and I am sure all senators regard that as a good thing. Sometimes I do not agree with his rulings, but it does indicate the independence of the President. I think that is something that all senators support and it is a credit to the current President.

The suggestion by Senator Nash seeks to question a decision of the Senate. Senator Nash well knows that the decision to delay consideration of the bill while it was considered by a committee was a decision by this Senate. If Senator Nash does not like the outcome, she ought to just think about that. This matter came before the Senate—

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

Mr President, on a point of order on relevance: the question is about the specific letter that the minister wrote to you. It does not in any way relate to the debate that ensued last week.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has seven seconds remaining if he has anything further to add.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only that Senator Nash seems to be struggling. This bill is still before the parliament, and I think people ought to concentrate on the issues. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Further to the minister’s answer to my first question talking about the Senate Clerk’s rulings, given the government has previously introduced a bill constitutionally equivalent to mine as advised by the Senate Clerk, will the minister explain why he was so desperate to deny justice to rural and regional students that he took the unprecedented step of writing to the President? Will the government now admit that they are treating regional students unfairly and immediately change the legislation to fix the significant problem being faced by regional students and their— (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just remind Senator Nash that after great consideration, huge public debate and long negotiations, the Liberal-National Party coalition agreed with the government to pass this legislation, came in here, supported it, voted for it—all of them. And what happened? Within months before the start—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had an election.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So your promises, Senator, don’t count after an election. Your word is worth nothing. Thank you very much, Senator Mason; I take the interjection.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, just resume your seat. When we have silence on both sides, we will proceed.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, the time for debating this issue is at the end of question time, and I am sure there will be a half hour there available to debate these issues.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate Senator Mason’s interjection to indicate that the Liberal Party and the coalition’s word is worth nothing at all because time has lapsed. I make the point: this provision does not even come in until 1 January next year. They have ratted on the deal before it even started. They have a new low: their word is worth nothing. (Time expired)