Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (20:06): It is kind of so many of my colleagues to come into the House to listen to this debate tonight on the youth allowance. They have had many opportunities to be part of debates on the youth allowance, and it is nice that they are now finally taking the youth allowance issue seriously and coming into the parliament in such large numbers in order to find out why they should support the coalition's motion to extend the eligibility requirements for youth allowance for young people in inner regional Australia. I move: That this House: (1) notes that the Government has: (a) admitted there is a problem with the criteria for independent youth allowance for inner regional students; (b) committed to bringing forward its review of the matter with the broad purpose of finding a permanent solution to address the disadvantages that currently exist for rural and regional students in qualifying for financial assistance; and (c) indicated it will remove the difference between the inner regional areas and the other regional zones for the eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance; and (2) calls on the Government to bring forward its timetable for resolving the matter, and in particular ensure that: (a) the review is completed and funds to pay for the measure are secured by l July 2011; (b) the current eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for persons whose homes are located in Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia, and Very Remote Australia according to the Remoteness Structure defined in subsection 1067A(10F) of the Social Security Act 1991 also apply to those with homes in Inner Regional Australia from 1 July 2011; and (c) all students who had a gap year in 2010 (ie, 2009 Year 12 school leavers) and who meet the relevant criteria qualify for the payment. This is the fifth opportunity the parliament will have had since the last election to vote in favour of inner regional students. On 28 October last year the House dealt with a youth allowance motion, which was moved by the member for Forrest and seconded by the member for Gippsland, that would have placed inner regional students in the same boat as students from other parts of regional and rural Australia so they could qualify for the youth allowance under a criteria that was more readily available to regional students than the one that has been implemented by the government. That motion was supported by the crossbenchers and passed in October last year. The government took it as an indication from the parliament of the need to ensure that rural and remote students were fairly treated but did not act on the motion and in fact has kept the discrimination against inner regional students in place through to the present time, creating a cohort of students who are incapable of being eligible for the independent rate of youth allowance under the old criteria in spite of the fact that the government has admitted that those students are disadvantaged because they are in inner regional Australia and that this should be addressed. The government has demonstrated its acceptance that this arrangement is discriminatory by announcing a review of the criteria for the independent rate of youth allowance for inner regional Australia that will apply from 1 January 2012 to report by July this year. The only problem with that policy solution is that it creates three cohorts of students. It creates a cohort of students from before 2010 who could apply under the old rules. It creates a cohort of students who can apply under the new rules in three parts of rural and remote Australia and it creates a third cohort of students—those who graduated in 2009 from year 12, who are ineligible to apply for the independent rate youth of allowance under criteria which are fair to them as regional students who are disadvantaged in terms of their access to tertiary education, which has not been taken into account by the government. There have been three other occasions when the House has been called to vote on introducing fairness criteria for inner regional students. On 21 February this year the House dealt with a bill that was passed by the Senate after being sponsored by Senator Fiona Nash from New South Wales. It would have put inner regional students on the same footing as other regional students. That bill was passed by the Senate and defeated inexplicably by the crossbenches in the House of Representatives on 21 February. Again, I moved in this House an amendment, which was dealt with on 3 March, to an amendment that had been moved by the member for Goldstein to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-11 that would equally have placed inner regional students in a position where they were on the same footing as other rural and regional students. Inexplicably again the crossbenchers defeated that motion on the basis that they had done a deal with the government which would see a review of the youth allowance criteria for inner regional students and would give those students the opportunity to be placed in a fairer position than they are now. The flaw in that deal, the very substantial hole in the heart of that deal, is that it only required the government to report by July 2011 on how it would address the unfairness that is now endemic in the system, with the changes, if any, applying from 1 January 2012. Senator Evans in estimates indicated that there should be no expectation at all that the criteria would be changed. So the crossbenchers were sold a pup, a pup that they purchased at the expense of inner regional students. Mr Tony Smith: It was a mutt. Mr PYNE: It is mongrel of a deal; the member for Casey is right. The crossbenchers, I am sure in good faith, accepted this deal only to be sold down the river by Senator Evans and the Prime Minister, because the government is not intending to act until at least 1 January 2012, and even then Senator Evans has indicated there may be no change to the eligibility criteria. So again, on 23 March, an amendment was moved by the member for Menzies to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 that again placed inner regional students in the same position as all other regional students, and again the crossbenchers defeated that resolution. The question leaps to mind: why would the coalition return a fifth time to move this motion. It does seem unprecedented that we would return with a fifth motion or amendment in order to place inner regional students in the same boat as all other regional students. We return with this motion because the unfairness the government has created in terms of eligibility for the independent rate of youth allowance is causing real hardship to rural families at a time when they can least afford it, at a time when cost-of-living pressures are rising well in excess of the official inflation rates. Every family knows that the official inflation rates bear no resemblance at all at the current time to the cost pressures that families are facing, whether they are school fees, electricity bills, food and grocery prices or the daily requirements of living. Those cost-of-living pressures are greater today than at any time in the 18 years that I have been a member of the House of Representatives. But at this really difficult time in families' lives the government has acted to create hardship for inner regional students who are clearly incapable of finding the 30 hours of work a week needed to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance under the government's changes. They found it hard enough to qualify when the criterion was 15 hours, but finding 30 hours work is beyond the capacity of students in inner regional Australia. However, that is what is required by a government that is out of touch and far too focused on getting its carbon tax, its mining tax and its flood levy through the parliament. It has forgotten the daily needs of Australians from across regional and rural Australia who cannot go to university unless they get this vital support from government. I commend the motion to the House. Ms Marino: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.