Senator MARGETTS (11:47 AM) —We are going on a bill that obviously has not arrived—

Senator Newman —That's the definition.

Senator MARGETTS —Yes. We are dealing with a bill which we were asking to have dealt with together with this one. Certainly, the Greens (WA) were asking that we did not deal with this bill without dealing with the other bill at the same time, but we are now being asked to deal with this bill as it is so far. You are also asking us to deal with a bill that has probably got a lot of nasties in it and which may not get immediate support. It may have a lot of other things which may be very contentions and which may hang around in the ether for a considerable amount of time.

What the minister says is correct: it might be possible for someone to try to raise some money subsequently in the holidays and so on. However, the present situation is that it is going to be extremely difficult for someone at the outset to survive if they are required to reduce their liquid assets to such a small figure. For many people, $2,500 does not seem to be a small figure, but it is when you look at the cost of education.

The consequential bill does not exist yet and it is likely to be very contentious, so we do not know what the outcome will be. There might be some nicer bits in this bill—and we understand that there can be—but there are also some bits which I think many people are going to find very contentious. To suggest that it will be okay because something that comes in a bill subsequently might make this a little bit better is, I think, playing games with the lives of students.

I urge the Senate to support this amendment. If the minister comes up with a better definition of liquid assets at a later time then we could reconsider inserting this, but at this stage I do not think that is good enough. Over time, this government is saying to people on various kinds of social security that they have to run down either their savings or their superannuation to a very low amount, despite what they have done and what they have put aside over the years. I do not think that is a good principle.

It is certainly not a principle that the Greens (WA) have supported over time. The fact that your government is doing this in a number of other areas does no make it right—61 wrongs do not make a right, or whatever the number of occasions may be on which you are doing this to people and making them as dependent as possible. To me, it sounds very similar to the way people thought about themselves in the Great Depression when, basically, people had to prove that they were totally miserable and totally bereft of any support before they could go to the soup kitchens. Maybe that is what we will end up with in this country: the worthy and the unworthy poor, soup kitchens, and people who have to run their assets down to almost zero, and then, at the whim of the secretary, some bureaucrat or the minister, find out whether or not they can continue to live. I do not think that is a good way to look at things.

If the starting figure were more reasonable, I am sure the Greens (WA) would look at it, but $2,500 as a total amount of assets in the bank is not a sovereign's ransom. I do not believe it is a reasonable amount to reduce to cut back the waiting period for assistance for full-time students.