|
senate vote 2023-06-19#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-08-25 11:52:57
|
Title
Bills — Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023; in Committee- Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 - in Committee - SY-HELP loan
Description
<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet PF120 together:</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) Page 40 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 4 — HELP assistance for New Zealand citizens who are permanent residents</p><p class="italic"> <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i></p><p class="italic">1 Paragraph 90-5(2A)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) holds a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a *permanent visa holder who, immediately before becoming a permanent visa holder, held a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; and</p><p class="italic">2 Paragraph 104-5(2A)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) holds a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a *permanent visa holder who, immediately before becoming a permanent visa holder, held a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; and</p><p class="italic">3 Paragraph 118-5(2)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) holds a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a *permanent visa holder who, immediately before becoming a permanent visa holder, held a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; and</p><p class="italic">4 Paragraph 126-5(1A)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) on the day the fee is payable, either:</p><p class="italic">(i) holds a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a *permanent visa holder who, immediately before becoming a permanent visa holder, held a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; and</p><p class="italic">5 Paragraph 128B-30(3)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) holds a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a *permanent visa holder who, immediately before becoming a permanent visa holder, held a special category visa under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i>; and</p><p class="italic">6 Application of amendments</p><p class="italic">(1) The amendment of section 90-5 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> made by this Schedule applies in relation to determining entitlement to HECS-HELP assistance for units of study with a census date that is on or after the day this Schedule commences.</p><p class="italic">(2) The amendment of section 104-5 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> made by this Schedule applies in relation to determining entitlement to FEE-HELP assistance for units of study with a census date that is on or after the day this Schedule commences.</p><p class="italic">(3) The amendment of section 118-5 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> made by this Schedule applies in relation to applications for receipt of OS-HELP assistance that are made on or after the day this Schedule commences.</p><p class="italic">(4) The amendment of section 126-5 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> made by this Schedule applies in relation to requests for Commonwealth assistance in relation to a student services and amenities fee that are made on or after the day this Schedule commences.</p><p>______</p><p class="italic"> <i>Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests</i></p><p class="italic">Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:</p><p class="italic">Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation</p><p class="italic">53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.</p><p class="italic">The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.</p><p class="italic">The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.</p><p class="italic">The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.</p><p class="italic">Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.</p><p class="italic">Amendment (2)</p><p class="italic">The effect of this amendment is to expand the circumstances in which certain New Zealand citizens are eligible for assistance under the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i>.</p><p class="italic">It is covered by section 53 because this expansion of eligibility will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 238-12 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i>.</p><p class="italic">It is also covered by section 53 because the expansion of eligibility for assistance under the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> has the effect of expanding eligibility for certain student payments under the <i>Social Security Act 1</i>991. This will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the <i>Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</i>.</p><p class="italic">Consequential amendments</p><p class="italic">The following amendment(s) are consequential on the amendments mentioned above:</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1).</p><p class="italic"> <i>Statement by the</i> <i> Clerk of the Senate pursuant</i> <i>to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</i></p><p class="italic">Amendment (2)</p><p class="italic">If the effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 238-12 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> and section 242 of the <i>Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</i>, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1)</p><p class="italic">This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</p><p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government requests for amendments to this bill. These amendments align the Higher Education Support Act with the government's pathway to Australian citizenship for New Zealand citizens. They fix a long-existing gap in the HELP system where New Zealand students miss out on HELP loans for a portion of their Australian citizenship pathway. They ensure that students who are already on the pathway are treated the same as those embarking on the government's new pathway. They permit them access to the HELP system. It's a matter of fairness. My understanding is that they have the opposition's support. It is a modest fix, but one which is very important to those it helps.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>The opposition will be supporting these amendments. I want to check with the minister and ask the minister a couple of questions in relation to this. We had a briefing in relation to the number of New Zealand citizens who would be impacted by these amendments being an interim measure. Could the government please confirm the number of people who would have missed out otherwise accessing HECS and now, by reason of these amendments, will be able to access HECS or continue with their course accessing HECS? We were advised it was about 50 or so people. If you could you confirm the exact number, that would be much appreciated.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>I don't have a precise figure, but my understanding is that it is around that 50 number, Senator Henderson.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>Are you able to confirm that these amendments relate only to New Zealand citizens who are on a special category visa and have applied for PR, permanent residency, and by reason of their application are no longer able to access HECS, and that these amendments will resolve that particular situation?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>Yes, that's my understanding.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>We will be supporting these amendments as well.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1936:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 38 (line 15), to be opposed.</p><p>I have moved this amendment to effectively separate the Startup Year provisions from the rest of the bill. As I've indicated, the opposition supports other measures in the bill—being, the provision in relation to the increase to the Australian Research Council and the classification of Avondale University—and of course the amendments we just passed.</p><p>I profoundly disagree with the minister's characterisation of the Startup Year provisions in this bill. The Startup Year provisions, as I discussed earlier in this debate, present a very high risk to students. This scheme is meant to start in a couple of weeks. It is such a mess that the guidelines have only just been tabled. The universities are very concerned that they weren't able to consult on the guidelines which underpin how this scheme will operate. The principal concern the opposition has is that it subjects students to such high risk—a full-fee-paying course and a debt of up to $23,600, which will go up each and every year because it's indexed. This will expose students to enormous risk.</p><p>What is so nonsensical about this situation is that this is a solution in terms of a problem. We are strongly supportive of accelerator and incubator courses. We have led the way and championed the need for student entrepreneurs to be supported. There are, as I mentioned earlier, more than 100 accelerator courses available through universities around this country. But while the universities have mooted their support in the Senate inquiry, after being scathing in the earlier consultation, and while this looks and sounds like a good idea in principle, the fact of the matter is that the government is asking students to pay through the nose for courses they can currently do for nothing.</p><p>These are courses that are delivering. I mentioned earlier visiting the UTS Startup Hub, as one example. The UTS Startup Hub has more than 800 students enrolled. Last year alone they created, through businesses developed through the Startup Hub, some 570 jobs. These accelerator and incubator courses are available all across the country and the universities are doing a great job. Regrettably, the government has not made out the case to impose this very significant debt. These are not even Commonwealth supported places; these are full fee-paying courses. The government has not made out the case as to why it would impose such a significant debt on students for doing courses that they can currently do for free. The value proposition is not there and the benefits are just not discernible.</p><p>While I appreciate that the universities would love more HECS revenue, the universities have not been able to explain what courses would be offered, because they don't know. That's why we've also put forward a number of amendments to protect students. I'm deeply concerned about this when looking at the huge acceleration in HECS debt and at how Labor's cost-of-living crisis has driven up indexation to the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years: 7.1 per cent. That means an average increase in an Australian student loan of some $1,700 in a year. The government has not made the case as to why it would support student entrepreneurs by slamming them with this horrendous additional debt. That's why we're seeking to split the bill; to support the other measures in the bill and to oppose the startup provisions.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>The government will oppose this amendment as it would have the effect of removing the Startup Year program from the bill. Although opposing startup, the amendments that the opposition offer in alternative are of a major nature and do not substantially change the program from what the government is proposing. The opposition have had the benefit of briefings, a Senate committee inquiry and even the provision of draft guidelines and the program handbook, as well as a schedule to assist in understanding the program. They've now offered paltry amendments and also opposed the bill, which is 'no-alition' politics at its finest.</p><p>In terms of the lack of support, I would disagree with that. I think this bill has been met with enthusiastic support from the sector. The consultation process was lauded by key stakeholders, and described as first class by Universities Australia. The Senate committee hearing emphasised this, as Universities Australia said that it supports and applauds the government's initiative in the establishment of the Startup Year. It also said that it was absolutely a value proposition for students in universities. The Australian Technology Network said:</p><p class="italic">We fundamentally think this is a great program.</p><p>And the University of Technology said in its submission to the inquiry that the bill would:</p><p class="italic">… help the next generation of young Australian entrepreneurs bring their ideas to life and commends the Government for exploring innovative and long-term solutions to fund and support new startups.</p><p>The government is confident these measure also be well received and will operate well, and we've committed to a pilot to ensure that that's the case.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of keeping [schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6991_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6991_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that the schedule "*stand as printed*." This vote was moved after Victorian Senator [Sarah Henderson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/sarah_henderson) (Liberal) proposed that it should be removed from the bill.
- ### What is schedule 1?
- The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd065) explains that Schedule 1 creates a new loan, SY-HELP, "*which is designed to support students participating in accelerator program courses, as part of the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP)*". It also "*amends social security legislation to include participation in accelerator courses for eligibility for student payments.*"
-
-
|