Division Description Changes — Bills — Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023; Second Reading — 23rd Mar 2023

Change	Division
representatives vote 2023-03-23#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-03-24 17:18:17	Title Bills — Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023; Second Reading Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Lack of clarity Description ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ <p>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p> The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a second reading amendment introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Liberal), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading amendment: "that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including** that:* > > (1) the bill's purpose is not clear, including whether it is intended to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs or create more firms; > > (2) the value proposition for students is unclear, in that the Startup Year program may result in students incurring a substantial additional debt without obtaining any academic credentials; > > (3) the value proposition for higher education institutions is unclear, given that the SY-HELP funds available are unlikely to fund a full year's course; > > (4) the bill does not make it clear how SY-HELP loan funds will flow, including whether students will be able to access any of the funding as startup capital; > > (5) the bill does not provide funding for shorter courses under six months in duration; > > (6) given the barriers to commencing a new accelerator or incubator program, students attending regional or smaller universities which do not have an existing accelerator or incubator program may be at a disadvantage; > > (7) the bill does not provide sufficient clarity in relation to whether students in Startup Year programs will retain intellectual property rights in relation to their work funded through SY-HELP; and > > (8) the bill does not appear to have taken into account many of the recommendations made by major interest groups including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, Australian Technology Network and the Regional Universities Network, all of which expressed concern about aspects of the Startup Year program and SY-HELP funding". ~~<p></p>~~

~~Milton Dick~~
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with a second reading amendment introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Liberal), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading amendment: "*that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that:*
>
> *(1) the bill's purpose is not clear, including whether it is intended to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs or create more firms;*
>
> *(2) the value proposition for students is unclear, in that the Startup Year program may result in students incurring a substantial additional debt without obtaining any academic credentials;*
>
> *(3) the value proposition for higher education institutions is unclear, given that the SY-HELP funds available are unlikely to fund a full year's course;*
>
> *(4) the bill does not make it clear how SY-HELP loan funds will flow, including whether students will be able to access any of the funding as startup capital;*
>
> *(5) the bill does not provide funding for shorter courses under six months in duration;*
>
> *(6) given the barriers to commencing a new accelerator or incubator program, students attending regional or smaller universities which do not have an existing accelerator or incubator program may be at a disadvantage;*
>
> *(7) the bill does not provide sufficient clarity in relation to whether students in Startup Year programs will retain intellectual property rights in relation to their work funded through SY-HELP; and*
>
> *(8) the bill does not appear to have taken into account many of the recommendations made by major interest groups including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, Australian Technology Network and the Regional Universities Network, all of which expressed concern about aspects of the Startup Year program and SY-HELP funding". *
~~~~