|
senate vote 2018-08-13#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-23 07:38:14
|
Title
Bills — Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018; in Committee- Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Repayment thresholds
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 together.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>[repayment thresholds—commencement]</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit paragraph 154-10(a), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(a) for the 2019-20 income year—$45,880; or</p><p class="italic"> <i>[HELP repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 2, pages 3 to 5 (table), omit the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 7), omit "2019-20", substitute "2020-21".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (formula), omit the formula, substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 4), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[repayment thresholds—application of amendments]</i></p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 6), omit "2019-20", substitute "2020-21".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[repayment thresholds—application of amendments]</i></p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 9), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional]</i></p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 11), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".</p><p class="italic"> <i>[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional]</i></p><p>Given that the bill did not pass before the 1 July 2018 intended start date and the thresholds are based on tax and financial years, it's proposed now that the new threshold will come into effect on 1 July 2019. The thresholds will apply, having been indexed as was initially proposed. Therefore the new first repayment threshold will be $45,881 at the new one per cent repayment rate, reflecting CPI indexation of the previous $45,000 threshold in line with its commencement, now proposed for 1 July 2019. That will rise in progressive instalments to $134,373 for the 10 per cent repayment threshold.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Labor will be opposing these amendments for the same reason that we opposed the bill. The original time frame of introducing these changes was unacceptable, and these are too.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>The Australian Greens oppose these amendments from the government. They go directly to the heart of the entire problem with this piece of legislation. The government is trying to create a false sense of crisis in relation to higher education at a time when we should be doing more to support young Australians being able to get an education and being able to afford to conduct that education.</p><p>There's a new report out today that says that one in seven university students is being forced to go without food because they are living below the poverty line. That is the real crisis in our higher education sector: university students, young Australians right across this country, cannot even afford to live while they are studying. That is the problem that this government should be fixing, but instead we have the government trying to slash and burn the education budget, forcing young people, young Australians, to carry the burden.</p><p>This, of course, is on the back of very generous tax cuts that have gone through this place, hailed by the government as necessary. Of course, that comes at the cost of public services. When they've given billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich Australians, they still want to give billions of dollars more to big corporations and the big banks. And yet university students are being told that they need to tighten their belts.</p><p>When you've got studies like that conducted by Universities Australia, which shows that a huge number of young people in this country are living well below the poverty line, struggling as university students, this is not the type of legislation that the Senate should be passing. I just want to make note of Senator Martin, who today crossed the floor opposing this bill. When you have individuals in this place understanding and recognising the real struggle of young Australians and people studying in this country, that's a good thing. However, seeing the rest of the government on the government benches turning a blind eye to the real struggles facing young people is extremely disappointing.</p><p>Of course, we know that one of the biggest problems here is stagnating jobs growth and wages growth. When no-one's wages are growing except the wages of those who are very rich in this country—and they are about to get even more in their pockets because of massive tax cuts passed by the Senate last session—and young people can't afford their rent, their bills or to put food on the table, then we have a serious problem. When are the government going to start addressing these issues rather than trying to use young people and education funding as a scapegoat for their big tax handouts to corporate Australia, big banks and themselves?</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) on sheet EK131 together:</p><p class="italic"> <i>[HELP repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 1 to the end of the table), subsection 1061ZZFD(4) to be opposed.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[SFSS repayment thresholds]</i></p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 17 to the end of the table), subsection 12ZLC(4) to be opposed.</p><p>Just very quickly, these are again technical amendments that relate to the revised start date that the Senate has largely just adopted. The legislation was originally drafted containing some transitional provisions for one year in relation to how the HECS-HELP scheme interacted with other repayment arrangements and student support schemes, and the application of the new 1 July 2019 start date means that those clauses are no longer required.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that subsection 1061ZZFD(4) in item 3 and subsection 12ZLC(4) in item 6 of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>If it will assist the chamber, I want to seek some guidance, perhaps from the minister, if I may, before I move my amendment. It may be preferable to deal with some other amendments in the hope of not having divisions now.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There hasn't been any questioning of the minister to date, so I think it would be appropriate to go ahead.</p><p>My question is whether it would facilitate the chamber for me to move my amendment now or deal with other amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I thank Senator Bernardi for his courtesy. I think we're in the chamber's hands and we seem to be moving through amendments relatively swiftly, so perhaps we'll be able to maintain that.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>Thank you, Minister. I'm happy to move it. I'm mindful, though, that there are a couple of people on the crossbench who are pretty intent on going to a swearing in in the other chamber, if it should be available. Nonetheless, that being said, Mr Chairman—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Move swiftly, then, Senator Bernardi.</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Conservatives amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(2) Page 41 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 4—FEE -HELP debts</p><p class="italic">Part 1—Amendments</p><p class="italic"> <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i></p><p class="italic">1 Subsection 137 -10(2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) The amount of the *FEE-HELP debt is:</p><p class="italic">(a) if the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance for a unit of study provided by a Table B provider—the amount of the loan; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance that forms part of an *undergraduate course of study—an amount equal to 125% of the loan; or</p><p class="italic">(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies—the amount of the loan.</p><p class="italic">Part 2—Application of amendments</p><p class="italic">2 Application—FEE -HELP debts</p><p class="italic">The amendments of section 137-10 of the <i>Higher Education Support Act 2003</i> made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a loan made on or after 1 January 2019.</p><p>These amendments effectively just remove the inconsistency and the unfair levy that is placed upon students at four particular universities.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Labor does not support these amendments. The extension of loans in the system may have some value, but simply adding the private providers to the list is not the right way to go about it. We understand Senator Bernardi's intention here, but the issue of loan fees is another issue that Labor are concerned about and we'll consider it in our national inquiry into post-secondary education if we win the next election.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I indicate that the Australian Greens do not support Senator Bernardi's amendment. I understand the intent of the amendment but I don't believe it's the appropriate way to make the system fairer—the idea of forcing more and more debt onto young people, as opposed to finding ways to alleviate it.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I indicate that the government is pleased to support Senator Bernardi's amendment. The government has, in various previous higher education reform proposals, sought to reduce the extent to which the loan fee applies. Contrary to what Senator Hanson-Young implied just then, the amendment moved by Senator Bernardi will in fact reduce the amount of student debt that students at these institutions take on. This is confined specifically to, essentially, the table B universities and will treat their students on par with those public table A universities.</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>The question is that items (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-08-13.38.3) to keep [schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6051_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6051_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted "*that schedule 1 stand as printed.*"
- ### What is schedule 1?
- Schedule 1 lowers repayment thresholds, which are the income levels that people with Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts have to reach before compulsory repayments begin.
-
-
|