Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 to page 4 (table), omit "The first 1 July that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2013".

I described the purpose of the amendment in the second reading debate. I have not heard from the government that they have decided to accept it. I simply make the point to the minister that it is not a politically partisan amendment; it is an amendment that would ensure six months more time for higher education providers to adjust to a new system. The government knows that the opposition is supporting these reforms and has supported most of the government legislation implementing the Bradley review's recommendations over the last 2½ years. This is another one of those stages of reform and we support it.

But we do make the point that it is being introduced in a tight time framework and we think it would be better for the industry if they had six months more to readjust and, in some cases, change their business models. We therefore ask that the government genuinely consider the amendment that I have moved and take it in the good faith in which it is intended. In the absence of the government's support, I hope that a sufficient number of the crossbenchers will support the amendment, which makes no material difference to the substance of the government's reform but simply gives the industry a six-month window in which they can adjust their arrangements in order to better serve the students that they serve.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business and the amendment that has been circulated. The government will not be accepting the opposition's amendment, although it does recognise that the amendment has, as the member opposite said, been offered in good faith. The government is confident that a commencement date of 1 July 2012 is achievable. A the member for Sturt would know, these reforms have been widely anticipated since the former member for Cook, Mr Baird, handed down his report last year. The sector, the government believes, will be well prepared for the most significant business impact—that is, the TPS levy—which will not be changed for the first time until 2013, or 14 months from now. Additionally, I would just make the point that the amendment has some technical deficiencies associated with it. We certainly understand the intent of the opposition's amendment, but the fact is that a number of other provisions in the bills would need to be changed if this amendment were to have proper effect. I think this illustrates what happens when the opposition attempts to amend legislation on the run.

The government notes that this issue was considered in the submissions to the inquiry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looked into these bills. The committee delivered a unanimous report this week, signed off by opposition members. Of course, the committee recommended that the bills be passed and did not propose any postponements of this kind. Whilst I acknowledge what the member for Sturt has said, it is disappointing that the opposition is now proposing an amendment that was not recommended by its own members on the committee that inquired into the bills.

The government is additionally concerned that risks associated with the existing tuition protection arrangements will be exacerbated if commencement is delayed. Some of those risks include effects on students, reputational damage for Australian providers of international education, and further stress on the current inadequate tuition protection system that these bills are seeking to remedy. Further, the government notes that the bills will be considered by a Senate committee and that further recommendations may be made arising from that process. The government is prepared to reconsider this issue in the light of any further recommendations that arise there, but, for the reasons that I outlined above, the government does not support the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.

The House divided.      [10:21]

(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Jenkins)

Question negatived. Bill agreed to.