Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the requested amendments be not made.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House calls on the government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate."

Last night, the Senate made perfectly clear that they agree with Labor that it is time to stand up and protect our TAFE system. Today, the government has the opportunity, belatedly, to get on board. This is too important for us to ignore. What we know is that the measures within this bill will rip $7 billion out of our vocational education sector. That is something that the government agrees with, that the government states. But what they have not done is said in any way that they will help to protect quality providers, that they will stand up for the not-for-profits who will be hit hard and, most importantly, how they will ensure that this does not have a further and a devastating impact on our TAFE sector.

We know that TAFE is the backbone of our system and that TAFE, along with the innocent students, has suffered the most in recent years from Liberal cuts and mismanagement at both the federal and state level. Today, Labor stands here and says enough is enough. Last night in the Senate the crossbench stood with us and said enough is enough. Because the truth is that a new national partnership is due at the end of next June in order to outline how TAFE will be supported—how the government will ensure that they do not have to cut more courses, lose more teachers, close more classes and campuses. But this government is not even committing to putting a new national partnership in place.

In fact, just a couple of weeks ago the assistant minister, when asked about it, said, 'Well, if you want more money, you better go and speak to the Treasurer.' Well, no, Assistant Minister, that is actually your job. Your job is to go and speak to the Treasurer and make sure that there is a strong national partnership in place that will support our vocational educational sector. But if you do not want to do your job, that is fine because the Australian Labor Party, and now the Senate, are going to stand up and demand that it be done nevertheless. We stand up and demand that TAFE be supported until a new national partnership is in place and there are appropriate funds flowing towards our TAFE providers.

We know that TAFE has not been part of the VET FEE-HELP problem. Over 95 per cent of the quality complaints to the Australian Skills Quality Authority about quality relate to providers outside of TAFE. Public providers, including TAFE, in fact make up less than five per cent of complaints. TAFEs also have significantly higher unit completion rates than some of the private providers, at 77 per cent versus 59 per cent, so we know there is a clear indication that the TAFE system is not responsible for the dodgy practices that we have seen unfold under this government. TAFE is not responsible for the rorts that have been allowed to waste millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. Yet, TAFEs will be hit and hit hard, as well as other providers, if this government does not stand up and take action.

We have some dire concerns about the implementation of these reforms. We have said to the government that we will not stand in the way of the reforms to VET FEE-HELP—in fact, they are based on our policy. But, we have warned them that they need to get the course list right and they need to make sure that they also have the correct caps in place, and we do not do not think that they are there. That is why our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to intervene and make sure it is right, because we are here on the last sitting day and, just now, the government is trying to get support for legislation that they want to see come into place on 1 January. We are saying, if you want to put this in place on 1 January, you must join with Labor and make sure that TAFE is protected. You must stand up and you must make sure that there are protections in place, particularly for not-for-profit providers, but for all of those quality providers who are going to be hit and hit hard.

The really sad thing about this is the government knows that there will be quality providers who are going to be hit hard as a result of these measures, but they are not prepared to do anything about it. Just a couple of weeks ago, Minister Birmingham said, 'I am sorry for innocent parties who are caught up in the reforms that are being put in place.' Well, sorry is not good enough; sorry is not good enough for our TAFE system, sorry is not good enough for a vocational education sector. Labor will stand up and fight for these reforms, and the Senate has joined us. The government must now get on board.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. The question is: why does this government not like TAFE? Why does this government not put its faith in TAFE and properly fund TAFE? As the shadow minister outlined, there is a national partnership that needs to be negotiated. It needs to be delivered. It is critically important that this government actually does the job of governing. Unfortunately, I think the chaos that reigns within this government is stopping it from getting on and doing the business it needs to do—that is, protecting TAFE; that is, recognising the important role that TAFE has in our training and education system. What we know is that under the watch of this government, we saw sharks in the VET area really attack the VET system. The credibility of the VET system really was undermined on this government's watch. What did the government members do? They sat on their hands and did nothing. Member for Sturt, do you not want to hear this?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the requested amendments be not made. To this the honourable member for Adelaide has moved as an amendment:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House calls on the Government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate".

The question now is that that amendment be agreed to.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As someone who has worked in the vocational education and training sector—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan will resume her seat. The Leader of the House?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Dr Aly interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan does not have the call. No-one can hear you. Resume your seat. There is a division.

An opposition member interjecting—

Whoever that was, I can remind you that there is still 30 seconds to be ejected under 94(a). The question is that the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. All those of that opinion say 'Aye'—

Honourable members: Aye.

To the contrary 'No'—to the contrary 'No'?

Honourable members interjecting—

Okay. I think the ayes have it. The noes have it?

Opposition members interjecting—

Members on my left will cease interjecting. I am going to put the question again.

Mr Burke interjecting—

No, no, I am sorry; I am entitled to put the question when there is confusion. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.

Honourable members interjecting—

I am putting the question again. The original—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you gave the division—you called the division. You announced it. You asked, 'All those against?' Not one member of the House voted no.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You paused and then called it in favour of the ayes, and not one member of the House objected to that call. That does not constitute confusion.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to address this matter. Where there is confusion my intention is to put the question again. We have had this happen before. The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point. I did not restate the entire question. I did when the bells rang, but I did not restate the question.

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The member for Lingiari is not going to sigh and moan in the chamber. He can do it in his office. Let me warn the member for Lingiari now: if he is going to sigh and moan when I am addressing the House he might as well just go back to his office, because I will cause more of it. I did not state the full question. Manager of Opposition Business, you have made your point, but I did not state the full question. You can spend a lot of time on this, and I appreciate you might want to—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yep!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a very apt confession at Christmas time. I am now going to state the amendment and what the amendment was. I am going to then call and see whether a division is required. The original question was that the requested amendments be not made. To this, the honourable member for Adelaide has moved as an amendment:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House calls on the Government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate"

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Adelaide be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the requested amendments be not made.