Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 7192 in globo:

(1)   Clause 4, page 2 (line 18), omit "registered".

(2)   Clause 4, page 3 (line 1), omit "registered".

(3)   Clause 4, page 3 (line 10), omit "registered".

(4)   Clause 5, page 4 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), substitute:

  (a)   the provider's administrative fee component for the year (see section 6);

  (b)   the provider's base fee component for the year (see section 7).

(5)   Clause 6, page 5 (line 2), omit "registered".

(6)   Clause 6, page 5 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph (b), substitute:

  (b)   $2 multiplied by whichever of the following applies:

     (i)   for a registered provider—the total enrolments for the provider for the previous year;

     (ii)   for a provider who is not yet registered—the likely total enrolments for the provider for the year (assuming the provider becomes registered).

(7)   Clause 7, page 5 (line 10), omit "registered".

(8)   Clause 7, page 5 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph (b), substitute:

  (b)   $5 multiplied by whichever of the following applies:

     (i)   for a registered provider—the total enrolments for the provider for the previous year;

     (ii)   for a provider who is not yet registered—the likely total enrolments for the provider for the year (assuming the provider becomes registered).

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation.

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

These amendments deal with a failure in the legislation to bring new providers into the TPS levy. What we have right now is a system where new providers are effectively exempt, and that really is a major anomaly for legislation that is supposedly bringing in a tighter regulatory framework for how this industry operates.

I put it to my fellow senators that these amendments are essential. New providers really are at greater risk of defaulting, leaving students high and dry. How this works is that the administrative fees we are dealing with here are set at $100 plus $2 per enrolment for the previous year. The base fees are set at $200 plus $5 per enrolment for the previous year. But when it comes to new providers, clearly there is not a previous year. So what is happening is that they are being left out. How the system works is that new providers seeking registration are in effect exempt from the $2 and $5 per student components because they do not have a prior history of enrolments. You would have to say this is an absurd contradiction in risk assessment terms. Again, I would be interested to hear from the minister. How did they miss this out? Surely it can be easily solved—and that is what our amendments attempt to do.

As I understand it, new providers must already provide projected domestic and overseas student numbers with their application for CRICOS registration. So our amendment to this bill would ensure that new providers are also charged per student using their projected likely total enrolments to complete the calculation. So it really can be sorted out quite easily. It is a serious anomaly; it leaves out new providers. We all know that, when businesses first get going, it is more likely that they will default, that they will in some way fold. We also know that these new providers have to put forward their likely total enrolments. So let us use that to bring them into the current system with regard to the setting of administration fees. I look forward to the minister's comments about this, because surely it is an anomaly that needs to be fixed up.