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

By leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2), and (4) to (7) and request (3) on sheet 7497.

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "$20,000", substitute "$10,000".

(2) Clause 5, page 7 (line 2), definition of TSL debt indexation factor, to be opposed.

(3) Page 18 (after line 26), at the end of Division 4, add:

25A Additional payment

(1) If the Secretary must pay an instalment of trade support loan to a person on a day, the Secretary must pay an additional amount to the person on that day under this section.

(2) The amount of the additional payment is equal to the amount of the instalment.

(3) The additional payment is to be paid to the credit of the same bank account as the instalment (see section 25).

(4) To avoid doubt, the additional payment is not trade support loan, and is not repayable.

(5) Part 4.3 (Overpayment debts) applies in relation to an additional payment under this section in the same way as that part applies in relation to payments of trade support loan.

(4) Clause 30, page 21 (line 8), paragraph (a), to be opposed.

(5) Clause 31, page 21 (lines 22 to 28), omit subclause (1) (not including the method statement), substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated TSL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated TSL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement:

(6) Clause 32, page 23 (line 19) to page 24 (line 12), to be opposed.

(7) Clause 34, page 25 (lines 1 to 3), to be opposed.

As we are just coming back to this debate, it is worth, now we are in committee stage, reminding ourselves this is another attempt by the government to shift the costs, the funding needs of our public education sector onto students—in this case, onto apprentices. It is about the government saving itself a lot of money.

Abolishing the Tools for Your Trade scheme will save the coalition about $1 billion over the forward estimates. To put it in context, what we are talking about here is an ugly aspect of the policies that flow out of the budget where the government makes up the savings but they are savings at the cost of ordinary people and at the cost of quality education for our next generation of skilled workers.

Our amendments would lower the cap on the total loan available from $20,000 to $10,000. As senators would remember, the essence of this bill is that it turns the Tools for Your Trade $20,000 into a $20,000-loan. This is not the Green's preferred position but it is a way to deal with it that, I think, does bring forward a reasonable compromise. The loan would then be dropped from $20,000 to $10,000 and the difference would be made up by matching with direct government financial assistance dollar-for-dollar up to $10,000. Effectively, apprentices would get a $10,000-loan and they could also then get a grant. This is a simple measure and, we would argue, a very beneficial measure because it reduces the debt burden.

Let's reflect back on the debate because there were some interesting contributions. I very much congratulate senator Deborah O'Neill. She spoke with a real knowledge about the practical realities for apprentices and how important Tools for Your Trade is. She made the important point that we cannot trust the government and that is certainly the case. I hope that Labor, when they reflect on these amendments that the Greens are bringing forward, remember the words that many of their senators brought into this debate. The debt burden that the bill will place on apprentices, if it goes through in its current form, will really be an appalling way to start life. Very young people have not got a clear idea about how to manage their finances, what it means to go into debt and will be, all of a sudden, saddled with a huge debt. Let's remember some of Senator O'Neill's words: she talked about how it is 'miserly' and 'mean', and how it would deliver a debt-ridden future to apprentices. It would be provide a debt to hang around their necks. I very much endorse those comments and I think that it is a real reminder that we need to modify the scheme that is presented in this form that we have in the bill before us.

I commend the Greens amendment. It is a responsible way to go forward. There is still a burden of debt there, which—I have said and I will say again—the Greens are not fully happy with it. We were hoping we could get a compromise so that would not be such a heavy debt burden but still with that element of a grant, so that young people going into the first stages of their careers as apprentices can manage their finances more successfully. I commend the Greens amendments to the Senate.