Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rhiannon for her contribution. The government will not be able to support these proposed Greens amendments. These amendments would have a significant impact on expenditure. The first amendment, in addition to amendment (3), reduces the amount of trade support loan payments that will be treated as an income contingent loan. This reduction is supplemented by the introduction of an additional payment equal in value to the loan payment and paid at the same time. It effectively turns trade support loans into 50 per cent loans and 50 per cent grant payments. Changing the payment structure in this way is contrary to the clear and stated public policy intention of the government.

The second amendment clause 5, page 7, line 2, in relation to the definition of TSL debt indexation factor, can also not be supported. This amendment removes any indexation, CPI or otherwise, from being applied to a person's trade support loan debt. This substantially changes the treatment of trade support loans from other government income contingent loans and will also have significant impacts on expenditure. So do all of the other amendments in relation to lifetime limits and other indexation related amendments. On that basis, the government is not in a position to support those amendments.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cormann. Before I go to Senator Xenophon, I want to return to Senator Rhiannon's request. Is it the wish of the committee that the statements of reasons accompanying the requests be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the request to which they relate? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

The statement read as follows—

Trade Support Loans Bill 2014

(Amendments, and requests for amendments, to be moved by Senator Rhiannon, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

Statement pursuant to the order of

the Senate of 26 June 2000

—————————

The amendment provides for an additional payment to be made to persons to whom trade support loan is paid.

On the basis that the additional payment will result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 104 of the Bill, amendment (3) should be moved as a request.

Trade Support Loans Bill 2014

(Amendments, and requests for amendments, to be moved by Senator Rhiannon, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant

to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

————————

Amendment (3)

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would clearly, necessarily and directly result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation.

If, as stated, this amendment would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 104 of the Bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that this amendment be moved as a request.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a preliminary question. I did not get to my feet in time to ask a broader question about the bill and the legislation. My question, Senator Cormann, is this: in terms of what is being proposed with respect to apprenticeships, has the government done any modelling as to the likely impact on the number of apprentices? We have seen a dramatic decline of apprentices; in my home state over several years there has been a 35 to 40 per cent decline in the number of apprentices. What does the government say will happen to the number of apprentices and the take-up of apprenticeships?

What does the government say will happen when the money for tools is taken away? It could be viewed as almost retrospective: you have started your course; you expect to get a certain amount of money; you went to your course in good faith, with respect to this money and your tools; and then it is taken away from you. But you have already committed to the apprenticeship.

Firstly, does the government concede that there is an element of retrospectivity in terms of taking away money for Tools For Your Trade? Young people have made a commitment to undertake a trade; they have made a massive, life-changing commitment, expecting to get some support from Tools For Your Trade, and that has been snatched away from them.

Secondly, has the government undertaken any modelling in respect of the impact these measures will have on the number of apprentices, and did that modelling or its assumptions rely in part on consultation with the TAFE sector and other interested stakeholders?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for those questions. I advise the Senate of something the Senate probably already knows, which is that I am not usually the representative minister in this portfolio. It is usually Senator Ronaldson. I am relying heavily on the advice provided by officials here in the Senate with us. 'Has there been any modelling?' I am advised that, yes, there has been and that the modelling in relation to the measures that are part of this bill has indicated that those measures will drive an increase in completion rates of about five per cent. There are of course other support measures that the government continues to put in place, which will seek to boost that further. We do not accept that the changes that are part of this legislation are retrospective. The changes apply to existing apprentices, but they only apply prospectively as per the provisions in the legislation that is before the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. In relation to the issue of modelling, will the minister advise whether the modelling will be tabled here and now? It is pertinent to the very basis upon which the government says it is undertaking this course of action. Secondly, in relation to the issue of taking away the money from the Tools For Your Trade for apprentices, does the government concede that there are some apprentices who commence their apprenticeship on the understanding that they will be able to get funding for their tools; only to find in subsequent years that that money will no longer be there?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apprentices currently in training will be able to switch to the new arrangements but they do not have to. It is just that they will not get any further payments in the future, which is transparently put forward as part of our budget measures. Obviously what we have put forward in our judgement is a superior scheme which is why we are recommending it to the Senate. In terms of whether I could table the modelling, obviously I am not here and now in a position to do so but I am happy to take that on notice. I will confer with my good friend and valued colleague Minister Macfarlane and check with him if there is anything else I can share in relation to that modelling.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may assist the minister, some time ago when Minister Cormann was in opposition, I learnt the value of his pushing for orders for the production of documents, so I have learnt from the master the importance of orders for the production of documents. I foreshadow that there will be an order for the production of documents in relation to the modelling and I hope my crossbench colleagues and the opposition could indeed support that, because we want to see the base for this process. Even though the government does not acknowledge that it is retrospective, the question has been answered and I thank the minister for his frankness. Effectively, you are saying that there will not be the money that was promised earlier. You have to take out a loan for it. I reckon that is a bit rough. It seems that the government is willing to tackle apprentices head-on for their budget savings but will not, for instance, tackle anyone who has $10 million or $20 million in their private super account.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I am pleased that Senator Xenophon was a student of my practices in opposition. I can assure him that I will do my absolute best now in government to comply with all of the requirements of the Senate in complying with relevant orders or providing an explanation as to why relevant public interest immunities might apply, consistent with proper Senate procedure. Thank you for that, Senator Xenophon.

In terms of your other question, what we are putting forward provides access to more significant support, but it provides that access in a way where, once an apprentice earns more than $50,000 per year, they would be required to repay the support that they have received, which is entirely consistent with the way this sort of support is provided to university students. We think it is important to provide appropriate levels of support to apprentices. We also think it is appropriate that, once apprentices on the back of that support have been able to build a successful career, those funds are paid back so that the government can provide further support to future apprentices. There is no unlimited money pot out there. As Margaret Thatcher said some years ago, pennies do not fall from heaven; they have to be earned here on earth. There has never been a truer saying.

Senator Xenophon, what we are able to do with this bill is provide more significant support based on the proposition that, once apprentices are able to build successful careers, they repay that support so that the government is in a position to support future apprentices. Then we have a virtuous cycle where successful people in the future support other people who could be successful beyond that period.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could take this opportunity to indicate the opposition's position on this bill. At this point, I should explain that we think this bill is grossly inadequate. Mr Chairman, when you were speaking in the debate you were somewhat surprised at the approach that I took in highlighting the deep and very basic flaws that the government had taken with regard to this approach. I do not think the argument is a particularly difficult one to mount, simply because the government has made over $2 billion in cuts across the portfolio and, I am advised, $1 billion with regard to apprenticeship programs. There have been cuts to the Tools for Your Trade program, the government has capped the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program, it has cut the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program, it has cut the Apprentice to Business Owner Program, and so it goes. The government has, in fact, misled the Australian public. It went to the election and told a pack of lies about what it was going to do with regard to apprenticeship training. Of course, when they got into government, they cut all these programs, having said they would do something entirely different.

What we see before us is the last remnant of support that the government is offering apprentices. It might be inadequate; it might not be able to meet the requirements. Alternative programs were there, which the government has removed. So the opposition is left with a simple proposition: what is left for us to support in terms of apprentices? That is why we are voting in favour of the bill. Others will take a different view. They will say that this is inadequate, and they are obviously entitled to that view.

Regarding the amendments moved by the Greens—and I understand that they are being dealt with in a cognate manner, so I might try to deal with them in that fashion—the opposition cannot support them because they do not improve what is a pretty ordinary bill. In some respects they make it worse. What has been presented to us are propositions which would be far more complex to put into practice. As senators would appreciate, there are much greater financial implications than have been intended in terms of the effect of these measures. They would open up possibilities for abuse of the system in circumstances which I think would lead to apprenticeship training in this country being discredited. It may well open up the possibility of rorting by employers, whereby apprentices would be sacked but loans would still be in place. We may find circumstances that, in truth, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Because of that, there are unfair comparisons to the way in which the HECS system works for the higher education system. I do not think it is appropriate for these measures to be transferred in that matter.

I am not a particular fan of this whole arrangement. I do not think it is superior in any way to the carefully thought out measures which had real effect in terms of assisting young men and women secure a trade in this country. I certainly do not agree with the government's shocking abuse of apprentices that we have seen in terms of the slurs about the misuse of the Tools for Your Trade program to date. In that context, there is one particular matter that I would like to draw the Senate's attention to. I foreshadow that there is an amendment standing in my name concerning the issue of parental engagement. Remember, this is a scheme that the government is proposing which will apply to 15-year-olds—15-year-old kids, signing up for $20,000 loans. We could make a comment about the appropriateness of that, but what we have got before us on the amendments that the Greens are proposing in this area are not adequate to deal with the job. So I propose an alternative amendment—that I am foreshadowing now—which goes to the issue of parental engagement. It makes the point that parents or guardians of kids under the age of 18 at the time of making an application must acknowledge that the applicant is fully aware of the commitment in which they are entering.

As a parent, I might say to you, I would be somewhat horrified to see my children at the age of 15 come home and find out that they have got a $20,000 loan signed up, which we knew nothing about in the household. But that is what the current arrangement allows for. I think, as a parent, I want to know whether or not the government was offering cash handouts to any of my children when they were 15 years of age. Actually, it is not a cash handout—I see the officers are looking a bit perplexed that I have used this term; but a $20,000 loan to a 15-year-old, with no restrictions with what they do with it, other than to say, 'Of course, it is for an apprenticeship.' I can suggest to you that there might be a few other things that they could do with $20,000.

The suggestion that $650 per month be paid directly into accounts of loan recipients in the first year is one that I think most parents would want to know about and that the money can be spent on anything because it is not a receipts based system. I think parents want to know about it. That is a very substantive amount of money about which parents and guardians should know that their children are lining up for. Given the size of the debts, it is appropriate that parents do know about it. The onus is on the government to make sure that parents and guardians are aware that their children are entering into a debt arrangement with the government. As I understand it, the government is not going to oppose this amendment.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already flagged it in the second reading—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I understand that, but the truth of the matter is, we want to actually see this in black and white. I am a bit old-fashioned. I have learned a few things from you and the opposition as well, Senator Cormann, and I want to see these things in black and white. That is why I am proposing these amendments. I understand that the government is not opposing these amendments. I trust they find the favour of the Senate. We simply want to ensure that parents and guardians are informed about the debts their children are entering into with the government. It is a common-sense amendment, which I trust will find favour in the chamber.

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

The comments of Senator Carr are surprising because he has actually argued against some of his own policies when he was in government. Let us start off with the first point. He talks about how the Greens amendments could bring greater hardship to apprentices. That is clearly not the case. I would have thought that he could have seen his way that with Labor's amendment and the Greens amendment, we would have a tighter scheme. The Greens amendment actually lowers the cap on the total loan available from $20,000 to $10,000. But then more money can be accessed in the form of a grant, which is effectively the Tools For Your Trade system, which operated under Labor. That is where you have the combination. So that is not bringing greater hardship; it is actually reducing the loan and therefore reducing the debt.

To hear Senator Carr talk about possible abuse of this scheme and possible rorting by employers. Rorting by employers I will leave aside. That can happen at any time but there are measures to stop that. But in terms of the abuse of the system, I sat through so many estimates, heard arguments in this chamber when the coalition were in opposition, abusing Labor about the Tools For Your Trade and when they came up with going off to tattoo parlours and buying mag wheels, and all the other insults that were hurled around. It is quite extraordinary to hear Senator Carr now talking about a system that we are proposing which is not dissimilar to what Labor had. Listening to the debate—and hearing how Labor will not support the Greens amendments that are trying to deal with a very problematic bill that we have before us—we are left concerned and wondering if Labor will wind back this policy when they are in government. Will we return to something similar, where direct support was given for apprentices, or are we heading down the path of these big debts going to the compound interest system that we have seen now introduced for university students? That is a worry that hangs over the debate. But for the moment, our amendments would bring a much better way of supporting young people who decide to start their careers with an apprenticeship.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (21:05): The question is that the amendments and the request for an amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (21:05): The question is also that clauses 32 and 34 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (6), (8) and (10) to (12) and Greens requests (9) and (7) on sheet 7493.

Leave is granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 1), after "reaches", insert "120% of".

(2) Clause 13, page 13 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) The application must include the consent of the person's parent or guardian, if the person is aged under 18.

(3) Page 20 (after line 14), after clause 28, insert:

28A TSL debt discharged by termination of apprenticeship

(1) Upon a person who owes a TSL debt to the Commonwealth ceasing to undertake a qualifying apprenticeship, the TSL debt is taken to have been paid, to the extent it relates to that apprenticeship.

Note: See subsections 8(3) and (4) for circumstances in which a person is, or is not, taken to be undertaking a qualifying apprenticeship.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the person ceasing to undertake the qualifying apprenticeship:

  (a) because the person has completed the apprenticeship; or

  (b) at the person's own initiative.

(3) The rules may prescribe a method of working out the extent to which a TSL debt relates to a qualifying apprenticeship.

(4) 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 (the current year), is worked out by:

  (a) applying the following method statement to work out an amount (the unindexed debt); and

  (b) for each qualifying apprenticeship to which the unindexed debt relates:

     (i) working out how much of the unindexed debt relates to that qualifying apprenticeship; and

     (ii) multiplying that much of the unindexed debt by the amount that applies under subsection (3); and

(d) summing the amounts worked out under subparagraph (b)(ii).

(5) Clause 31, page 23 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) The amount that applies for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) is the lesser of:

  (a) the TSL debt indexation factor for 1 June in the current year; and

  (b) the TSL debt indexation factor for the first 1 June after the person first incurred a TSL debt in relation to the qualifying apprenticeship.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), disregard any law that:

  (a) amends, or otherwise alters the effect of, section 32 or 33; and

  (b) takes effect after the 1 June mentioned in paragraph (3)(b).

(6) Clause 39, page 27 (line 5), after "reaches", insert "120% of".

(8) Clause 39, page 27 (line 19), after "reaches", insert "120% of".

(10) Clause 46, page 32 (line 5), after "exceeds", insert "120% of".

(11) Clause 46, page 32 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert:

  (1A) For the purposes of the definition of applicable percentage of repayment income in subsection (1), the person's repayment income is taken to be five sixths of what it actually is.

(12) Clause 100, page 61 (line 21), after "this Act", insert "(other than subsection 13(3))".

These are the set of amendments that bring forward a range of badly needed changes to the bill. Together, they strengthen support for apprenticeships in the very responsible way. The amendments increase the repayment income threshold and provide for lower repayment rates. This would allow apprentices to earn more before paying off the debt, again something which is very important because we know apprentices do not start off with much money. This debt is going to put them under considerable pressure and this is a way to bring a better regime into managing this matter.

We have heard much debate about how the debt is an incentive. That is again why we are bringing this forward—to be able to moderate it to some extent. The changes set out reduce the negative impacts of the legislation with, as I said, links to the repayment rates of the HECS-HELP system, so that apprentices will begin to repay at a rate of four per cent of their income once they earn over $53,000. The amendment is needed because the loans scheme could well go the way of loans for university students, to a higher interest rate and a form of compound interest. As we know, that would mean that the debt burden would escalate considerably. I know that is not what is proposed but, when you look at the progress with the debt burden that university students have to handle—and the government is proposing to change that too—we need to be aware of this, wary of it and, the Greens would argue, bring in ways to modify it.

We also have an amendment that would remove the CPI indexation. This would have the impact of reducing the real value of the loan over time. Every year an individual did not make a payment, the value of the loan would decrease at a cost to the government. The biggest beneficiaries of such a change would be low-income apprentices. Again, that brings in some protection for apprentices who start off on a very low wage, so that they do not end up with an extensive burden. This is another responsible amendment to manage what is, we would argue, not a good scheme. We are trying to put in some modifications that would allow the government to have the scheme it wishes. Labor wanted to support that but surely these modifications should be adopted.

There is also an amendment that would retain most of the current structure of the loans scheme but would ensure that, when an apprentice signs up to a loan with the current CPI interest rate, they will stick to that rate for the duration of their loan. This would prevent a situation we are now seeing where—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It would seem to me that, with Senator Rhiannon now talking about indexation, she is actually talking to the amendment she previously moved, which the Senate has already dealt with. She might want to consider that.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cormann. We have been going across them a little bit. Senator Rhiannon, obviously there has been some wide-ranging debate but I would ask you to stick to the set of amendments currently before the committee.

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

Thank you, Temporary Chairman. I have done them in two lots in globo for the ease of the chamber and have explored those issues because there is some crossover with these amendments. I will move to requests (7) and (9) covering amendments which, upon completion, ensure the apprentice will get a 40 per cent discount on their loan, not the proposed 20 per cent. Then an amendment inserts a clause—and we see this as the most important amendment—that would waive the debt for any apprentice who is dismissed from their apprenticeship or traineeship as a result of any action taken by the employer. I give emphasis to that amendment because many situations could arise from this bill if it is put into law. One of those could be that a young person starting off on their career has an apprenticeship, the employer dismisses them and they end up with no qualification but with a large debt. We need to manage that in some way. Allowing that to happen would be a highly irresponsible way to be managing our apprenticeship schemes. That is why we have brought that amendment forward.

I commend the Greens amendments to the chamber. We have put a lot together for the ease of the committee at this late hour.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be able to support those Greens amendments. To raise the repayment threshold for the loans by 20 per cent would mean for 2014-15 that the repayment income threshold would be $64,014 instead of $53,345. The Trade Support Loans Program was aligned by the government with the Higher Education Loans Program to ensure consistency and to reduce confusion for individuals. The apprentice is not expected to repay their loan until they are receiving a sustainable income. The Trade Support Loans Program differs from HELP in that it is paid directly to the apprentice rather than to an education provider. This means the apprentice can spend loan payments at their discretion, to assist with everyday living costs during their apprenticeship with a view to them completing that apprenticeship and, of course, as indicated, if the apprentice successfully completes the apprenticeship, he or she would receive a 20 per cent discount in relation to the loan that is to be repaid.

We are not able to support the proposition that this should be doubled to 40 per cent, the same as we are not able to support the proposition that the repayment threshold for loans be increased by 20 per cent because it actually adds complexity and also would have a significant impact on expenditure. Obviously, we have properly calibrated this program to ensure that it is able to provide this important support to apprentices in a fiscally sustainable fashion, which is why we cannot support those amendments.

In relation to the comments on indexation, I have previously dealt with those matters.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendments and the requests for amendments moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7523:

(1) Clause 13, page 13 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) A form approved for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) must provide for a parent or guardian (if any) of an applicant who is aged under 18 at the time the applicant makes the application to acknowledge that the applicant is fully aware of the commitment into which the applicant is entering.

[under-18s]

(2) Clause 100, page 61 (line 21), after “this Act”, insert “(other than subsection 13(3))”.

[under-18s]

I have already outlined the reasons for these amendments.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Carr for moving these amendments and for explaining in his earlier contribution the thinking behind the amendments. The government will not be opposing the amendments moved by Senator Carr. The Australian government, in making trade support loans available to them, wants to ensure that minors are protected. Of course, consistent with my remarks in the second reading debate, the government does not oppose these amendments.

Question agreed to.

Bills, as amended, agreed to.

Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.