Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 8410:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$44,999", substitute "$50,000".

I know that I voted for the losing Greens motion this afternoon, but I now want to move this amendment, which puts a new repayment point at $50,000.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to put on the record that Labor understands that moving the repayment threshold up to $50,000 is, in fact, better than what's proposed in this bill. We heard compelling evidence around this in the inquiry. It was a very short inquiry—just half a day in Melbourne. That was all the government's then timetable allowed. Sadly, we're where we are.

Labor believes that the HELP repayment system should be looked at as part of our national inquiry into post-secondary education, and we know from evidence at that hearing on the bill that the repayment thresholds are being lowered not for any noble purpose, but simply for the government's desire to make budget savings at the expense of young Australians, who are our future and deserve much better understanding of education as an investment instead of the monotony of the cost of education that we hear from this current government. Labor's not satisfied that the government's done enough to look at how the HELP repayment thresholds intersect with the tax and social security systems. So, with those reservations, we still oppose this proposal from you, Senator Hinch.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original push by the Greens, supported by Labor—which lost—was to maintain the status quo at, I think, $52,600, or something close to that. Pauline Hanson had the disgusting plan to reduce it to $29,999, which I said this afternoon is not even worth discussing. The government has come back up a little bit. They started, I think, at $42,000, and they've now come up to $45,000. I'd say again what I mentioned earlier today—that the Treasurer and finance minister both told me that Canberra is about compromise, and that 70 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. If they come across to us with this amendment at $50,000, I think a lot more people in this building, as well as students and women trying to repay their student debts, would be a lot happier. I think it's much fairer.

The CHAIR: Senator Hinch, I remind you to refer to senators by their correct title.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting Senator Hinch's amendment. We appreciate the intent behind the amendment. Senator Hinch did just acknowledge that the government has moved from proposals in previous reform packages to what will now be nearly $46,000 in terms of the starting threshold on 1 July next year. I reiterate that one of the important things that we've done is to apply a steady schedule in the repayment rate. We think that steady schedule is important to the thresholds at which it adjusts, which we hope will stop some of the clustering that we've seen around certain income bands under previous proposals. We thank Senator Hinch for proposing the amendment and for his engagement with us on the bill, but we are not in a position to support his amendment at this time.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8410, as moved by Senator Hinch, be agreed to.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been informed that neither the government nor Labor will support my amendment, so I withdraw it.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.