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

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

[repayment thresholds—commencement]

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit paragraph 154-10(a), substitute:

(a) for the 2019-20 income year—$45,880; or

[HELP repayment thresholds]

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, pages 3 to 5 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 7), omit "2019-20", substitute "2020-21".

[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]

(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".

[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]

(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (formula), omit the formula, substitute:

[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds]

(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 4), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".

[repayment thresholds—application of amendments]

(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 6), omit "2019-20", substitute "2020-21".

[repayment thresholds—application of amendments]

(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 9), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".

[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional]

(12) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 11), omit "2018-19", substitute "2019-20".

[indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional]

Given that the bill did not pass before the 1 July 2018 intended start date and the thresholds are based on tax and financial years, it's proposed now that the new threshold will come into effect on 1 July 2019. The thresholds will apply, having been indexed as was initially proposed. Therefore the new first repayment threshold will be $45,881 at the new one per cent repayment rate, reflecting CPI indexation of the previous $45,000 threshold in line with its commencement, now proposed for 1 July 2019. That will rise in progressive instalments to $134,373 for the 10 per cent repayment threshold.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing these amendments for the same reason that we opposed the bill. The original time frame of introducing these changes was unacceptable, and these are too.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens oppose these amendments from the government. They go directly to the heart of the entire problem with this piece of legislation. The government is trying to create a false sense of crisis in relation to higher education at a time when we should be doing more to support young Australians being able to get an education and being able to afford to conduct that education.

There's a new report out today that says that one in seven university students is being forced to go without food because they are living below the poverty line. That is the real crisis in our higher education sector: university students, young Australians right across this country, cannot even afford to live while they are studying. That is the problem that this government should be fixing, but instead we have the government trying to slash and burn the education budget, forcing young people, young Australians, to carry the burden.

This, of course, is on the back of very generous tax cuts that have gone through this place, hailed by the government as necessary. Of course, that comes at the cost of public services. When they've given billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich Australians, they still want to give billions of dollars more to big corporations and the big banks. And yet university students are being told that they need to tighten their belts.

When you've got studies like that conducted by Universities Australia, which shows that a huge number of young people in this country are living well below the poverty line, struggling as university students, this is not the type of legislation that the Senate should be passing. I just want to make note of Senator Martin, who today crossed the floor opposing this bill. When you have individuals in this place understanding and recognising the real struggle of young Australians and people studying in this country, that's a good thing. However, seeing the rest of the government on the government benches turning a blind eye to the real struggles facing young people is extremely disappointing.

Of course, we know that one of the biggest problems here is stagnating jobs growth and wages growth. When no-one's wages are growing except the wages of those who are very rich in this country—and they are about to get even more in their pockets because of massive tax cuts passed by the Senate last session—and young people can't afford their rent, their bills or to put food on the table, then we have a serious problem. When are the government going to start addressing these issues rather than trying to use young people and education funding as a scapegoat for their big tax handouts to corporate Australia, big banks and themselves?

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

The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) on sheet EK131 together:

[HELP repayment thresholds]

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 1 to the end of the table), subsection 1061ZZFD(4) to be opposed.

[SFSS repayment thresholds]

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 17 to the end of the table), subsection 12ZLC(4) to be opposed.

Just very quickly, these are again technical amendments that relate to the revised start date that the Senate has largely just adopted. The legislation was originally drafted containing some transitional provisions for one year in relation to how the HECS-HELP scheme interacted with other repayment arrangements and student support schemes, and the application of the new 1 July 2019 start date means that those clauses are no longer required.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that subsection 1061ZZFD(4) in item 3 and subsection 12ZLC(4) in item 6 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it will assist the chamber, I want to seek some guidance, perhaps from the minister, if I may, before I move my amendment. It may be preferable to deal with some other amendments in the hope of not having divisions now.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There hasn't been any questioning of the minister to date, so I think it would be appropriate to go ahead.

My question is whether it would facilitate the chamber for me to move my amendment now or deal with other amendments.

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

I thank Senator Bernardi for his courtesy. I think we're in the chamber's hands and we seem to be moving through amendments relatively swiftly, so perhaps we'll be able to maintain that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I'm happy to move it. I'm mindful, though, that there are a couple of people on the crossbench who are pretty intent on going to a swearing in in the other chamber, if it should be available. Nonetheless, that being said, Mr Chairman—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Move swiftly, then, Senator Bernardi.

by leave—I move Australian Conservatives amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 41 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4—FEE -HELP debts

Part 1—Amendments

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Subsection 137 -10(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The amount of the *FEE-HELP debt is:

(a) if the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance for a unit of study provided by a Table B provider—the amount of the loan; or

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance that forms part of an *undergraduate course of study—an amount equal to 125% of the loan; or

(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies—the amount of the loan.

Part 2—Application of amendments

2 Application—FEE -HELP debts

The amendments of section 137-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a loan made on or after 1 January 2019.

These amendments effectively just remove the inconsistency and the unfair levy that is placed upon students at four particular universities.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor does not support these amendments. The extension of loans in the system may have some value, but simply adding the private providers to the list is not the right way to go about it. We understand Senator Bernardi's intention here, but the issue of loan fees is another issue that Labor are concerned about and we'll consider it in our national inquiry into post-secondary education if we win the next election.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Australian Greens do not support Senator Bernardi's amendment. I understand the intent of the amendment but I don't believe it's the appropriate way to make the system fairer—the idea of forcing more and more debt onto young people, as opposed to finding ways to alleviate it.

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

I indicate that the government is pleased to support Senator Bernardi's amendment. The government has, in various previous higher education reform proposals, sought to reduce the extent to which the loan fee applies. Contrary to what Senator Hanson-Young implied just then, the amendment moved by Senator Bernardi will in fact reduce the amount of student debt that students at these institutions take on. This is confined specifically to, essentially, the table B universities and will treat their students on par with those public table A universities.

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

The question is that items (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) and (2) on sheet 8411:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 11 (line 11), to be opposed.

These amendments effectively oppose schedule 1 of the bill. There is a second set of amendments—that's (2). The second set is reliant on amendment (1). If we can deal with amendment (2) first, I'd appreciate that.

These amendments effectively scrap the changes to the repayment threshold as outlined by the government. It is the government's intention to make life harder and harder for university students, particularly once they graduate. The Universities Australia 2017 Survey of University Student Finances conducted by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, released today, suggests that one in seven university students are being forced to go without food because of living below the poverty line and that one in three students have expenses that outweigh their income. Students are already living day-to-day trying to struggle through their university education. This government is focusing entirely on what students are costing the budget rather than doing anything about the daily budgets and struggles of students to cover the basics like food, rent and textbooks—not to mention public transport costs to get from home to work, if they work part time, and then, of course, to university.

The reason schedule 1, which amendment (2) moves to scrap, should not proceed is because it is fundamentally unfair. The Greens amendment strips out the repayment table from the bill itself which changes the thresholds and rates of indexation at which students repay their debt. The amendment opposes the changes in the bill to reduce the minimum repayment threshold from $51,957 to $45,880 and to adjust all the thresholds accordingly. Of course, we oppose the increase to the maximum repayment rate of 10 per cent and we oppose making students pay back their debt sooner, once their income hits that threshold.

We are extremely concerned that, at a time when we have high unemployment—particularly youth unemployment—and low wages growth, this is a double whammy for young people right across the country. We're opposed to the changes as outlined by the government to the thresholds and repayment rates because we do not believe that the problem facing Australia today is being solved by forcing young people to have to carry this burden themselves, making them pay back their education debt sooner and at a higher rate, particularly when we know that students are struggling every day to cover living expenses when they are studying and when they are very soon to graduate. Requiring former students to begin repaying their debt when their income ticks a shade over the minimum wage is effectively a $400-a-year tax increase on some of the lowest income Australians. Only last session there was a vote in this place to give high-income earners a massive tax cut. In exchange for that, because the government doesn't have as much money in its coffers as a result of those income tax cuts, we are now seeing university students having to carry the burden. While politicians might be getting $11,000 in their back pocket in a tax cut, we're forcing young Australians to pay an extra $400 effectively in a tax increase. It is simply unfair.

Young people are living on budgets without any fat to trim. They are living pay cheque to pay cheque, week to week, from hand to mouth. The Liberal government—Minister Birmingham and his colleagues—doesn't seem to care about the real impact that these changes are going to have on some of the country's lowest paid workers. The Liberal Party are determined to slash the weekly budgets of former students so that they can crow to the world that the federal budget is looking good. Of course, the government continues to not just hand out billions of dollars in tax cuts to wealthy Australians but also flog the dead horse of wanting to give tax cuts to the big banks and corporate Australia. All the while, workers in this country are struggling on stagnant wage growth—and for what? Why is the government doing this? What problem are they actually solving?

The architect of the HECS system, Bruce Chapman, said that the value of the stock of outstanding debt is in fact not an issue. This is how the system was designed. We don't have to worry about this. In his words, 'There is no crisis in this system.' This is one of those clever tactics of the Liberal government. Create a crisis, invent a solution and think that everybody is going to pat you on the back and say, 'Job well done.' If this government wasn't spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and giving the big banks a handout then perhaps we'd have the money to fund education properly in this country. Every other developed, smart, democratic country in the world is looking at their education system at a time when the nature of work is changing so quickly and when unemployment is on the rise. Other countries' governments—whether it is the UK, France, New Zealand or even, dare I say, the United States—are looking and saying, 'How can we be supporting education better?' Retraining and ensuring that young people in particular can get the education they need for the new look of the workforce are what the government should be investing in, not making it harder and harder for the next generation of workers. There is no crisis in the education system except for the fact that young people are struggling to pay their day-to-day costs while they're getting an education.

There is, of course, a crisis when it comes to wages. Wage growth remains sluggish and stubborn, and the cost of living is rising every day. The wages of everyday Australians are getting worse and worse in comparison. We will never solve a crisis in wages by taking more money from low-income Australians, and that is what this bill does. Make no mistake: this is an attack not just on young people but on low-income Australians right across the country.

The government says that, 'This increase means graduates will only lose $8 a week.' I've heard the minister say this himself, and it just shows how out of touch this government has become. It may not sound like much to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Education and Training, but for low-income Australians who are struggling week-to-week to pay the bills, to put food on the table and to pay for their public transport costs, $8 a week is a hell of a lot. In Adelaide, if you're to go to university, it's $5.50 to catch public transport from the outer suburbs into town. A wages cut of $8 a week will make a big impact on those young people being able to get to university or, indeed, to their new job if and when they graduate. It's more money going from the grocery budget to the federal budget. It's more money that isn't going to be spent by these people on bills and household costs. It's not 'just $8 a week' to someone who is struggling to make ends meet, and there are a hell of a lot of these struggling Australians right across the country. In my home state of South Australia, where youth unemployment is through the roof, these young people cannot cop another whack. It's a $400 a year increase in taxes, effectively, and $8 a week less in their pocket.

This is a government who thinks that this is all okay because they themselves are doing all right, their mates in big business are doing all right and the banks are doing all right. Here in this place, the Senate voted in the last session to give politicians an $11,000 tax cut, so we're doing all right. But young Australians are not. We should be investing in students who invest in themselves. Instead, we're shaking them down for their loose change. How about we shake down the big banks for some of their loose change? How about we shake down some of corporate Australia for their loose change? How about we force them to actually pay the taxes they owe the taxpayer? How about we do that rather than forcing young Australians in this country to cover the bills of this government's outlandish tax cuts and handouts to the rich in this country? That's what the amendment does, and I look forward to receiving support for it from various parties in the Senate.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports these amendments, as they effectively keep in place the majority of the current system. We don't believe that students should have to start paying back debt when they earn as little as $45,000 per year.

I acknowledge the hard work of stakeholders like the National Union of Students, the ACTU and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, who came to the hearings we had on the bill back in March. I was very impressed with the evidence of the NUS president, Mark Pace, who talked about how so many students currently skip meals and live below the Henderson poverty line. This is not a new story, as highlighted by the reports today. It is a shame that for quite some time now these issues haven't been given the prominence that they should have, nor greater interest across the crossbench in addressing the detail of some of the matters as they were presented to the committee.

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

Briefly, the government does not support the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. The amendments, indeed, would essentially gut the bill of its intent. The bill's seeks, as I made very clear, to ensure: that we have fairer, steadier increments in the way in which repayments are made; that as much of the $50 billion of outstanding debt is recovered as fairly as possible; and that the fair and viable student loans program is sustained into the future.

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

The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being later than 2 pm, we will now move to questions without notice.