Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8866 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 23 and 24), at the end of the heading to subsection 114A(1), add "—criminal offence ".

[civil penalty for academic cheating services—consequential]

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 10 to 17), omit subsection 114A(3), substitute:

Providing etc. an academic cheating service for a commercial purpose—civil penalty

(3) A person contravenes this subsection if the person provides, offers to provide or arranges for a third person to provide an academic cheating service:

(a) to a student undertaking, with a higher education provider:

(i) an Australian course of study; or

(ii) an overseas course of study provided at Australian premises; and

(b) for a commercial purpose.

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

[civil penalty for academic cheating services]

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (lines 12 to 17), omit subsection 114B(2), substitute:

(2) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person advertises, or publishes or broadcasts an advertisement for, an academic cheating service to students undertaking, with a higher education provider:

(i) an Australian course of study; or

(ii) an overseas course of study provided at Australian premises; and

(b) either:

(i) the person does so for a commercial purpose; or

(ii) the academic cheating service has a commercial purpose.

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

[civil penalty for academic cheating services]

These amendments are about restricting the application of civil penalties in this legislation to commercial providers of cheating services and removing them from individuals who are non-commercial providers. I just want to be clear that this amendment does not remove civil or criminal penalties for commercial cheating services. As I spoke about in debate on the bill, this exposes individuals to civil penalties. Although the minister in the other place has said that students and families and friends are protected, I think we can make it completely watertight today and make sure that there are no civil penalties, which could be up to more than $100,000 in the case of this particular legislation, to which individuals could be exposed.

Really, for instances like these, it is up to the universities to have the resources and the funding to be able to support their students and to be able to deal with this. These penalties are not even remotely commensurate with the low-grade academic misconduct that might happen. Universities must be resourced to deal with this, so I commend the amendments.

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

The government does not support the amendments. We have consulted extensively on the legislation. This included the release earlier this year of an exposure draft of the bill from which a number of issues were raised that the government responded to. In terms of the issues that were raised, we looked carefully at criminal penalties and ensured they are limited to situations where the cheating service or advertising is done for a commercial purpose. The maximum civil financial penalty has been halved under the changes. The scope of cheating assistance that is prohibited by the bill has been more tightly defined to where a substantial part of an assessment task is undertaken by a third party.

The government recognises that the bill seeks to prohibit unpaid cheating assistance as well. That's based on the fact that Australian research has shown a large proportion of third party cheating occurs on an unpaid basis by friends, family or others in the community. This type of cheating is equally a threat to the integrity of student assessments and qualifications earned and, indeed, in some fields of study can lead to dangerous outcomes. It's not anticipated that many such cases in relation to unpaid cheating would reach the courts, except in the most serious cases of repeated, deliberate and extensive infractions. The clear intention of the bill is to deter cheating assistance rather than to prosecute family and friends.

I stress very much that in every case prosecution of offences under this law will be at the discretion of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP will make an informed judgement about the strength of the evidence and likelihood of conviction as well as the seriousness and value of the offences in question, and the public value of achieving a successful conviction as a deterrent to other potential offenders. The government hopes to see prosecutions under the law where people are clearly doing the wrong thing. But, in the cases of family, friends and mild levels of cheating, we would anticipate that this should act as a clear deterrent and that the systems in place provide sufficient safeguards such that the types of outcomes that drive Senator Faruqi's understandable concerns would not be realised. We do think, on balance, that it is worth keeping the clear disincentive created by this bill in place, to make sure that all forms of cheating are discouraged under the legislation.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 8996 together:

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 20), omit "or (3)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 25), omit "or (3)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 12), omit "114A(3) or".

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 10 to 17), subsection 114A(3), TO BE OPPOSED.

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

Just for the record, I understand Senator Griff's amendments are seeking to address broadly the same issues that Senator Faruqi raised before, and for the same reasons the government does not support those amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 8996 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.