Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now move to opposition amendment to schedule 1, item 11: amendment (1) on sheet 5969 revised.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before moving that amendment, I start with some general observations. What absolute arrogance from this government and how badly briefed this minister is, who is obviously representing the Deputy Prime Minister in this chamber. Maybe he is not entirely across everything that has been happening. One thing that he appears not to be across is that, when the Deputy Prime Minister was under a lot of pressure—because of colleges collapsing and what was happening to Indian students across Australia and students across Australia finding themselves stranded—two days before announcing her visit to India, she rushed this piece of legislation that we are debating today into the parliament. It is an important piece of legislation, and then it sat there.

We hear from the minister today that somehow this legislation was ready for 12 months. Why did the government wait until 19 August to introduce this piece of legislation if it was ready for 12 months? You know what, Minister—through you, Mr Temporary Chairman—the opposition does not control the government’s legislative agenda; the government does. The government controls the time frame with which legislation is introduced; the government controls when that legislation is brought on for debate. If you had not wasted so much time with broken promises and legislation that you knew did not have the support of the Senate—such as means-testing the private health insurance rebate—and if you had not forced the Senate to waste hours of debate on cutting patient rebates for cataract surgery, which you knew did not have the support of the Senate, only to backflip a couple of months later, and if you instead had used some of that time to deal with and prioritise legislation like this, perhaps the collapse earlier this week could have been prevented, because perhaps some of the processes in this legislation would already have been underway, as long as some of the scrutiny had been properly prioritised.

But, of course, all you can do is give a few whacks around the ears. You did not properly look at what happened. One thing I can advise you of officially, Minister, in case you have not noticed, is that there was a change in leadership in the Liberal Party; there was a reshuffle as a consequence and, yes, there have been some changes in shadow ministerial responsibilities. If that is too complicated for the Rudd Labor government to follow in their pursuit of getting legislation through the parliament, I cannot help them. It is not that complicated.

Finally, those amendments, which we circulated again as a courtesy yesterday in the Senate, had previously been circulated by Senator Mason, who then had responsibility for this legislation. They should not have come as any surprise whatsoever to the government. We understand that the government thinks it can do everything by regulation, but do you know what? On occasions the opposition does not agree. We do not agree with this principle that you have these empty vessel pieces of legislation and you put all of the detail into the regulations. Every now and then we think that something is important enough to be properly integrated into the legislation itself. That is why we move opposition amendment (1), which relates to the risk management approach to re-registration, which we do believe ought to be enshrined into the legislation with the view of ensuring a more rigorous auditing regime during the re-registration process—a re-registration process where state authorities have a proper look at the financials of the various education facilities, properly consider the accreditation level of staff employed, and consider things like the time the providers have been in operation. We think that is an important addition to this legislation and we do commend it to the committee. I now move:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 7), after subsection 9A(1), insert:

     (1A)    A designated authority for a State must use a risk-management approach when considering whether to recommend that an approved provider should be re-registered.

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

The Greens circulated amendments quite similar to this back in 2009 when we were first discussing, or thought we were going to be discussing, this bill. We had similar concerns with the bill and we thought some of the measures could go a bit further. I was not necessarily concerned as to whether it went in the legislation or in some other form like regulations, as long as they were addressed by the government.

I mentioned in my speech on the second reading debate that I had withdrawn the amendments because the Greens had come to an agreement with the government to implement our concerns through regulation. I have tabled that letter. I do not know whether it has actually been circulated yet, but I did table the document. The Greens cannot support the amendment, but I do hear what Senator Cormann is saying. As long as we keep our eye on the ball and keep the pressure on the government to deliver on the promises they have made through the regulations, I think we can move forward.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this amendment. I think Senator Hanson-Young spelt out the reasons for this quite clearly just a moment ago. The policy intent has been supported by the opposition, but they feel the need to make further changes despite the assurances that have been given as to the government’s intent. The opposition suddenly have discovered that they do not like umbrella legislation of this type, despite the fact that this occurred consistently throughout their term. This legislative framework is the same pattern that was established in precedent by the parliamentary draughtsman for well over a decade in this parliament. So it is not a new approach; this is a common approach that has been taken on many pieces of legislation. I will not detain the committee by detailing each and every one of those.

The fact remains that the government has indicated that the proposed amendments relating to the risk management approach have already been agreed by the relevant ministers at the Commonwealth and state levels, and have been finalised with all the states and territories through the Joint Committee on International Education. So these practices are already operational. The minister’s assurances have actually been put into effect through the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs processes.

I need to draw attention to the proposition that Senator Cormann referred to in regard to the government’s failure to follow the comings and goings of the opposition. The bill, of course, was introduced last August. It takes time to get bills together. As I said, there has been a process of policy development and there has been a response by the minister, particularly through cooperation with the states, given that the primary approach to the regulation of this industry has for some time been dealt with by state education authorities. You may well argue that that needs to change. It is certainly an argument I have put. But the fact remains that the current administrative law has it that the Commonwealth minister for education has to deal with the state ministers for education. That is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing, and the necessary administrative framework has been established to see that there is progress being made on improving the regulations in regard to quality assurance.

The bill was presented with these improvements in terms of the regulation of education agents and other matters, which was a bone of contention throughout the last decade under the previous government. This minister has done something about it. The matter was referred to a Senate committee and we have sought from that time urgent passage of the bill. The opposition have actually said they will vote for it, but, like so much else in the Senate, they say one thing and do another. What has happened is that the Liberal Party are now being run by the extreme right of the party. They see it as their job to oppose and oppose and oppose, and they have no constructive engagement in terms of the management of the affairs of this country.

After the change—the formal coup that occurred with Mr Abbott’s one-vote victory last year—the minister’s office sought clarification from the shadow minister on who was responsible, and we were told that it would be Senator Cormann. Noting that the legislation was going through the Senate this week, the minister’s office engaged his office, providing background and seeking again to have it dealt with on a non-controversial basis to get a timely passage. They indicated that this would be considered and they would get back to us. There was no response. There was no response from your office, Senator Cormann—no response at all. Not having heard back from Senator Cormann’s office after several days, contact was again made with your office. We were told that the matter was actually being dealt with by Senator Mason. We are not talking about ancient history here. You cannot even work out this week who is responsible.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister, you should direct your remarks through the chair.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator Cormann issued a press release yesterday regarding this legislation, so it is not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister’s office sought further clarification. We were told, this time from the coalition whip at a meeting this morning, that in fact now Senator Cormann was going to have to deal with the bill. You want to lecture us on the management of these matters and you cannot even manage your frontbench. If there was ever an old saying that has truth, it is, ‘If you can’t run your own party, you can’t run the government.’ This is a group of extremists that are now seeking to take control of the treasury bench in this country. Let’s get real, Senator Cormann—you know nothing about it and you are going to have to do a damn sight better if you are going to play these sorts of games.

Let me deal with your second amendment before you move it so we do not waste any more time. The proposed amendments were put forward to require providers to use education agents who have completed the education agents training course and who have belonged to a professional body, where one exists. In our view that is more appropriately and more flexibly dealt with in regulations. I note that the Deputy Prime Minister has already given undertakings to consult with stakeholders on regulatory changes regarding agents and agents training and professional associations that are still developing. These regulations will allow greater flexibility for making adjustments to the policy over time. The fact is that this industry is too important to play around with. That is a position I have maintained throughout my time in this place. I would ask senators yet again: this is an opportunity to deal with this quickly. If amendments are carried to this legislation it will have to go back to the House and there will be still further delay on the passage of this important bill.

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

Senator Cormann, have you got a copy of the tabled document from the minister? If you do, could you elaborate, briefly—and then perhaps Senator Xenophon would like to add something.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he does, I will call him.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rather than elaborate, in the first instance I would like to ask a question of the minister. If, like the minister is telling us, all of this is happening—all of this the government agrees to but wants to happen through administrative and regulatory arrangements—what is the problem with putting it into the legislation? If you agree with that—if it does not cause you a problem, if you agree with the opposition that we ought to apply those risk management principles and if you agree with all of the statements that we have made—what is the problem with actually making absolutely clear beyond doubt by enshrining it in legislation that that is a requirement that is applied? I do not understand what the problem is. I understand that governments always want to leave themselves a back door, that they want to have as much flexibility as possible and that they do not like it if the parliament ties them down. But, other than the ‘Yes, Minister’ reasons, like the department telling you, ‘We don’t want the parliament to prescribe what we should and should not be doing,’ what is the problem? I have listened to what you have just said and to your comments, which are essentially, ‘We agree with all of this, but we are already doing it through ministerial councils and regulation.’ I have read the letter that the Deputy Prime Minister has written to Senator Hanson-Young very carefully. There is a lot of very friendly language and the Deputy Prime Minister is very generous in her comments towards Senator Hanson-Young. She essentially says, ‘Yes, we are going to do all of this’—tick, tick, tick—‘through regulation through this and that.’ If you agree with it and are going to do it, why not agree to put it into this legislation and be done with it? Why are you wasting time, Minister?

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

Can I put to Senator Cormann in relation to the amendment—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the government.

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

I do note that Senator Carr represents the government on this, but it is Senator Cormann’s amendment. I am not being critical of Senator Cormann or the amendment, but it makes reference to having a risk management approach. I think the government says there will be a risk management approach to dealing with these things. The difficulty I have with the opposition’s amendment—again, not being critical of the intent of the amendment, which I think is a good one—is that simply specifying that there ought to be a risk management approach in the absence of specifying what the parameters of that approach should be, what the criteria would be for that approach and what resources would be employed in relation to that approach does not actually mandate anything. I am not saying the government would do this, but it could comply with this amendment with a one-line document saying, ‘This is our risk management approach’—I cannot think of an absurd enough example, but it could be anything. It does not actually force the government to do anything other than to say, ‘This is an approach.’ But how would you enforce this from that point of view? Again, this is not a criticism; I understand the intent, but I wonder whether putting an amendment in that does not have any framework or context will take us anywhere.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition recommends to the Senate that we should make absolutely clear what our intent is. Our intent is that there ought to be a more vigorous auditing regime during the reregistration process and that the risk management principles be enshrined into the legislation. Of course, the opposition supported that part of the Greens second reading amendment which also related to the prioritisation of providers for re-registration.

Senator Xenophon, you might well have a view of this government that is: ‘Hi. I’m from the government. Trust me.’ But we on this side are a bit more suspicious. The government has written a lot of nice words in the letter to Senator Hanson-Young, but there were a lot of weasel words in there, too—‘best endeavours’, ‘we’ll try’ and ‘we’ll seek to achieve through regulation’. The reason that I am getting a bit suspicious is that this minister has said exactly the same words: ‘We’re going to do it. We’re already doing it. It’s all happening.’ If that is the case, why is the government resisting so badly the inclusion of a provision which makes it clear beyond doubt that this Senate wants to enshrine risk management principles into the legislation, that it wants to make sure that it actually does happen so that it can test whether the risk management principles that I included in the regulations are appropriate? If we do not think they are appropriate when the regulations come in, we would be able to take what we might consider to be appropriate action at that point in time.

Senator Xenophon, you seem to be arguing that the amendment is not prescriptive enough, that perhaps we should be going into even more detail. We have tried to approach it in a very balanced way. We want to get the balance right, which is to make it very clear that we think it is important for those risk management principles to be enshrined in the legislation. We want to make it very clear that the Senate will be looking very carefully at that part of the regulations when they eventually come through.

What makes me very suspicious is: why is the government spending so much time resisting this amendment if, as it is essentially saying to us, ‘It’s already happening anyway; it will be happening anyway.’ I smell a rat, Senator Xenophon.

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

Can I assure you, Senator Cormann, that I am naturally suspicious of any government, whether they are Liberal, Labor, Callithumpian or whatever. I am also suspicious of oppositions, but less so. I think that is what crossbenchers ought to be doing. Can Senator Cormann clarify this: is he saying that his amendment would have the effect of requiring the government to produce regulations with respect to risk management issues? If that is the case, what is to prevent the government from having an absolutely minimalist approach in relation to that? That is my concern in relation to this.

The minister can either respond now or perhaps I could get a response overnight, but I indicated in my second reading contribution that, given the Baird review—I think was a good initiative of the government to have the Hon. Bruce Baird look at these issues—will the government undertake to bring back this bill with appropriate amendments within six months of the Baird review being handed down and the government considering it so that we know that this is the first of subsequent steps to improve the sector? I would like a response from the government and the opposition in relation to this.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can assist Senator Xenophon further by reading out the amendment. The amendment would require: ‘A designated authority for a state must use a risk-management approach when considering whether to recommend that an approved provider should be re-registered.’ This is schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 7), after subsection 9A(1), which states:

A designated authority for a State may recommend that an approved provider for that State that, as at the commencement of this section, is registered to provide a specified course for that State to overseas students be re-registered under this Act to provide that course to overseas students.

We are saying that there has to be that additional requirement. The designated authority for a state must use a risk management approach when considering whether to recommend that an approved provider should be reregistered. I would take the view that, if the Senate were to go along with this provision, the government have to take steps as they implement this legislation to make that happen. That is what we are trying to force the government to do.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I agree with your interpretation of the wording in the amendment. I know of states that would claim and have for some years claimed that they have been acting on the basis of a risk management approach and have allowed these rorts to go and on and on. I can give you the assurance that you sought in regard to the Baird review being dealt with within six months of its being received by the government.

Progress reported.

Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting.