Tuesday, 20 June 2023
Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023; In Committee
The committee is considering the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 as amended. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on these amendments will now be held, starting with amendments moved by Senator Henderson. So we will come to sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by the opposition. The first question is that amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.
In relation to the amendment on 2017, an amendment of Senator David Pocock. The opposition no longer wishes to proceed with the division. I understand that last night we were the only ones who indicated we would be voting against this, but because it was contingent on another division—another amendment—there was some uncertainty about this. So the Opposition doesn't wish to proceed with division. I believe Senator Pocock may have an amendment in relation to this?
by leave—I move amendment (2) on sheet 2017:
(2) The STARTUP-HELP Guidelines may require higher education providers that provide *accelerator program courses to conduct internal audits, or to arrange for audits, of compliance with the STARTUP-HELP Guidelines with respect to the courses. The Guidelines may prescribe any or all of the following:
(a) circumstances in which audits must be conducted or arranged;
(b) requirements in relation to when and how audits must be conducted or arranged and reported on.
(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 34 (line 5), at the end of the definition of reversed in subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1, add:
; (f) section 128-40 (provider non-compliance).
I'm amending my amendment, changing 'may' to 'must'.
So there are two instances of 'may' in the document—we need to be absolutely clear. This is for the benefit of Hansard, Senator Pocock: I note that in your amendment on sheet 2017 you are seeking to delete 'may', which appears twice, and insert 'must'. I am going to proceed with the amendment to the amendment—this is for the benefit of the chamber—and then I am going to proceed with the amendment as amended, and, with the will of the chamber, unless anyone calls for a division, the call will hold. I intend to call in the affirmative, I am indicating, unless voices persuade me otherwise. Does anyone have any objection to that course of action on the amendment to the amendment on sheet 2017, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, to replace the word 'may' with 'must'? I now proceed with the amendment as amended, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock. Nobody has indicated they now wish to proceed to a division.
Question agreed to.
We now come to sheet 1931 revised, standing in the name of the Greens, as moved by Senator Faruqi.