Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The remaining votes on those amendments will now be held. I will now deal with the amendments on sheet 3046, moved by Senator Henderson.

The question before the committee is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a result of the vote, the second opposition amendment cannot be put as it was consequential; it was only necessary if schedule 2 was negatived. I will now proceed with the division on the amendments on sheet 3140, moved by Senator Faruqi. The question before the committee is that the amendments on sheet 3140, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the requests for amendments on sheet 2952, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3047:

(1) Schedule 2, page 29 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A At the end of subsection 19-38(1)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

1B At the end of subsection 19-38(2)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

I want to make a couple of important points. The coalition did seek to remove from the bill the requirement that 40 per cent of the student support and amenities fee be allocated to student led organisations. We did seek to remove that from the bill, and that was not successful. We would ask the Senate to support this amendment because we are proposing, with this amendment, an important safeguard to prohibit the use of student support and amenities fee funds, SSAF funds, for student elections, student protests or protest related activities, because what we want to ensure is that these very valuable resources directly benefit student welfare and essential services.

I am concerned that the government may vote against this amendment, and I really do not understand the basis for that, because this is very much an ideologically driven provision in the first place. It also overlooks critical concerns of the universities about not just the misuse of funds but also the incapacity of some student led organisations to appropriately deliver critical services to students. Without this amendment being passed by the Senate, without these important safeguards, we face a situation where these funds could be used for improper purposes.

We have seen on university campuses, since 7 October 2023, horrific levels of antisemitism, shocking protests and shocking behaviour. The thought that moneys from students were being directed to student led organisations for the purposes of improper activities, including antisemitic activities, is frankly abhorrent. We don't believe that this should be permitted, and not just in relation to antisemitism but in relation to any sort of protest activity. These funds need to be safeguarded for the important purpose for which they are being paid by all students, and that is to ensure that student needs are properly supported—important needs like health care, mental health support, legal support and other services on campus that students will call upon.

I do want to add, in relation to this provision in the bill generally, that Universities Australia recommended that 'changes to how the SAFF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by UA members'. Charles Sturt University indicated that it could not support the SAFF changes without further amendments and argued that the model 'may not be workable for regional and/or multicampus institutions, or those with a high proportion of part-time or online students'.

The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton said:

The general issue raised by a fixed allocation of funds to third-party organisations is how this intersects with the legal obligations of universities regarding services of a non-academic nature. Specifically, if the university relies on student-run organisations over which it has limited direct control, is it risking non-compliance with other statutory requirements?

Let's not forget that we're talking about a very substantial amount of money here. In 2023, more than $278 million in student services and amenities fees funds were collected by 44 providers, and the Department of Education's submission to our inquiry into this bill noted that more than $110 million of this amount was allocated by providers to student led organisations.

The issue is that universities are being robbed of the ability to ensure that these funds are directed appropriately so that, if some of these funds are provided to student led organisations, they have the capacity to provide these services. I do note that, for smaller and regional unis, this is a particular challenge. They don't have very large student led unions and other organisations like the bigger universities. But, then again, this is not surprising from the government, because we've seen the government, in the ESOS bill, back-in the big end of town and back-in the G8 universities at the expense of the regional and smaller universities. Now the threats that the government is making in relation to the ongoing use of Ministerial Direction 107 will compound that shocking unfairness and disadvantage. We know what happened this year as a result of MD 107 and how much regional universities suffered.

As I say, this is an important and sensible amendment. It safeguards the funds for the purposes for which they are intended. It doesn't fuel or fund any sort of protest activity on campus, and, as we have seen, the coalition is deeply concerned about the gross mismanagement of antisemitic protests on university campuses since October 2023 and, frankly, the weakness of leadership we have seen from this government. We call on the Senate to back this amendment.

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

This is just the next step in a long, concerted and pretty shameful campaign by the Liberals, and in particular Senator Henderson, to silence dissent and protest on our university campuses. Protest has, historically and always, been a core part of democracy on university campuses, and students have been at the forefront of so many social movements, from justice for Palestine, to climate justice, to First Nations justice and everything in between. Attempts to control and silence students should never be tolerated. The Greens will not tolerate this, and we will be opposing these amendments.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government also will not be supporting this amendment. I refute the allegations from Senator Henderson regarding the leadership that Minister Clare has provided in regard to antisemitism on campuses. Concerns of how the SSAF can be committed are unfounded. It is yet another example of fearmongering, and we're accustomed to that from those opposite. Section 19-38(4) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 provides a list of things that SSAF can be put towards—things like providing food and drink, sporting activities, caring for children, promoting health and welfare of students, and so on. It does not provide for protest.

The legislation also includes requirements of providing and collecting SSAF. These are the same legislative requirements which have been in place since 2012. There are no changes to eligible activities. Providers must comply with the legislation. If they don't then the Department of Education can take compliance action.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I absolutely refute the allegations of Senator Faruqi. This is not an attempt to subvert legitimate protest on university campuses. This is an amendment which preserves these funds for their proper use—that is, for the health, welfare and wellbeing of students on campus. I said nothing at all, Senator Faruqi, about shutting down protests other than, of course, that the universities have done an appalling job in not shutting down antisemitism. Things are better than they were, but it's been a shocking 12 months. This does not go to the legitimate right of students to protest. What this amendment is all about is ensuring that these funds are used properly and that they are used for the health, the wellbeing and the legitimate needs of students. It's not for engaging in printing vile posters or engaging in transport costs so that students can go to the Land 400 protest, as I understand and am told occurred in the case of one university student led organisation. We want to make sure that this very significant amount of money reaches where it's meant to go.

I will also address the comments of the minister. I appreciate what the bill provides in relation to health and welfare, food and drink, and all the rest of it, but the bill does not prohibit these funds being used for protest and protest activity. If the government shares our concerns—and I think the government should share our concerns—then it should back this amendment. If your intention is to not support protest activity, not to support printing costs to be printing vile posters and not to support all the other stuff that's gone on in universities, then the bill fails to make that clear. It's not prohibited. This makes it crystal clear that those sorts of activities—you'll note in the amendment that we've limited the scope of these activities fairly narrowly. If you share our concerns about using these funds properly, you will support this amendment.

I will finish by saying that I totally disagree with the way that you've reflected on the Minister for Education, Mr Clare. Mr Clare on many occasions has failed to show adequate leadership when it comes to combatting antisemitism on Australian university campuses. He never once publicly spoke against the encampments, despite the fact that they were fuelling and inciting horrific levels of antisemitic hatred. He never once raised publicly the concerns about members of Hizb ut-Tahrir menacing Jewish students on campuses, which was frankly abhorrent, particularly under circumstances when the University of Sydney was on notice that those people were on campus and for many weeks did nothing until it was exposed in the media. Minister Clare never said anything about the two visiting Israeli academics who were effectively locked in a room, barricaded, in what was the most appalling conduct at the University of Sydney. You can make the motherhood statements you like, but I'm afraid Minister Clare has a very shocking history in not appropriately safeguarding Jewish students and not appropriately speaking with moral courage and clarity in relation to antisemitism.

Going back to this amendment, I would say to you, Minister, if it is your intention that these funds not be used to support protest activity, which could of course be used for very improper purposes, then I would urge you, please. I don't expect the Greens to support this amendment, but I do expect that the government would be responsible enough to support this amendment. It's a responsible amendment. It reflects the proper purpose of these funds. It's the right thing to do, and I would ask the government to support this amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3047 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of Senator Pocock, I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3137 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Paragraph 140-5(1)(b)

Omit "1 June", substitute "1 December".

1B Subsection 140-5(1) (method statement)

Omit "1 June" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 December".

1C Subsection 140-10(1)

Omit "for 1 June in a financial year", substitute "for 1 December in a financial year".

(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), before item 6, insert:

5A Section 140-20

Omit "before 1 June", substitute "before 1 December".

(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 3), after item 6, insert:

6A Section 140-20

Omit "that 1 June", substitute "that 1 December".

(5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 26), after item 17, insert:

17A Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Part apply on and from 1 December 2025.

(6) Page 28 (after line 10), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Maximum student contribution amounts for places

Part 1 — Main amendments

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Section 93-10

Omit "The maximum student contribution amount for a place", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), the maximum student contribution amount for a place".

2 At the end of section 93-10

Add:

(2) The table in subsection (1) has effect in relation to a place in a unit of study included in the Society and Culture *funding cluster as if the amount specified for the cluster was instead the amount specified immediately before the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Act 2020 commenced.

Part 2 — Application provisions

3 Application provision

The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a unit of study that has a *census date that is on or after the commencement of that Part (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after that day).

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

The Greens will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendments to change the time of indexation, to start off with. We have to be clear that student debt, firstly, cannot be fixed, because student debt really shouldn't exist. Similarly, indexation cannot be fixed, because indexation shouldn't exist either. Nevertheless, there are ways in which the current system can be made fairer, and Senator David Pocock's amendments do try to make the system fairer. It makes no sense to charge indexation on a debt that has already been paid off. All repayments should be taken into account before a debt is subject to indexation. This amendment represents a change that can make some difference to the burden of student debt, and I really urge the government to support this amendment.

Similarly, the Greens support the undoing of the punitive fee hikes and funding cuts that the coalition brought in under the rightly much-maligned Job-ready Graduates scheme. These fee hikes were brought in by the Morrison government as part of this disastrous job-ready program. The Universities Accord has unequivocally called this program a failure and has called for its immediate remediation.

Labor should have undone and reversed these fee hikes that have now led to $50,000 arts degrees and are, again, piling more and more debt onto students and are actually making people rethink whether they should go to university or not. Labor should have done it immediately, as soon as they got into government, but they have waited for 2½ years, and they're still not doing it, so we need to support this amendment today.

I've said it before and I'll say again: this bill is such a missed opportunity when it comes to this urgently needed reversal of the Job-ready Graduates fee hikes, which really have drastically shifted the cost of delivering university education away from government, whose responsibility it is, and onto students. This amendment does represent a small step in the right direction, and the Greens will support it.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie and Senator Faruqi, for your contributions. The government will not be supporting this amendment today. The Albanese government is taking action to provide significant relief to Australian students and workers with student debt. In this bill we're taking action to cut the cost of degrees through our changes to indexation. We've also announced that we'll cut 20 per cent off all student debts and that we'll raise the minimum repayment threshold so that repayments are lower and will kick in when you earn more. All up, this means that the Albanese Labor government will cut close to $20 billion from student loan debt for more than three million students.

As we've said before, the Universities Accord made a number of recommendations in relation to the HELP system, including changing the date on which indexation is applied. It also said that the former government's Job-ready Graduates scheme's changes had failed. We understand that there is more to do in regard to higher education. We've said from the beginning that we wouldn't be able to implement all parts of the accord's recommendations in one go, but we're making substantial progress with this bill tonight.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to very briefly respond to the minister on those very politicised comments that he made. If he's saying that the Job-ready Graduates program failed, then he's basically deserting all the students studying teaching, nursing, maths, languages and engineering who had the cost of their degrees dramatically lowered as a result of the coalition's initiatives. In contrast to this government, which, of course, has now fuelled a national teacher workforce crisis, we took really strong action to encourage more students into these vital degrees. The fact that the minister is suggesting that this has failed is very concerning. I think that bells the cat, indicating that the government is planning to increase the cost of teaching, nursing, maths, engineering and the other degrees that we dramatically lowered.

I'm very suspicious, Minister, because, if you were serious about changing the Job-ready Graduates program, you would have done so by now. If the Australian people have the misfortune of seeing the government re-elected, I think the government will push this off till after the election. It's a very deceptive plan, and I am deeply concerned that the government's plan is to increase the cost of these degrees, which are so vital for so many thousands of young Australians.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to remind the government side over here that, when these guys on the coalition side put up the cost of those arts degrees, you went off like pork chops. As a matter of fact, I remember sitting here and hearing you say, 'Yes. We're going to take them back to where they were.' Quite frankly, you've done nothing. Maybe they're not doing the Job-ready Graduates stuff because they need to go into those arts programs to work out exactly what they want to do in their lives. So maybe you should lower them back down, instead of carrying on like pork chops, like you did before the last election, when this other side did it. You've had 2½ years to change that and reduce those arts degrees back to where they used to be. Then those kids can go and do those arts degrees at that age and work out exactly what they want to study. At least it would give them a touch of everything, and then they can determine where they want to go.

Quite frankly, carrying on like pork chops—and, God, you guys carried on! They were fried, those chops. Fair dinkum! Seriously! Goodness me!

Reduce those arts degrees back down, because, quite frankly, I think that's what determines where these kids want to go in life. You may want to relook at that and go back to that instead of carrying on and doing nothing about it when you are in government.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie—always entertaining. As a proud arts graduate, I certainly do value the importance of those arts degrees. In terms of what I said before, we always said that the reform agenda of Universities Accord process—and it is substantial—is going to set the path in higher education for decades to come. We were upfront at the start that we wouldn't be able to implement every part of it straightaway. It was going to take time. We're making substantial progress with this bill today.

In regard to Senator Henderson's comment about 'deceptive', I think the only person being deceptive here is Senator Henderson, with a fear campaign about something that is non-existent.

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

I do appreciate what Senator Lambie has said, because all the two major parties are doing is calling each other 'deceptive' while the students are suffering every single day. Stop playing these games. Labor, you are in government. You can do this. You know the Universities Accord process—and it was a good process—said that this change needed to be done urgently. What is stopping you? If you support this amendment you'll put students out of their misery—or at least some of their misery. You can start here right now.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3137 from Senator David Pocock, moved by Senator Lambie, be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 3045:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit the table item, substitute:

This concerns the Commonwealth prac payment. It's an amendment which requires the government to table the eligibility and means test requirements for the Commonwealth prac payment before any new grant payment can commence. This amendment is very important because in the bill there is literally no detail about how this payment is going to be delivered. For many stakeholders and higher education providers from whom we heard during the bill inquiry, there is a lot of concern about the nature of this payment because it's not being administered through Centrelink. It's actually being administered via some grant bucket. While we support the prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, which will apply from 1 July 2025, we are very concerned, and we share the concerns of higher education providers about the way in which this has been proposed and will be administered.

The bill does not include critical information such as the eligibility criteria or the means test requirements, and we believe this reflects the government's rushed and chaotic approach to policymaking in the education portfolio. The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton told our Senate inquiry into the bill:

Apart from the Prac Payment's insecure legal foundations, the decision to base the program on a legislative instrument rather than legislation means less debate about how the Prac Payment will work … The government says that the Prac Payment will be means tested, but neither this bill nor the government's public statements explain … what 'means' will disqualify students or cause their payments to be reduced.

The Regional Universities Network also raised very similar concerns, saying:

… should universities be the administering body for Commonwealth Prac Payments, then inconsistencies may arise at a national level between the individual institutions within the sector (and potentially even between the faculties of the same provider), in terms of the outcomes of administrating student eligibility and verification, the timeframes for processing payments, and dispute resolution processes.

Despite this payment being announced and the minister speaking about the benefits of this payment, this will be delivered not via Centrelink but through a grant bucket for which there is no actual obligation in the legislation to deliver this funding. You would think that, if the government were serious about delivering this payment, it would actually make a clear provision in the legislation requiring the government to do so.

While this is also not in this bill, the government has confirmed during budget estimates that eligible students will face a means test that will require them to be eligible for an income support payment and meet a need-to-work requirement. We're also concerned that there's been no consultation with state and territory governments or industry to share the costs of this measure, as the minister originally declared would happen, despite the fact that they will be the beneficiaries of the incoming teachers, nurses, midwives, social workers and the like. As I say, this amendment requires the government to table the eligibility and means test requirements, because this parliament has a right to ensure that, when the government says it will do something, that will actually happen. So we proposed this amendment as a moderate measure to give the parliament confidence that the government is on track to deliver this payment. We just can't take the minister's word when so much about this payment is actually not in the bill.

Tabling the guidelines will also provide transparency ahead of the payment commencing to ensure that students and the higher education providers which will be assessing student applications understand the requirements before the payment begins. Without clear eligibility guidelines, students will continue to remain in the dark about this payment. If the minister were able to table those guidelines now, that would be terrific. We would celebrate that, because understanding how this will apply in practice is very important, and it's just not appropriate that we're seeing, time and time again, that the government is not putting the nuts and bolts of legislation in the bill itself, limiting the oversight of the parliament. So we would welcome the minister tabling these requirements and guidelines, and, in the absence of his doing so, we would urge the Senate to support this amendment.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Henderson. The government will not be supporting this amendment. Eligibility for Commonwealth prac payments will be targeted to students on income support and students who typically need to work to support themselves while studying. These students typically face the greatest financial pressure during placements. Eligibility criteria will be finalised in consultation with stakeholders following passage of legislation and well before the commencement date on 1 July next year. The guidelines are disallowable instruments. They can be considered by members of parliament once tabled. This is standard practice for a measure like this.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you please provide the Senate with more information about who will be eligible for these Commonwealth prac payments? How many students will receive this payment?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's obviously what is being worked through and being consulted on at the moment. Those guidelines will be tabled well in advance of the 1 July 2025 commencement date.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you able to indicate the proportion of students studying teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work who will receive a prac payment? It just seems that the government is trying to work this out on the run. This has been in the pipeline now for many months. It was a recommendation of the University Accord Panel, and it's very surprising that the government doesn't seem to have any idea of how this payment will be administered and how many students will benefit. So, could you provide the information on the proportion of students who'll receive this payment? Also, what will be the total value of the payments made to each of those four categories of students?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The dollar figure per week is $319.50. That's the same for all those people who are eligible. The department has estimated the following number of students for the prac payment, by discipline, by the end of the forward estimates, based on the latest available data at the time, which was 2022 verified: nursing, 24,000 students per year; midwifery, 2,000 students; teacher education, 35,000 students; and social work, 7,000 students. However, obviously the final numbers of students are likely to vary from the above, as it's not possible to predict changes in enrolments and take-up, which are driven by student choice.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, what will be the total anticipated amount over the forward estimates that will be paid under this measure?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The anticipation is about 68,000 students per year who would be eligible.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you able to provide the Senate with any more information in relation to the 68,000—how that was calculated?—because I don't believe this information has been made public before, as well as any other information you can provide. Also, could you indicate how these students will be means tested? Will they be required to hand over their income statements? Will they be required to hand over Centrelink statements or any other private information? And how will that occur? Will the universities be given the responsibility of asking for that information in order to means test them? I mean, quite genuinely, this is a very unusual scheme, where the government is asking third-party institutions to means test students under circumstances where that could give rise to all sorts of quite significant privacy issues. So, could you explain how people's personal information is going to be handled?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 68,000 figure is what's been estimated by the department. I'm very confident that we've covered that at estimates on previous occasions, after the announcement was made. The negotiations and consultation with stakeholders are ongoing. Obviously working with the universities to implement this is important, because they are the ones that have the direct relationship with students. Obviously the privacy concerns are at the forefront of those discussions. As I mentioned, the guidelines will be disallowable instruments and will be tabled before that 1 July start date next year.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, given the universities may need to ask of students private information, will any further legislation be required in relation to the protection of those students' privacy? This gives rise to some quite significant legal issues, I put to you, and it is of concern—and my concerns have not been alleviated—that students are being required, or may be required, to hand that personal information over when there doesn't appear to be any cognisance, let alone provisions, in this bill which protects the privacy of thousands of students attending university.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Department of Education have considered this matter. Their advice is that universities already collect a range of personal and sensitive information about students. They also consider that the relevant legislation is clear about provider obligations relating to the protection of personal information.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I appreciate that they collect information in accordance with their legislative obligations. I suggest to you that the collection of private information for the purposes of means testing students doesn't come within the existing legislation. Can you give this Senate confidence that requests by universities for this information will comply with the law?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would ultimately be voluntary for the student to hand over any information. It wouldn't be compulsory for them to do it as part of the scheme.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is that requirement that students can do so voluntarily? By reason of the obligation being a voluntary obligation, doesn't that put students in a very invidious situation where, if they are being required to hand over personal information under circumstances where there's not a legislative basis for the universities to ask for that information—doesn't it put students in a very invidious position where, in order to get the payment, they might be facilitating the provision of private information which may otherwise be in breach of the law?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I go back to my previous point. Implications for students in providing this level of personal information to their providers were considered by the department, noting universities already collect and hold a range of personal and sensitive information about students. Division 179, 'Protection of personal information', of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 is clear about higher education provider obligations and procedures relating to the protection of personal information.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I well understand the provisions of the Higher Education Support Act in relation to the obligations of universities, but this is something very new. You're asking universities to ask for personal information for a very different purpose, not in relation to the student's enrolment and the student studying at university. I don't have any confidence that the government has got this right or that the government has appropriately thought through the privacy implications for students. I also raise very serious concerns that this puts universities in a very difficult position. Can you confirm whether these payments are subject to taxation?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they are.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the tax be withheld before the payment is made to the student?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it won't be withheld.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Universities are not being asked to withhold tax before a payment is made, so there will be taxation consequences for the receipt of the payment. If this payment is made and the taxation consequences are not dealt with at the time of the payment being made, isn't there a risk that students could end up with a taxation debt because they haven't actually had any taxation deducted from the payment?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a bit hard to speculate. Obviously individuals' tax arrangements are a matter for them.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you understand the point that I'm making. The point is that if the taxation issues are not dealt with at the time of making the payment, which ordinarily of course is the obligation in an employee-employer relationship, then that could lead to taxation consequences. I'm just not sure, and I'm concerned that that hasn't properly been thought through. If a student has to be receiving Centrelink and undertaking paid work for at least 15 hours per week, which I understand is the case, won't this mean that they are more likely to pay tax, and therefore won't this give rise to a situation where they are more exposed to the prospect of having to pay tax?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to get in the process of giving tax advice to people in various scenarios, but what I will say is that I'm very confident that this will be outlined in the program guidelines, and it will be made clear to people when they apply for the payment as well.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you have a copy of the guidelines that you can table now? That would be really helpful.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, sorry, I don't.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to this payment, I'm not asking you to give tax advice; I'm asking you to explain how the payment works and how universities can possibly administer this payment, particularly in light of the fact that you're dealing with, in some cases, students who have just left school. This could be the first time that they receive any sort of payment, and so it puts students in a pretty invidious position if they don't know the taxation consequences. Will the payments be made each week of the placement or in a lump sum? How will they be paid?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that those are the things that are being worked through as part of the consultation process.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When do you expect the consultation process to be completed, and what will be the timeframes for applications? I understand that students will need to make applications for the payment. How long will they need to make application before they actually are eligible, and what information will the student need to provide as part of that application?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those things are still being worked through as part of that consultation process.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did also ask as part of my question when that consultation process would be completed. It has been quite a number of months already. Could you just explain what the status of the consultation is?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously we know that we need to have this implemented by 1 July next year for those eligible. That work will be ongoing. I'm sure that, as soon as there is something ready to announce, you will be the first to know.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3045, as moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any appetite from honourable senators for further debate in committee? I intend to put the final questions and then report.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the report of the committee be adopted.

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

I move Greens amendment on Sheet 3185:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Senate calls on the Government to immediately legislate its pledges to raise the minimum repayment threshold for all student debt and introduce a marginal repayment system".

The:

The question before the Senate is that the amendment to the report from the committee of the whole be agreed to.