The CHAIRMAN (10:29): The Committee is considering the amendment moved by Senator Siewert on sheet 7485.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:30): Chair, if you recall, when we finished on this last session I was halfway through speaking on my amendment. I see the minister looking at me a bit strangely. I think I will go back to the top of my comments on the amendment so that we can reacquaint ourselves with where we were up to.

So this is an amendment. As you would be aware, the Greens are opposing this bill because we are concerned that the process is in fact taking us backwards in how we deal with ag-vet chemicals in this country. If this bill is going to succeed, which I understand from the numbers it probably will because the ALP are not supporting their own changes to the process, my amendment seeks to put in place a process to deal with chemicals that are judged to have unmanageable risk and those in the highest risk category.

We believe there is no doubt that some agricultural and veterinary chemicals have damaged human and environmental health—I do not think that is in dispute—and continue to pose risks to both. Risk management should be at the core of any registration program, and those chemicals that pose unacceptable and unmanageable risks should not be permitted in Australia. We want the approach to risk taken by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, to reflect contemporary science in toxicology and regulatory approaches in other countries. We are concerned that this in fact is not going to be the case.

Without the re-registration scheme and the associated regulations which this bill pertains to, there is still too much discretion being given to the APVMA to determine undue hazard to the safety of people and the environment, without a suitable framework under which to determine that risk. This amendment is no substitute for a proper re-registration scheme, but it will add to the criteria for reassessment and will operate to ensure that there are some clear and transparent decision-making criteria to guide the APVMA in its decision making about what to reassess.

This amendment asks for the reassessment to occur as soon as possible but is not time bound. This is less constraining than the re-registration process, which would have required the APVMA to undertake reassessment of those high-risk chemicals within 12 months. This amendment also calls on the APVMA to monitor what is happening internationally and to engage in reassessment when the UK, New Zealand, the USA or Canada bans a chemical product.

This amendment builds on the criteria we negotiated with the previous government, which were circulated to members, and is an attempt to build on all the work that has been done to get a more thorough process in this country. We supported the work that was previously done. We are disappointed the ALP is no longer supporting its own amendments. In fact, there are many chemicals that still need to be assessed and we are now going to tie up both the community and producers in ongoing debates and campaigns to get chemicals assessed, whereas through the previous amendments that were made in this place we had a proper process.

What we are trying to do is build an assessment process so that all people who are concerned about these issues actually understand the process and so there is a more defined process. At the moment, with the government taking away the amendments that were made, we are being taken back essentially to the bad old days when we all had to campaign to get chemicals assessed. There are still a number of grandfathered chemicals and, despite what both the ALP and the government have said, there are many chemicals that were grandfathered and that have not had contemporary assessments. As I articulated earlier, some of the previous work has been lost, so we do not know which chemicals were looked at by states. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) (10:34): Obviously the government is not supporting the Greens' amendment, and Senator Siewert acknowledged that in her remarks. I would like to reiterate a few points from what we said earlier and to counter some of the statements Senator Siewert has just made.

The government are not taking the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 right back to where it was prior to the Labor Party's amendments when they were previously in government; what we are doing is removing the compulsory reregistration process because we do believe there are sound procedures in place with which to manage agricultural chemicals. I do not think we differ from the Greens in requiring them to be safe for use, but we do think it is important to remove the compulsory reregistration process, as we have said before, because it is an excessive layer of regulation.

We can take into account and we do take into account what happens in other countries. I think that is a very important point to reiterate. Senator Siewert would probably know, having sat in estimates, that there are some actives that are not available for use in Australia that are available for use in other countries, so in some circumstances we do actually lead other countries. I recall the quite intensive discussion around omethoate that we had at Senate estimates a couple of years ago. At that time it was still available for use in New Zealand but was being removed for certain uses in Australia because of our concerns about the potential health impact on children. There was large discussion about its use on tomatoes and about our tomato exports to New Zealand.

We do have systems in place in Australia to deal with adverse events. I know Senator Siewert understands that. Given that we do take into account what happens overseas—we can take into account data that is produced overseas and events that occur overseas, such as a genuine prohibition in another country—that provides parameters for safe and sound use of agricultural chemicals in this country. It is important to note that studies have indicated that up to 20 per cent of our agricultural production could be lost without the use of agricultural chemicals. They are a very important element in our food security. Yes, we need to make sure that they are managed properly. Yes, we need to make sure that they are safe and have proper efficacy. The government believes the action it is taking with this legislation actually provides a sound regulatory framework to deal with the proper safety measures for agricultural chemicals but without overregulation.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:37): I will not detain the chamber very long. We have been debating the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014 on and off for a while. I want to make a couple of short points. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture was not meaning to suggest that the Greens are opposed to all chemical use with his comment that if we did not have chemicals we would lose 20 per cent of our production. We certainly do not come from the position that we need to stop all chemical use. We appreciate, and are fully aware of, the role that chemicals do play. We are concerned around the use of toxic chemicals in production. I will not go into the nature of the debate, but Fenthion is a classic example. The debate on that has been going on for 15 years. I think that is too long. It has delayed the industry being able to move to find alternatives. I do not want to see that happen with other chemicals.

I acknowledge that the minister is correct in saying that Australia has led other countries in some areas—I absolutely agree with that—but in other areas it has not. There are still a number of chemicals that are used in this country that are no longer in use in other markets. We believe we need a better process. We think this is a step backwards. We think we need a stronger process in place and that is why I moved this amendment. I understand the government is not going to support this amendment. We will be watching this process very carefully to see how the APVMA go about their assessment processes from now on. We think it is not going to be in the best interests of the industry in the long term because we think we will be back to the trenches fighting over particular chemicals rather than having a clear process for the assessment of chemicals, particularly those with unmanageable risks.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) (10:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (10:42): Labor will be supporting the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. On 15 and 16 November this year Brisbane will play host to arguably the most significant world leaders' summit, the G20. G20 members account for two-thirds of the world's population, around 80 per cent of global trade and, most notably, 85 per cent of the world's economy. Geographically, all the world's populated regions will be represented. The event itself is expected to have around 3,000 media representatives and around 4,000 delegates attend. It will place Brisbane at the centre of the world's attention at that time. It is a significant event that has as been brought to Australia by the previous government, which I will speak about in a moment.

The G20 is the place to discuss global economic and financial matters. The objects of the G20 are threefold: to modernise international financial architecture, to promote financial regulations that reduce risks and prevent future financial crises, and policy coordination between its members in order to achieve global economic stability and sustainable growth. The bill itself clarifies the interaction between the Queensland government's G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and the stand-alone bill proposed here. It was determined by the Queensland government that a separate act was needed because of the extra duties the Queensland Police Service would be facing. Those duties include: security for accommodation venues where meetings are being held, security for official parties and world leaders, motorcade routes and for other official events. That is on top of the everyday work the Queensland Police Service do in providing policing for the general public.

The extra powers granted under the Queensland act and this bill are similar to the ones granted to the APEC meeting in New South Wales in 2007 and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. This bill deals with any overlap powers regarding jurisdiction issues between state, federal and other authorised persons during the G20. This includes specified locations, such as Brisbane airport. But the important thing to note here is that these powers have a sunset clause built into the federal legislation proposed for the day after the conclusion of the conference.

It is worthy to note the achievements of the previous government in supporting and eventually playing host to this important event. When in government, former Prime Minister Rudd played a substantial role in making the G20 an internationally significant world event bringing together the major economies of the world. It was former Prime Minister Gillard, while at the G20 in Cannes in 2011, who secured the 2014 G20 Summit for Australia.

I note that in Queensland the state Labor opposition supported the Queensland government's bill. The federal opposition will also support the federal government's bill. We, as an opposition, understand the need for the G20 conference to be organised as safely and securely as possible. We want the focus of the G20 to be on the important financial reform tasks at hand. This bill will make sure that any issues between state and federal jurisdictions are resolved so that the G20 can run smoothly.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (10:45):    I rise to speak on the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 and to highlight the relationship between this bill and the rights of everyday Australians—rights that are crucial but that, until relatively recently, we perhaps have taken for granted, assuming that they will always be there.

The Australian Greens appreciate that this complementary bill is not of itself a draconian piece of legislation. However, it is legislation which is designed to facilitate laws that definitely are draconian, and that is where our concerns lie. This bill operates to clarify the interaction between provisions in the Queensland G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and existing Commonwealth legislation as they apply to the Brisbane Airport during the 2014 G20 Summit, which will be held in November this year.

The Australian Greens cannot in good conscience support this Commonwealth law, because of the nature of the Queensland state law it is designed to facilitate. Supporting this bill would effectively facilitate the erosion of rights by the Queensland government against its own people that has been occurring and will continue to occur around the G20 summit, and would imply that this erosion of rights is acceptable.

This sorry tale goes back to October last year when the Queensland parliament rushed through the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 ahead of the G20 events which will take place later this year. The Queensland legislation embodies extreme laws which do many oppressive things. They strengthen existing police powers of search and arrest; they declare special security areas in Brisbane and Cairns; they create offences for actions like crossing barriers and disrupting meetings; they exclude local people from their very own areas of residence if they fail criminal history checks; and they ban various objects, including household items, from security areas. It might be understandable that they want to ban whips and weapons, but they also ban cans, jars, banners, reptiles and even eggs. These laws have attracted condemnation as both draconian and impractical from many groups, including civil liberties organisations and legal bodies like the Queensland Law Society

As well as these concerns, the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered the Queensland act and notes that it has provisions which potentially engage and limit multiple human rights, many of which we, as a nation, are required to uphold by international obligations that we have voluntarily signed up to. These include the right to life; a prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to security of the person and freedom from arbitrary detention; the right to humane treatment in detention; the right to a fair trial and a fair hearing; the right to privacy and reputation; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to freedom of association.

Given the implications of the Queensland act, the Commonwealth parliament's human rights committee, of which I am a member, has decided to undertake an assessment of its compatibility with human rights and has sought further information from the Commonwealth Minister for Justice.

Many in the community are already clear that the provisions in the Queensland laws unduly restrict the human rights and civil liberties of Queensland citizens and particularly target the rights which are so fundamental to our democracy—the right to peaceful protest and the expression of political opinion. Here we see legitimate security concerns being trumped by legal overreach which is designed to stifle alternative views.

I was very interested to note that one of the first questions and actions in the Senate of my Senate colleague Senator Leyonhjelm was to ask a question regarding the G20 security laws. I hope that he will speak on this today because, avowedly being a person who professes to be interested in rights and freedoms, it will be interesting to see the stance that he takes in relation to this legislation.

It is a matter of legal overreach. There are legitimate security concerns—of course there are—but in this case, clearly, many of the laws are designed to stifle legitimate political opinion which is different to that of those who seek to stifle it. Why else would large banners expressing a differing point of view to that held by Prime Minister Tony Abbott be banned? How is that a security issue?

The G20 summit is in fact a great opportunity for Australia to model a robust democracy, where we do have freedom of expression and we do have freedom of political thought.. It should be a chance to showcase our proud democratic tradition to the world. World nations will be represented at this G20 summit. Instead, we have Queensland laws being extreme and, indeed, only time will tell whether they will even be workable.

The Australian Greens will not be a party to restricting human rights where the restriction is unreasonable, unnecessary and disproportionate .    We will not support this federal G20 bill because we will not facilitate these laws and assist in expanding their scope. Despotic laws like these have no place in our Australian democracy.

I think it is important to give some context to this legislation in terms of an increasing trend we are seeing throughout Australia. As a federal parliamentarian, I respect the responsibility that state legislatures have for law and order. However, it is with alarm that I am witnessing a disturbing trend around Australia across the states and territories. Communities are being increasingly disempowered and having their time-honoured rights stripped away in many cases. I think it is really important that the parliament is cognisant of these changes and can see this trend. I certainly know that there are members of the Australian community who are becoming increasingly aware of it.

So it is that in Victoria we have seen the Napthine government amending its Summary Offence Act earlier this year to attack the right to peaceful protest and the right to assembly by giving the police extensive move on powers among other measures, reminiscent of the worst of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland

It is chastening to note that at the time of Nelson Mandela's death, when world leaders had gathered to mourn his passing and pay tribute to his courage and leadership, journalist Jeff Sparrow pointed out in an article in The Guardian that many of the actions that won freedom for his people—that we now laud as being successful and honourable—would now be illegal in Australia.

Sparrow observed:

The right to protest does not matter when everyone agrees with you. It takes no courage whatsoever to praise Mandela in 2013. But in the early days of the anti-apartheid struggle, things were very different.

He points out that in Australia, anti-apartheid activists faced harassment. During the protests against apartheid that took place when South African sporting teams toured Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen called a state of emergency, and unleashed some of the most savage police violence this country has ever seen. That is in my living history. I remember those scenes. Yet it is somewhat chilling to realise that back then Australian legislation was not nearly as draconian as it has since become.

Mandela's recent death saw bipartisan support from Labor and the coalition. But, as Sparrow remarks, there is also bipartisan support from Labor and the coalition for security legislation in Australia that means, for instance, that it is an offence punishable by 25 years in prison to recklessly provide funds to terrorists, or supporters of terrorists, even if they are overseas. He suggests that if that law had been in place 40 years ago it would have been a serious crime to raise money for Mandela—a man committed to the armed struggle in South Africa to achieve freedom for his people.

It has been argued by Monash law lecturer Patrick Emerton that if the antiterrorism laws had been in force in the 1980s—the ones that we have now—it may well have been a criminal offence in Australia, punishable by up to 25 years in prison, to teach members of anti-apartheid organisations to use a photocopier.

If we go to Tasmania, we see that last year the Giddings government legislated to ban anti-abortion protesters from protesting within 150 metres of abortion clinics. But the legislation was not specific to that target. Next time it may be a different protest against a different target. Draconian laws make us all vulnerable. Then, in the heat of the Tasmanian election campaign, the would-be Premier at the time, Mr Will Hodgman, clearly thought it was acceptable to up the ante and committed to introducing mandatory jail terms for environmental protesters who disrupt business.

Jeff Sparrow points out again in the same Guardian article of 11 December 2013:

In the past, even many politicians accepted political protests as a legitimate form of popular expression, a way that ordinary people could shape the direction of the nation.

However, with time it seems that markets have become king and individuals these days are seen more as consumers than as citizens. So street demonstrations have come to be seen not as part of democracy, which they used to be seen as, but as an attack on it, since they inhibit the market exchanges that are taken as society's most important element. In other words, the rights of businesses trump the rights of protesters. Essentially, that is what Hodgman was arguing in Tasmania.

In other states and in the Northern Territory we have seen the wholesale introduction of mandatory sentencing, which imposes minimum mandatory sentences for certain offences. But, despite removing this time-honoured role for judges to exercise discretion and judgement—what they are actually employed to do—by taking into account the circumstances surrounding a particular offence and a particular offender, there is absolutely no evidence that mandatory sentencing reduces crime.

There is much evidence, however, that it leads to manifest injustice in some cases, as in the infamous Northern Territory case that appalled people around Australia in 1999, when Kevin Cook, a homeless person, was sentenced to 12 months in prison under the Northern Territory's notorious three-strikes law that was in effect at the time. His crime? Stealing a towel from a clothes line—12 months in prison. Mandatory sentencing condemns some minor offenders to totally unjust and disproportionate punishments, punishments which actually offend most Australians' sense of what is fair and legitimate.

Back in the 1990s the Northern Territory government were pioneers of mandatory sentencing. They were at the forefront, along with Western Australia, when they introduced mandatory minimum sentences for property crime in 1997. This was a notorious regime. Offenders were imprisoned for 14 days for a first-strike property offence, 90 days for a second and 12 months for a third, irrespective of how minor. So at that time there was a case of a 16-year-old with one prior conviction who went to prison for 28 days for stealing a bottle of spring water. We had the case of a 17-year-old juvenile first offender who went to prison for 14 days for stealing orange juice and lollies, and we had a 15-year-old Indigenous youth who went to prison for 20 days for stealing less than $100 worth of stationery from his school. That young man died in custody while serving his sentence.

Yet, while these laws were in place in the Northern Territory, property crime went up. These laws were then repealed in 2001, and after that property crime went down. That is based on figures from the Office of Crime Prevention, a part of the Northern Territory's Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. But despite the criticism that mandatory sentencing has attracted universally from lawyers and lawyers bodies here and overseas, the Northern Territory government reintroduced mandatory sentencing laws for a second time on Valentine's Day this year. Again, these laws will increase the minimum time that offenders have to spend in prison and restrict the ability of judges to suspend sentences for certain crimes. So their failed experiment is being repeated.

Western Australia too has mandatory sentencing, for assaults against police and public officers and for dangerous drivers who cause death or serious injury during a police pursuit. The Barnett government also wants to introduce mandatory sentences for assault during a burglary. In March this year the Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia, Justice Martino, made it clear that he believes that any reduction in sentencing discretion increases injustice. He pointed out that experience has shown that rigidity increases rather than decreases injustice.

In New South Wales mandatory sentences are now imposed for king-hit assaults involving drugs or alcohol, despite the fact that they are totally unproven as a means of reducing crime. The New South Wales Bar Association president, Phillip Boulten SC, has stated:

There's no evidence at all that mandatory sentencing ever decreases the amount of crime that's committed and it has the ability to act unfairly on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

Still, it is the Queensland government that has to get the gold star at this moment in history for its across-the-board attacks on its own citizens' rights and long-standing legal conventions. For this reason, it has been in the news constantly with concerns being raised by the various things that it is doing. The G20 laws are just another egregious example from the Queensland parliament.

Previously, we have seen the so-called 'bikie laws' curtailing freedom of association and imposing punishments, including extensive solitary confinement. These are incursions into civil liberties that should worry us all. Today it may well be bikies, or even ex-bikies who may be trying to turn over a new leaf, but tomorrow it could be any other class or group of citizens being targeted by the state. If we give away the long-standing rights that we have we lose them and they are not there when some of us need them. Freedom of association is something implied in our very Constitution, as the High Court set out in 1997. But this vital implied right is, sadly, not reflected in our state legislatures.

New South Wales and Western Australia have virtually identical provisions to those of Queensland that say if you are under a control order you cannot associate with another controlled member of a declared organisation. Back in my home state in South Australia, it is an offence for any person to associate with a member of a declared organisation more than six times in a 12-month period. Victorian legislation is similar to Queensland's by saying that a control order can prevent a person from associating with a member of a 'criminal' organisation. In the Northern Territory a controlled person cannot associate with another controlled person. All this is in spite of the evidence that members' criminal activities tend to occur independently from the formal structure of motorcycle organisations. But it is only in Queensland at this stage that people are detained under such laws in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a cell that is the size of a large dining table, while wearing a pink uniform.

None of this legislation is actually limited to bikie gangs; it can be extended to other organisations. The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act, for instance, includes references to:

… any other group of 3 or more persons by whatever name called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal.

As pointed out by Robert Corr, prosecutor with the DPP, in an article in the Overland of October 2013:

The Queensland Law Society notes this could include sporting groups and book clubs; the onus will be on the accused, rather than the state, to prove that ‘the relevant association is an association whose members do not have as their purpose, or one of their purposes, engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, declared offences’.

And it is only in Queensland, a state which has taken years to recover from the corruption and gerrymandering under the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government, where the government is rushing through laws which will disenfranchise Queenslanders under the guise of electoral reform. The Newman government is introducing the first voter ID laws in Australia while reducing the amount of electoral funding available to smaller parties considerably. Its Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, presides over anti-union lawns which are so extreme that even at the Institute of Public Affairs has condemned them.

Between its attacks on freedom of association and its treatment of prisoners detained under related laws; its attacks on Queenslanders' abilities to participate in democratic processes, like elections and union activities; and its attacks on people's ability to go about their daily lives during the G20, the Newman government's record is terrible. To add insult to injury, the government, the Premier and the Attorney-General of Queensland have been involved in concerted attacks against judges and lawyers who speak out against these human rights abuses and against lawyers who have the temerity to defend those charged with crimes in Queensland.

Constitutional law expert, Professor Gerard Carney, has said that he has never heard of the government in Australian modern history accusing members of the judiciary of living in ivory towers and being unaccountable to the community, saying it is unprecedented and incomprehensible. He is reported on ABC radio as saying:

One of the paramount principles that we have enjoyed is the benefit of is public confidence in the integrity of our judges and our courts.

That is in fact now a constitutional requirement that nothing be done in a way to impair public confidence in that institutional integrity.

To have the Premier come out in those terms is appalling, it damages our constitutional system and the attorney traditionally has had the role to protect the courts from that sort of scandalous comment.

The Greens will not accept erosions of our fundamental rights and freedoms, wherever governments in all Australian jurisdictions are attacking them. We will fight those erosions in whatever forum we can. We will not pass federal laws that enable them, and that extends to this federal G20 bill. The Senate should reject this bill and affirm Australians' rights to participate fully, equally and freely in our democratic society. We should be an example of a robust democracy when other nations converge on Brisbane for the G20 events.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:05): As a Queensland senator I rise to speak against the G20 Safety and Security Complimentary Bill 2014. I echo the concerns of my colleague, Greens' senator, Penny Wright about the Queensland Newman government attacks on civil liberties and democratic rights.

For two years I have watched as the state LNP government under Campbell Newman has taken my home state of Queensland further and further down a very dark road. Since they were elected in 2012 I have watched the Newman government launch savage budget cuts; sack 14,000 nurses, school teachers and other public servants; roll back a litany of environmental protections; and vilify or isolate anyone who does not share their views. I have watched them impose ever more pernicious and dangerous restrictions on civil liberties, sliding back to the bad old days of Sir Joh.

This G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 would facilitate the imposition of draconian and unnecessary laws in Queensland in relation to the G20 conference under the guise of safety and security. Of course, the safety of everyone, including protesters, at such events is of critical importance. But the Queensland legislation which this bill facilitates goes far beyond what is required. It tramples on the fundamental right to peaceful protest and freedom of assembly. We are being asked not only to ignore the Newman government's continuous disregard for civil liberties but facilitate the implementation of those restrictions by passing this bill. We are being asked to stand by while these laws are waved through. The Greens will not. We will oppose this bill.

The Queensland G20 legislation goes well beyond previous security measures in Australia—beyond those seen at the 2007 APEC conference in Sydney and the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth. By itself, that should ring alarm bells. Police in Queensland already have the power to deal with breaches of the peace, and offences already exist for assault, unlawful assembly and riot. The Queensland Law Society has told us there is no need to create new offences. The laws make it illegal to disrupt any part of the G20. Unfortunately, 'disrupt' is not defined. Presumably it also includes making a noise which can be heard inside the meetings. However much Prime Minister Tony Abbott would like to avoid hearing the many voices calling for stronger action on climate change and compassion for those living in poverty overseas, clamping down on free speech is not the way to go.

The laws create extraordinary powers for police to enter properties and carry out searches without a warrant—and without the requirement for a reasonable suspicion of an offence. These powers include frisk searches and strip searches under certain circumstances. The laws create a range of ill-defined new offences which will make it extremely difficult for people to know whether they are acting lawfully or not and these offences attract penalties ranging up to $11,000. A person who may disrupt any part of the G20 can be declared to be a prohibited person by the police commissioner and on that basis will be subject to eviction from security areas and to increased search powers. There is no obligation to inform those affected in a timely manner and they will have no opportunity to challenge this blacklisting. Evidence forming the basis of these designations will be kept secret.

These laws create a list of prohibited items which is extremely broad. It includes common protest items such as large banners and megaphones but it also strays into the ludicrous. Among the banned items are surfboards, cans of food, eggs and lizards. Under these laws if someone is arrested for a nonviolent offence involving disrupting the G20, a presumption against bail is created. That, of course, reverses the normal bail rules, something which is reserved only for the worst offences such as murder. These laws have been widely condemned by human rights lawyers, the Queensland civil liberties council and the Queensland Law Society.

The Canadian government imposed similar laws when Toronto hosted the G20 conference in 2010. During that conference over 1,100 people were arrested, of whom only 40 were ever convicted of an offence. Seven hundred and seventy-nine were released without charge. Over 30 police, including four senior officers, were recommended for disciplinary hearings. It was the largest mass arrest in Canadian peacetime history. The vague nature of the Queensland laws and the extraordinary powers conferred on police mean the risk of abuse and discrimination by police, especially against homeless people and young people, is acute. The G20 should be an opportunity to reaffirm and protect fundamental rights and freedoms, not to needlessly undermine them.

Of particular concern to the civil liberties council of Queensland are the restrictions imposed on the Cairns central business district during the September session of the conference. The rate of homelessness in Cairns is significantly higher than the average rate of homelessness in Queensland and these laws are particularly concerning for the welfare and wellbeing of homeless persons, who may be targeted as breaching the ill-defined disruption causes of the G20 laws. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up approximately 16 per cent of homeless people in Cairns, which is double the state average. It is deeply concerning that the Newman government would rather impose temporary laws to hide a gross injustice from the rest of the world than to actually find positive solutions for the situation of one of Queensland's most marginalised groups.

On this issue, the Queensland state Labor Party has shown a disheartening lack of backbone. Opposition police spokesman Bill Byrne MP has told the state parliament that the legislation should have gone further. He says:

I am somewhat surprised that some of the offence provisions have quite light sentences attached, and I consider the boundaries of the restricted and declared areas to be minimalist.

The legal changes I have described are deeply troubling but they come in the context and background of the way Premier Newman's government has trashed the independence of what was one of the best anticorruption bodies in Australia, the CCC—formerly the CMC. New legislation gives the Newman government total control over the appointment of the chair of the CCC, scrapping the system of bipartisan appointments. The government appointed chair now has extraordinary powers to veto or terminate any investigation, turning the CCC into a one-man band. The Attorney-General now has the power to veto any research project launched by the CCC. The legislation also criminalises complaint, with penalties for making a reckless complaint. This attack on the CCC comes after allegations that the government's hand-picked acting CMC chair misled the CMC's parliamentary oversight committee. When that committee began an investigation, the Premier and the Attorney-General sacked the whole committee and reconstituted it with a compliant government majority. Tony Fitzgerald, whose anticorruption inquiry brought down another conservative Queensland government all those years ago, has called Premier Newman and Attorney-General Bleijie 'inexperienced, arrogant fools' in response to this outrageous attack on one of Australia's finest corruption-fighting bodies. Mr Fitzgerald has said these changes are the final step needed to remove the commission's independence entirely and bring it under complete government control.

Undermining civil liberties is, in fact, the only thing the Queensland LNP government has shown any talent for whatsoever. Since coming to power, Campbell Newman's government has embarked on an unprecedented campaign to rip up fundamental rights including, but not limited to, free speech, freedom of association, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and equality before the law. The now infamous VLAD law, or the Vicious Lawless Associations Disestablishment Act, is the perfect example. It has been sold as only applying to illegal motorcycle gangs but of course it does not; it does not mention motorcycles once. It applies to any gathering of three or more people who may be part of a formal or informal organisation whose purpose includes committing certain offences. The Queensland Law Society has warned these laws are so broad they could apply to virtually any type of club or association—swimming clubs, RSLs, school P&Cs or, indeed, a group of friends out for a stroll. The VLAD Act imposes truly enormous mandatory sentences—either 15 or 25 years without parole. As barrister and human rights advocate Stephen Keim SC has said:

The VLAD Act will not be wheeled out on every occasion it could be used. It will be used for the disadvantaged and unpopular.

This is precisely why civil liberties are important. Abuse always begins when the government finds a public scapegoat, but that scapegoat will not remain the primary target for long.

Brash law and order policies are a smokescreen for other attacks on the disadvantaged and the voiceless, including cuts to health and education, injured workers and the natural environment. It is our duty to call out this deception wherever we see it and to oppose these senseless attacks on civil liberties. The actions of Campbell Newman and the government are the actions of a bully. This is our chance to stand up to the bullies in the Queensland LNP government. This bill offers an opportunity for all parties to stand up to the creeping attacks on civil liberties by the Queensland LNP government, and I call on all parties to oppose it. Sadly, I note that it is very telling that both big parties are backing this bill.

On the G20, climate change clearly will be the biggest cost to our economy in the long term, but it is not on the agenda at the G20. Even though our allies have reached out and asked that climate change be discussed, Mr Tony Abbott's fingers remain firmly fixed in his ears. Prime Minister Abbott has the blinkers fixed tight over his eyes and seems to care nought for the effect on our environment or Australians jobs or economic security in the long term. We also see that fossil fuel subsidies, which have been previously discussed, are not on the agenda at the G20. I note with some amusement and horror that Australia has previously used its diplomatic weight to change the resolution on fossil fuel subsidies to be a ban on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, of course then arguing that Australia's fossil fuel subsidies were somehow efficient and therefore exempt from that ban.

I want to also touch on gender equality. We saw this morning a report released by Oxfam calling for gender equality and participation to be on the agenda at the G20—putting gender on the agenda, if you like. The report out today shows that globally it would take about 75 years for women to achieve equal pay. The unpaid work that women do is subsidising the economy. Women do an average of two to five hours more unpaid work than do men, says this report this morning, and we know in Australia that we still have a gender pay gap of more than 17 per cent and that women still do more than 70 per cent of the unpaid caring work. But instead of these important issues being put on the G20 agenda, we see more silencing dissent from this government. They do not want to talk about those key issues at the G20 and they want to unnecessarily restrict the rights of not just protesters but also local residents during the G20. The Greens will stand up for civil liberties and freedom of association and we will oppose this draconian bill.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (11:17): I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. I thank the Labor Party for its support for this legislation. I will reply briefly to some of the observations from Senator Wright and Senator Waters. There is an old saying that if you live long enough you will see everything. But I never thought I would serve in the Senate long enough to hear members of the Australian Greens represent themselves to be champions of freedom of speech, because on every single occasion that the government has sought to advance the cause of freedom of speech it has found no more trenchant opponents than the Australian Greens. Whether the issue be the right of a diversity of voices to be heard in the climate change debate, whether the issue be the right of a diversity of voices to be heard in the same-sex marriage debate, whether the issue be the reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—whatever the issue, I have never before seen a Greens senator take the side of freedom.

Senator Wright, you quote from a journalist called Mr Sparrow, who said the test of whether you believe in freedom of expression is whether or not it extends beyond your comfort zone, or words to that effect. Well, Senator Wright—if I may say so through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—might I invite you to apply that test to yourself. The test of whether you believe in freedom of expression is not whether or not it is for views that you find congenial. It is for whether or not you would extend the same right to views that you find uncongenial.

I turn now more specifically to the provisions of the bill. When one heard the rather excitable rhetoric of Senator Wright and Senator Waters—words like 'despotism' and 'tyranny' and all of that rather heated and overexcited language—one would have thought that a new dark age was about to dawn as a result of this bill, the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. It does help, if I may say so with respect, Senator Wright and Senator Waters, to read the bill first, because if you read the bill you would learn that the provisions of the bill extend to the precincts of the Brisbane airport—and only to the precincts of the Brisbane airport—for a brief few days during which the G20 is going to be held in the city of Brisbane. I am bound to say that I would not have thought that extending certain measures for a few brief days to the precincts of the Brisbane airport betokens or heralds the dawn of a new dark age in the state of Queensland.

But, of course, then the Greens senators say that the vice of this bill is not merely that it extends to the Brisbane airport but that it applies, and thereby implicitly endorses, the Queensland parliament's G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and it is to that bill that one looks to find the real vice of the draconian provisions, these anti-freedom-of-speech provisions. What the Greens senators did not tell us is that the very basis of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 of the Queensland parliament is a guarantee of freedom of speech and of lawful assembly That is to be found in section 18 of the act.

There is one restriction which is a novel restriction—that is, people who wish to exercise the right of freedom of speech and freedom of protest are asked to do so in declared areas. I would have thought that as a matter of common sense when the leaders of the 20 most important nations in the world are gathered within one metropolis together with their entourages and the press of the world, as a matter of ordinary and sensible people management, requesting those who wish to exercise their right of free speech by way of protest do so in declared areas of the city is not a particularly unreasonable restraint. It certainly does not betoken despotism or tyranny, Senator Wright.

There are, however, in section 18 of the Queensland act, in which this Commonwealth bill would extend to the precincts of the Brisbane Airport, these other restrictions on assemblies: 'The assembly must not disrupt the G20 meeting'—is it suggested that there ought to be a right to disrupt the G20 meeting?; 'The assembly will not be lawful if an offence is committed by those participating in the assembly'—is it suggested by the Greens senators that it is some burdensome imposition on people's rights that their assembly is declared unlawful if it is used as an occasion or a venue or a pretext for the commission of criminal offences? An assembly is also not lawful if a 'violent disruption' is occurred by those participating. An assembly is also not lawful if it involves damage or destruction to property.

Those are the restrictions that are said to be so draconian and despotic that in a city which—and I am a citizen of the City of Brisbane, I might tell, you Mr Acting Deputy President—will never have been so busy, with the leaders of the world, we ask people who want to exercise their freedom to protest and object to whatever they may wish to protest and object to confine themselves to certain designated areas. I am a person who does believe in freedom of speech. I do not just invoke the rhetoric of it, like Senator Wright and Senator Waters did. I do not think that is an unreasonable restraint for a few days. Beyond that, I do not think committing offences, committing crimes, disrupting meetings, destroying or damaging property or engaging in the violent disruption of civil activities in a city are any part of a legitimate right of protest—nor would, I think, most people regard that as a particularly legitimate form of protest.

The right of freedom of protest and freedom of expression that you invoke—although you never observe in your own political lives—will be protected by this bill, but the government merely asks that those who wish to exercise that right do so in declared areas. That is the Queensland parliament's bill.

As I said a moment ago, the Commonwealth bill will merely extend those provisions to the precincts of the Brisbane Airport. Let me make a few more general remarks, by way of summing up. This bill will contribute to effective security arrangements for the G20 summit to be held in Brisbane later this year. The Prime Minister has described the G20 summit as the most significant gathering of leaders our nation has ever hosted, and so it will be. Leaders representing two-thirds of the world's population, 75 per cent of global trade and 85 per cent of global GDP will meet in Brisbane, in November, to shape the global response to the economic challenges we currently face.

There was some criticism by Senator Wright and, in particular, by Senator Waters that there were certain items that were not prioritised on the G20 agenda. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you, sir, would know, at each G20 the host nation designates certain themes that are to be given particular emphasis. This year, the Abbott government has identified the economic challenges faced by the G20 nations as the topics to be given particular emphasis. I doubt many sensible people would argue that the prioritisation of economic issues, particularly in the world's present economic affairs, is not a very sensible choice. The summit is an opportunity for Australia to play a leadership role in the world's response to global economic challenges. The summit will also put Queensland and my own home city, Brisbane, on the global centre stage, joining the echelons of elite cities that have previously hosted this event, such as Seoul, London and Toronto.

It is a privilege for Australia and Queensland to host an event of this magnitude, but this privilege brings with it a responsibility. Effective security arrangements will be a necessary component of ensuring the success of this event. The Queensland government has acted the legislation, to which I referred a moment ago, to give police and other authorised persons powers to protect our high-profile guests and the public during this important event. That includes powers that will apply at Brisbane Airport, which is a Commonwealth place. This bill does not extend the application of the Queensland legislation or the powers it confers. The bill will simply confirm that the provisions in the Queensland legislation and those in the existing Commonwealth aviation legislation apply concurrently at Brisbane Airport. It will also provide that in the event of any overlap the provisions of the Queensland act prevail.

I am at pains to point out, as I reminded honourable senators a moment ago, those provisions of the Queensland act include the statutory guarantee, under section 18 of the Queensland act, of a right of peaceful, lawful assembly and protest. The provisions will avoid confusion about the source of powers a police officer or other authorised person is using in a particular situation. The bill will sunset shortly, after the Leaders Summit.

The government is proud to facilitate and support the package of the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. The bill is an important contribution by the Australian government to ensure that legislative ambiguity does not impair the ability of police and others to guarantee the security of this important event, and the bill, by adopting the guarantees of freedom of peaceful protest in the Queensland act, will also serve the very value which Greens senators, in their contributions, have espoused. I thank senators for those contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (11:37): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (11:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:38): The Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 purports to implement a coalition election commitment. Indeed, it might be said that it was the only policy on skills and training in the Real Solutions manifesto that the then opposition touted during its campaign. This is a policy that promised that a coalition government:

… will provide better support for Australia's apprentices.

Of course, it sounded good, but the detail was particularly hazy. What was not mentioned in that manifesto was that the coalition as a government intended to scrap the $1 billion Tools For Your Trade program—which is a Labor program—and this has now been done as a result of the government's budget measures.

This is a kick in the guts for apprentices. What the program allowed for was $5,500 grants to be made for apprentices for the cost of tools, books and equipment. What is replacing it is the government's initiative of debt of $20,000. That is what the Trade Support Loans program established by this bill provides for—that is, a concessional, income contingent loan with a lifetime limit of $20,000, repayable when the individual's income reaches the HECS-HELP threshold. This bill provides for a 20 per cent discount on the loan on successful completion of the apprenticeship. If the loans, even with the discount, are promised then the claim that it was a 'better support for Australian apprentices' certainly looks, in my view, very limited in terms of any beneficiaries that would actually take advantage of this program.

Opposition senators and members have been inundated with messages from apprentices who are anxious about what these new debts mean and what they will involve for people over their working lives. In particular, those who started their apprenticeship before the election are angry that the goal posts have been moved and that they will go into debt to buy tools and other equipment they need for their training, which is not what they understood would be the case when they actually started their apprenticeship. This strikes me as another example of where the coalition was content throughout the election to give people the impression that something would occur that was in complete and sharp contrast with what actually has occurred in government. So I would ask for the simple meaning in the English language of 'better support'. Is it reasonable to interpret the term 'better support' to mean that apprentice electricians would no longer be able to buy expensive voltage-testing equipment and safety gear without taking out a loan? Would it be reasonable to assume that 'better support' would mean that apprentice chefs would no longer be able to buy the expensive knives that they need without taking out a loan? Would it be reasonable to assume that hairdressers would no longer be able to buy their scissors, hairdryers, straighteners and curlers without taking out a loan? Would it be reasonable to assume that apprentice plumbers and mechanics would no longer be able to buy their expensive tool kits without having to take out a loan?

While Labor will not oppose the bill, we will, however, make it very clear that we only do so because there is no other financial support that is being provided to support apprentices. We will be proposing two second reading amendments—one that I will be moving and one that Senator Lines will be moving—which would address some of our concerns. I now move:

   At the end of the motion, add:

      but the Senate notes that the Government has failed to:

      (a) advise apprentices before the election that they would be abolishing the Tools for Your Trade program, thus leaving Trade Support Loans as the only form of assistance for the purchase of tools;

      (b) adequately ensure that clear and easily understood explanations of the loan, the indexing and the repayment requirements are provided to all apprentices in a consistent format, in particular for school-based apprentices;

      (c) put in place adequate privacy protections for the large volumes of information that will be acquired through the Trade Support Loans Program; and

      (d) offer:

         (i) fair and reasonable transition arrangements for current apprentices; and

         (ii) apprentices the option of lump sum payments in order to purchase expensive items.

This second reading amendment seeks to have the Senate acknowledge that this government failed to advise apprentices before the election that it would be abolishing the Tools For Your Trade program, thus leaving Trade Support Loans as the only forms of assistance that are available for the purchase of tools; secondly, adequately ensure that clear and easily understood explanations of the loan, the indexing and the repayment requirements are provided to all apprentices in a consistent format, in particular for school-based apprentices; thirdly, failed to put in place adequate privacy protections for the large volumes of information that will be acquired through the Trade Support Loan program; and, fourthly, failed to offer fair and reasonable transition arrangements for current apprentices and the option of lump-sum repayments in order to purchase expensive items.

We have concerns about the methods for achieving the approval for parents and guardians of apprentices under the age of 16. We may well see situations where 16-year-olds are required to take out loan arrangements, especially in the case of school based apprentices at the point of signing up for loans. Senator Lines will be taking up these concerns with her contribution. Paragraph (a) of the amendment acknowledges the lack of openness and honesty in the legislation and that the government did not tell—just simply did not tell—apprentices that it would be axing the Tools For Your Trade program. It duped them by promising better support while intending to lump them with a massive debt. This is a low trick. It is in fact indicated by a number of apprentices who have understood what is going on and have advised the opposition, accordingly.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment emphasises the need for apprentices to be given clear and easily accessible information about the new loans. You would expect normal consumer protection arrangements would provide better arrangements than these—talk laden with terms such as 'concessional interest rates' and 'indexation to the CPI' is neither clear nor easily accessible for most people. That is what we want to know. In simple and direct terms, I think we are entitled to know—and I expect to pursue this through the committee stages—what are the repayments? How are they going to be calculated? What is the effective interest rate and how will it be calculated?    The government has failed to explain these measures, and it is information that apprentices have a right to know before they take out a loan. Instead, what we have heard from the Minister for Industry is that he has chosen to admonish apprentices. Without offering any proof whatsoever he has accused apprentices of spending their Tools For Your Trade programs on tattoos and mag wheels.

In estimates we asked for the evidence that supported these extraordinary accusations, but we could get nothing; neither could the department provide any evidence. We learned from the media reports—for instance, from The Courier Mail, 7 July—that the minister has 'collated a wide-ranging list from employers and training providers' that he believes justifies the replacement of the grants with loans. The accusations have varied in the alleged object of spending, although not in substance. Instead of mag wheels and tattoos, we have been told that apprentices allegedly spend their grants on surfboards, parties and hotel rooms. The newspaper reports have given no indication of the alleged number of people who are rorting the system. Even if the allegations are true, there has been nothing to substantiate the claims that the rorters are numerous, let alone typical apprentices. But the government would like us to believe that they are typical. To win support for the trade loans bill, it has now sprung these claims, just as it sprung these odious measures through this particular bill.

The truth of the allegations is that this is about sneering, appealing to a class-based prejudice and trying to generate support for stereotypical prejudice against blue-collar workers. It is shameful language for the minister to use and he should retract it, and the government should apologise. Australian apprentices, the skilled workers of the future, deserve to be treated with a bit more respect.    Yet rather than do so, the minister preferred to take unsubstantiated cheap shots at them. He continues to avoid giving clear and concise information about the liabilities that apprentices will face under these new loan arrangements.

Paragraph (c) of Labor's second reading amendment deals with the concerns about privacy, which have been raised by the ACTU in its submission to the Senate Economics Committee, which looked at this particular legislation:

Under clause 75 of the Bill, a person only has to take an oath or affirmation to protect information they receive from apprentices. There do not appear to be any repercussions for a breach of these provisions of failing to adhere to an oath or affirmation. By contrast, under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 the person/officer dealing with personal information has more onerous obligations to meet and the penalty is two years jail.

The bill's explanatory memorandum notes:

A large amount of personal information will likely be acquired through the operation of the Trade Support Loans Programme …

Apprentices will be required to provide tax file numbers and other sensitive information to apprenticeship centres. Yet there are no repercussions for breaches of privacy under this legislation. The issue has been raised on numerous occasions but the government has failed to address those concerns or to put any necessary protections in place.

Paragraph (d) of the amendment concerns the plight of apprentices who based their financial plans on the Tools For Your Trade program and the decision that the loans should be paid in monthly instalments. The apprentices who made their plans expecting that the Tools For Your Trade program would continue did so in good faith. Of course, we now know that it was not justified because this is a government that has no good faith. This is a government that said in opposition during the election it would do one thing and in government said completely the opposite. In fairness, the government should have put transitional arrangements in place for the affected apprentices.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Senator KIM CARR: You doubt that? Do you doubt the fact that this is a government that has throughout its campaign told lies.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order, Senator Carr! Address your remarks to the chair.

Senator KIM CARR: This is a government that misled the Australian people throughout its approach to winning office. And when it got into office, it has chosen to repudiate those commitments in a whole range of areas throughout the education system. If you doubt that, then you were obviously not participating in the same election—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Carr, address your comments to the chair.

Senator KIM CARR: I will undoubtedly do that, but I think I was provoked by the ignorance of those opposite. Apprentices should have the option either of receiving the loans in monthly instalments or making financial arrangements that allow them to fulfil their commitments through lump sum payments. Lump sum payments would enable apprentices to buy expensive items such as tools, vehicles, uniforms and fees without having to borrow money commercially, and thereby repaying a loan with a loan. Paying apprentices monthly increases the risk that the loans may be treated as an income supplement rather than assistance in the purchase of expensive but necessary items.

Abolition of the Tools For Your Trade program is not the only decision by which the government has failed to honour its pledge to make life better for apprentices. The government has also scrapped the Australian Apprenticeships Access program, the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring program and the Apprenticeships to Business Owner program. The mentoring program was aimed at apprentices or aspiring apprentices who face barriers to participation. It was particularly aimed at first-year apprentices, who are the most likely to withdraw from apprenticeships, but apparently the government is not concerned about providing 'better support' for them. It is not only concerned that Australia faces an increased risk of losing their talent, their youthful drive and their energy; it is not concerned that the nation's skilled workforce will not expand as quickly as it could have had we provided the support for apprenticeships which had been there under the previous government.

The Apprentice to Business Owner Program gave people who had recently completed their apprenticeships an opportunity to acquire the skills needed to run a small business. It provided training that led towards a nationally recognised qualification in small business management and included business mentoring support for up to 12 months, but not anymore. Yet again, the coalition has turned its back on small business. Despite all its rhetoric, despite its ideological pretentions, you see example after example of how this government has turned its back on small businesses. It posed as the great friend of small business in the last election, but its record in government proves exactly the opposite.

The Australian Apprenticeships Access Program offered job seekers training and support in applying for apprenticeships. It helped job seekers to build on their existing skills and to decide which apprenticeship would be best for them. Scrapping the program is at least consistent—I must say this for the government—with the attention the government is paying to job seekers. The budget changes to Newstart will make it much harder, not easier, for young people to find work. Scrapping the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program will mean that fewer, not more, people will be able to increase their job skills.

The government talks of providing better support for apprentices, but it has a warped, truncated notion of what that means. It is tells young people to earn or learn and then axes the support measures that provide incentives to take that advice. That is a self-defeating strategy, which will have especially severe repercussions in rural and regional Australia.

In conclusion, as I have indicated, the opposition will support the bill because the trade support loans will now be the only form of support available to apprentices. It is the only measure that is available. The bill would be more palatable, however, if the coalition had not lied to apprentices by vowing during the campaign that it would make life better for them. Therefore we call on the government to acknowledge the concerns raised by apprentices, their parents, employers and industry, and to resolve satisfactorily the difficulties and inconsistencies in this bill, to go back to providing real support for apprenticeships in this country.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (11:55): The government is on the war path against a fair, accessible, higher education system and Tools For Your Trade is the latest program in the gun sites of this out-of-touch government. Tools For Your Trade started in 2010, providing assistance to most apprentices in the form of cash payments of $5,500 to help with training, purchasing tools and other costs. This is the reality, or rather was the reality as Tools For Your Trade finished on 1 July 2014. If you happen to listen to the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, you would hear his sensational talk about young men heading off to the tattoo parlour, getting mag wheels for their cars, having parties and generally misbehaving and misusing the money. He said he has proof of this. He still has not provided that proof. It is time he did so because he is insulting a large number of people who are taking on apprentices to become the skilled workforce that Australia very much needs. Talking about the loss of this scheme, someone with considerable insight said to me, 'The Tools For Your Trade has nothing on all the allowances MPs get,' but that is a story for another day.

I would like to emphasise that the minister has said he has evidence to back up his claims. He should really come forward with that evidence. I challenge him to produce it. About 50,000 people accessed the Tools For Your Trade program before it was wound up. It was available for any apprentices undertaking certain trades at certificate III or certificate IV level. The National Skills Needs List identifies trades for which there is a national skills shortage. That is one of the reasons the Greens have great concern about how this new way of managing apprentices will play out. Most people do not want to start life with a debt, the prospect of which can be a disincentive for people considering whether they should take on an apprenticeship.

As at 20 August 2013 there were 65 professions on that list, ranging from aircraft maintenance engineer to pastry cook, to telecommunications technician. Upon completion of their training, it is likely that the 50,000 apprentices will go on to provide services which are needed to build Australia, to contribute to us being a skilled, creative and innovative nation with a dynamic workforce. We all know how crucial this is to the very future of our country, to the fabric of our society and to our future economic growth. Not only will it keep Australia highly competitive in the international market but also it will allow our economy to innovate, to contribute and to achieve great things. Without a skilled workforce, we will not have efficient public transport, transition to cleaner energy and state-of-the-art telecommunications, all of which are necessary in our society at present, nor will we skilled mechanics, plumbers or builders—the list goes on and on. This is what the government is putting at risk. As a society we should be doing everything possible to ensure that people who want to learn a trade are supported and encouraged in every way possible and given the best chance to do so, and that is what was being taken away when Tools For Your Trade was wound up.

I said in my opening remarks that the coalition is on the warpath with public, tertiary and higher education. The government is now going after apprentices, and not just by scrapping the Tools For Your Trade program; they have also cut the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program and the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program.

Tools For Your Trade is being replaced with a loan—that is what this bill does. The Trade Support Loans program will provide loans of up to $20,000 and is modelled on the HECS system for university students. The government knows this will be unpopular and has come up with a selling point, as we see so often when the government comes forward with some unpopular measure. In this case, the selling point is that, if an apprentice finishes their training, they will have 20 per cent of their loan knocked off. Why they are attaching this incentive is that—and, again, I give emphasis to this fact—the government knows that this scheme in itself is a huge disincentive to young people taking up apprenticeships. That is a huge worry because, at the moment—and I hear this time and time again—young people are often just thinking about when they can get a good pay cheque and where they can get a job that will give that to them, and if they can get such a job—and it is often the unskilled jobs that initially will provide much more money—that is what they will go for, and that is why the Tools For Your Trade was so important: that support was given from day one to people making the important decision to take on an apprenticeship.

If an employer decides to let an apprentice go after a few years, that apprentice will still be saddled with this debt and will not have a qualification. That is another problem with this program and how it could play out, and another part of the disincentive. Young people will be talking to each other. They will start to realise what could happen to them. They know that often employers' companies go belly up and people lose their apprenticeships and that they could still be left with this debt. It is so deeply wrong.

Apprentices will need to begin repaying their loan when their income exceeds a minimum annual threshold. In 2014-15, this was $53,345. One of the obvious problems here is that the government is taking away the $5,500 from apprentices and making them taking out a loan if they need assistance while studying. Most people will need assistance; we know that. About 50,000 apprentices who will still be enrolled will be disadvantaged right now because money that they had understood that they would receive—that was quite clearly set out, with that $5,500—has now been wound up. We know that some of them would have been paid $800 at three months, $1,000 at 12 months, $1,000 at 24 months, and $1,200 at 36 months. And, upon successful completion, they would have been paid the final $1,500. But, as of 1 July, all payments to help support their studies have stopped. Now apprentices can either take out a loan, if they need assistance to finish their studies, and be saddled with a debt they had not planned for, or they could stop studying and be left with no skill or no trade qualification. What a position to be put in! Firstly, the money does not come through, when you had a clear guarantee—and, coming from the government, people would have thought that this was an absolute certainty. So, first, all the money does not come through, and now they find themselves in a very difficult position—forced into taking out a loan or possibly, through financial circumstances and the resistance a lot of people have to going into debt, dropping out. That is a terrible position to put young people in who are just starting out on their future career.

To add to this insult, the Abbott government is trying to portray itself as the champion of apprentices by boasting that this legislation provides better support for apprentices and trainees. That is something we see time and time again in the higher education debate, where the reality of what faces people coming into higher education is turned on its head and the government tries to be very deceptive with regard to the debt burden and the increasing costs. The government says that the trade loans will be indexed each year by the rate of the consumer price index. However, in the May Senate estimates, they did not rule out charging real interest rates on the debt accrued through the Trade Support Loans program. Given that the government has arbitrarily decided to increase interest rates on the debts of students who have already graduated from university and are currently in the workforce, it is not hard to work out that this could well be where the government is heading with regard to apprenticeships—another factor that will put apprentices under more stress and pressure.

The Department of Industry has also confirmed that they are investigating options to privatise the administration of the Trade Support Loans program—to put it out to the financial services sector. This plan also suggest a move down the track to a real interest rate. I cannot see why a private operator would take on the administration of the loans if the interest rate was not changed as, without this change, they could not make a profit. So this is where the government should come clean and put on the table—bring it into the debate today—what their real intention is with this interest rate.

The ACTU has provided some useful material on this. They have opposed the loans scheme and, in their submission to the inquiry on the bill, they stated:

… the answer does not lie with an apprentice loans scheme that only serves to shift the costs of an apprenticeship onto apprentices themselves and leaves them with a future debt to pay off when they finish their apprenticeship and start their career. Moreover, we do not support an apprentice loans scheme when it has been introduced at the expense of other initiatives and programs abolished in the recent budget that provided practical support to apprentices in dealing with the very issues that are proven to contribute to non-completion.

The Greens will bring forward a number of amendments to try and ensure that this program is not as damaging as it could well play out to be. Our amendments are designed to transform the loans scheme into a fairer system of direct government assistance. They would lower the cap on the total loan available to $10,000 and make up the difference through matching direct government assistance, and they would allow apprentices to earn more before paying off their debt and to pay it back at a lower rate. I will go into more detail about our amendments when we go into committee.

One important aspect I wish to give emphasis to is that we insert a clause that would waive the debt for any apprentice that is dismissed from their apprenticeship or traineeship as a result of their employer. I would ask senators to give careful consideration to this. If you are serious—and I believe some people would believe the loans scheme can work and bring benefits to apprentices; I disagree with that but I imagine that some people honestly believe that—surely consideration must be given to the issue of what happens if an apprentice who has a loan is then dismissed by their employer. They should not then be left with this huge debt burden that is so wrong. It is wrong morally. It is wrong if we are trying to build up a skilled workforce, and I worry about the message it sends to young people who are considering what trade they will take on.

I acknowledge these in many ways are last-ditch amendments to help mitigate against potentially severe negative consequences of these schemes. I understand that they will be rejected by the coalition and Labor, and I find it disappointing that Labor will not support any of our amendments. We need to put on the record that, while we hear so many strong statements from Labor senators about their commitment to a skilled workforce and to the TAFE system, with Labor so readily working with the government to convert this into a loan scheme, it is a reminder about what happened to TAFE when Labor were in government. What we are seeing play out with state governments ripping the heart of TAFE has come about, because of the openings that Labor created with the COAG agreement and not tightening up the contracts when the money for TAFE and vocational education and training went to the states. Labor's policy opened up the whole possibility of the need for TAFE to go into competitive tendering, and we can see the damage that is occurring around the country to public vocational education and training. I have a real concern about the way this is playing out.

When you look at the meaning of the measures that are set out in this piece of legislation, the government does not have a clear vision for the Australian workforce for our future. It is limited by their own obsession with moving costs onto individuals. By going along with the government's legislation and refusing to support any of the Greens amendments, Labor has got caught up in that lack of vision for our future.

If we want to build a sustainable, innovative and clean economy, we need to invest in our apprentices. They are the absolute foundation of how this country works from our individual needs, our homes and own day-to-day life to how we build this nation from the infrastructure and the services to much of what makes Australia a wonderful country. I worry very deeply about how, without that skilled workforce and planning from this parliament, we ensure that that skilled workforce is maintained and expanded to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are damaging the very fabric of this country.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory) (12:11): It is quite a curious debate we having today, because I could have sworn from Kim Carr's speech that the Labor Party were opposing the legislation. He was relentlessly negative in his attacks on it. I understand the Labor Party will not be opposing the legislation, and that is a good thing. Perhaps it was just relentless negativity—opposition for opposition's sake—all the while acknowledging in his heart of hearts that it is actually a good thing and that he has to vote for it. I am pleased that, despite his strong, harsh words and criticism of what the government has proposed, Kim Carr and the Labor Party will be voting for it. We thank you for that.

We had an interesting contribution from Senator Rhiannon. It is a curious debate in which the government is proposing a scheme where we would have many, many more places in higher education—something like 80,000 more places—and Senator Rhiannon starts by saying that the government is on the warpath regarding access to higher education. It is difficult to see in what kind of topsy-turvy world that is in fact the case. So we had another bizarre contribution from the Greens that we are on the warpath. Not only are we not on the warpath when it comes to higher education except to reform it and make it more accessible as is clear but these trade support loans are, again, about access to apprenticeships, making it easier and providing them to many, many more Australians. That has got to be a good thing.

Australian apprenticeships are incredibly important and play a key role in providing people with valuable and robust skills that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. We all know learning a trade skill is invaluable to the individual, the community and the economy, but there is no shirking away from the fact that learning a skill can also be an expensive endeavour.

Australia' future productivity and competitiveness depend on maintaining our highly skilled and highly trained workforce. A strong workforce is paramount and integral to ensuring that we are able to respond to the changing economic and labour market needs of our nation. It is in recognition of the importance of Australian apprentices and those undertaking a trade and in order to ensure that we further develop our highly skilled and highly trained workforce that we are seeking to implement these Trade Support Loans for up to $20,000 over a four-year apprenticeship.

The Trade Support Loans program was an election commitment from the coalition and will work to complement the Industry Skills Fund that aims to streamline training and deliver close to 200,000 targeted training places along with training support services.

Our Trade Support Loans will provide additional financial assistance to support those who are learning a trade to meet everyday costs. The loans have been designed to provide financial support for apprentices to cover their costs of living and learning whilst in training. These loans will be provided at concessional rates indexed annually. Like the HELP loans provided to university students, these loans will only be repaid via the Australian taxation system once the individual's income reaches a sustainable level, the HELP payment threshold.

In order to provide support where it is needed the most, the loan payments have been heavily weighted to the first two years of the apprenticeship where wages are at their lowest and need for financial support is at its highest. We believe that this is the best and fairest method for providing support to those learning these skills.

According to Australia-wide statistical data provided by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, in the December quarter 2013 there were 392,200 apprentices and trainees in training. Of a labour force of more than 11.5 million people, this represents a significant number of people who are building the skills to secure a career and transition into long-term employment. This is a successful pathway. The Australian Industry Group report from June 2013 notes that 92.9 per cent of graduates who undertook their training as part of an apprenticeship or traineeship in a trade occupation course were employed after training.

What we do need to look at, however, are the statistics that we see coming from this NCVER data. In the 12 months to 31 December 2013 compared with the previous year, commencements decreased by 25.9 per cent to 244,700, completions decreased by 1.4 per cent to 189,800 and cancellations and withdrawals decreased by 16.4 per cent to 119,900. State and territory data for the 12 months to 31 December 2013 compared with the previous year also showed that here in the ACT commencements fell by 23.8 per cent. According to NCVER data, as at 31 December 2013, the ACT has 9,023 apprentices and trainees in training. For the 12 months ending 31 December 2013, the ACT had 3,158 completions, 4,458 commencements and 2,249 cancellations and withdrawals. Whilst these withdrawals are decreasing, the decreasing commencement and completion data is still indicative of the need to provide additional support to convince those currently training to stick with it and finish their apprenticeships; and to say to those looking to undertake this sort of training that we value their commitment and want to support them through it.

It is unfortunate that many apprentices do not complete their training. I am certain that in many instances this is related to the costs and financial burden associated with doing so. This is something that the Trade Support Loans program aims to address. There are considerable implications for industry if this trend is to continue. Master Builders Australia CEO Wilhelm Harnisch has indicated that Master Builders is concerned that the latest drop in apprentice commencements continues a worrying trend which will impact on the industry over the next five to 10 years. He also indicated that a review of measures to restore business confidence and initiatives to enhance the attractiveness of the apprenticeship system to both apprentices and employers is urgently required.

We need to look at what we can do to address this. I believe the most effective way to help provide this support is by making available the Trade Support Loans program, similar to the HECS-HELP system offered to students at university. This legislation places a great deal of importance on helping people finish their training. In fact, to provide further encouragement to apprentices to complete their training, their repayment amount will be reduced by 20 per cent on successful completion of their training. We want them to succeed. Senator Rhiannon had a bizarre critique of that particular part of the legislation, saying that it was somehow an acknowledgement that the scheme is not fair or is not a good scheme. It is nothing of sort. It is an incentive to finish. Those who finish will get a 20 reduction on their loan. Surely that is a good thing; surely that is something that should be supported. The program is more sustainable than the Tools For Your Trade program, which provided tax-exempt grants up to $5,500. Of course, due to the debt left by Labor we could not afford to keep this program. We had to ensure that our support for apprentices was sustainable over the long term.

It was timely to review apprentice programs following the Fair Work Commission's decision to increase apprentice wages, with some employers providing tools for their apprentices and with most awards including a tool allowance. These loans will help to ease the financial burden associated with undertaking an apprenticeship and ultimately assist in increasing completion rates. They are a helping hand, not a handout. In the interests of flexibility and in order to meet the needs of the individuals undertaking an apprenticeship or trade, these loans will be able to be applied for at any stage during the four-year apprenticeship. The flexibility is such that an apprentice can opt in for six months to buy their tools and then opt out for any further payments. If circumstances change, they are able to opt in at a later year for the payment schedule for that year.

Trade Support Loans say to apprentices that we value them, the work they are undertaking and the skills they are building. Trade Support Loans provide them with additional support when apprentices need it the most. The program aims to ease financial burdens that apprentices may face while they are learning. Ultimately, this program allows them to invest in their future and allows us as a nation to do the same. We value the hard work that they do and the skills that they learn. This should be recognised through additional support for them. We are committed to building a high quality and nationally consistent Australian apprenticeship system, one which supports apprentices and responds to their needs, to employers and to the economy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (12:20): I foreshadow an amendment. I believe that amendment has been circulated in the chamber. It calls on the government to determine a method for achieving parental or guardian approval for apprenticeships under the age of 18. It is quite extraordinary that, as a country, we would allow 16-year-olds to be signing up for loans when we are not clear what role the apprentice will play in working out what the loan is. We are particularly concerned about approval for apprentices under the age of 18 and school-based apprenticeships at the point of signing up for loan amounts. I am foreshadowing our amendment.

Although Labor will be supporting this bill, given that the Tools For Your Trade participants have already been notified of the program closure, Labor cannot let that pass without the reminder to the government that this is yet another broken promise. This is a $2 billion broken promise for Australia's apprentices and workers. As we know, there has been a litany of broken promises. Before the election the now Prime Minister assured us that the coalition would provide better support for Australia's apprentices. Given the record of Liberal governments on this, I am not quite sure why people would believe that. Nevertheless, that was the commitment the coalition gave.

But it did not take Mr Abbott very long, once he became Prime Minister, to axe all of the vital support for Australia's apprentices and workers, putting our skill base and future job creation at risk. Right across our economy, we are seeing a real dumbing down, by the Abbott government, of the smart skills the Australian workforce needs to be competitive. We need to be a smarter economy, and that means we need to be looking to the future to develop up the skills and workforce that we need. We do not need the government to be ripping down every support scheme, completely deserting the field and somehow leaving it to the will of the market. The market will not provide the future skills necessary because most businesses are in the business of making a profit from today and very few are looking to our future needs. That is the role government has to play. It has to look at what smart skills we need for the future, how we as a country will develop those, and what the role of government is. It is not the role of government to completely desert the field.

We need to be competitive, absolutely. We need to support our economy and we need to provide our workers with real opportunities to earn a decent wage. The way to do that is to provide a skilled economy. But what we have seen the Abbott government doing so far is the complete reverse of that. They have made university degrees unaffordable, they have cut funds to TAFE, they have ripped funds from our school and, most recently, they have attacked the benefits family use in relation to child care, which is absolutely critical. If we are to get men and women in Australia contributing to the economy, we have got to have affordable child care; but we have seen the government rip that apart too.

Unemployment is on the rise, particularly youth unemployment. In many places in Australia youth unemployment is a very, very serious problem. What is the government's response to that? What are they doing to support young people into work? Where is that support and assistance from government? 'Earn and learn' is not a support program; it is a punishment. Support programs have been cut, and earn and learn has taken the place of a whole range of those programs. It seems that the government's agenda is about a job at any cost. And what of the jobs in our economy? The biggest growth has been in health care and social assistance, important areas of our economy, critical areas. But what is happening to our manufacturing skills base? As companies close, as the car industry starts to tail down, what is the government's commitment to ensuring a skilled workforce in other areas of our economy for the future? Where is that development going on? What we are seeing now in the health and social assistance workforce is the emergence of low-paying jobs. The majority of the workforce in that sector, unless they are skilled—nurses, physios or doctors—earns about $22 an hour. Not only is that not enough to bring up a family; it is not enough to sustain an individual. Where is the government's commitment to the skilled jobs of the future? I am really struggling to find it. I do not believe they have that commitment; they are leaving it to the market.

Tools For Your Trade, no matter what spin the government tries to put on it, does absolutely nothing to create new apprenticeships. It is fine if you have already got an apprenticeship, because you might be able to enter into a loan—although Labor is very concerned about 16-year-olds entering into loans—but it does not encourage new jobs and it certainly does not encourage the development of new skills. Prior to the 2013 election Mr Abbott announced the Trade Support Loans. In doing so, he certainly did not tell our apprentices that the government was going to scrap Labor's $1 billion Tools For Your Trade program, which gave apprentices about $5,500 each to assist them with the cost of tools. Nobody would suggest that apprentices have the money to buy the sorts of tools they need to develop their skills, but this seems to be the only program the Abbott government has left in place. The government has changed the program and tailored it—and we are now going to have 16-year-olds entering into loans if Labor's amendment is not supported—but, in and of itself, it will not create one additional job.

Another promise Mr Abbott has broken was that Australia's 400,000 apprentices would get more financial assistance to help them learn their trade and find a good job. Well, where is that assistance? Tools For Your Trade does not find people a job and it does not create new opportunities for apprentices. After the election Mr Abbott has ripped away most of that support and broken his promise to apprentices. It would seem that, prior to the election, the coalition was prepared to promise anything; and then, on winning government, they just change their minds and pretend they have not broken a promise. But clearly, in relation to Australia's future workforce, the government has severely let them down.

This broken promise or omission of the full story by the Prime Minister now means that what was an optional loan available, in addition to the Tools For Your Trade payment, is now the only financial support offered to apprentices. If the coalition think that this is some kind of job-creating scheme, they are sadly mistaken. Not only that, they are misleading Australia's future apprentices.

We know that many apprentices have huge costs for tools and equipment and, under the Abbott government's program, they will now be left with a debt rather than being provided with funds to purchase tools. Again, what we are seeing from this Abbott government is a complete misunderstanding of how the apprenticeship system works. Apprentices are on very low wages. They incur costs. Many of them are required to supply uniforms. They have to travel to and from work. They have general living costs. Mr Abbott and his government are now saying: 'On top of that low wage, you have to take out a loan. We don't know whether you'll have much say in that loan. It is a debt that could be privatised sometime in the future, but you will take out a loan and that's all the support that we're offering.'

Many of those apprentices who have already commenced their trade will now have the payments they were expecting to receive cancelled. That could mean a loss of up to $3,700 for first-year apprentices. Suddenly, because the Abbott government has failed to deliver on yet another election commitment, those apprentices have been left out in the cold. And $3,700 is a lot of money for anyone in this country, but it is a massive amount of money for a young apprentice who is earning maybe 50 or 65 per cent of the adult wage. It is a big loss and all we have to take its place is a loan, the details of which we are not sure.

The provision of the optional loan is not opposed by Labor, but it should not have come at the expense of the Tools For Your Trade scheme. It should have appropriate advice in place to ensure informed and voluntary decisions by apprentices, some of whom are school-based apprentices.

It really should be ringing alarm bells—it certainly is for Labor—that we can say to a 16-year-old, who is perhaps still at school, 'You're able to take on this loan,' when that person in the normal course of events is not able to sign contracts or vote. They have few opportunities to really exercise the rights we afford adults. Yet the Abbott government sees fit to say to these young people: 'It's okay for you to take out this loan. Just trust us, it will be all right. We'll hit you with a debt. At some future date we might privatise that debt and you will incur further costs. And, by the way, at the end of your apprenticeship we'll do nothing to help you get a job so that you can pay back the debt.' It is very alarming that we are saying to young people, at the age of 16: 'It's okay to sign up for a debt.' Will that happen without parental guidance? Who knows? If there is a default on the debt, will the parents of a 16-year-old suddenly be labelled with that debt? What happens when the apprentice perhaps fails and does not complete the apprenticeship? There are a whole range of unanswered questions and Australians have the right to be informed. But we know that the Abbott government is particularly good at lacking in transparency and certainly very good at breaking promises. What the Abbott government has probably been the best at to date is breaking its pre-election commitments and promises.

Not only do we now have uncertainty around this tools scheme, but the Abbott government has taken the axe to all of the support programs for apprentices. It is tough to be an apprentice in this day and age, to commit yourself to a low wage for quite a few years of study, at the end of which you will be rewarded with a job. It is a tough decision, when your mates are out being young people and you have got commitments, study and so forth. We should be doing everything we can to promote and support apprentices in this country. But, again, from the Abbott government, that is not so.

As well as axing the Tools For Your Trade program, the Abbott government have also axed the Australian Apprentices Access Program, again, against the backdrop of very high youth unemployment. They have axed the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program and the Apprentice to Business Owner Program. It seems as though the Abbott government are saying to business: 'Yes, we want you to increase the number of apprentices you have in your business, but guess what? We're not going to give you any support to do that. You are well and truly on your own.'

We know that businesses will not offer apprentices unless there is support. Support for tools does not support a business, it does not create the skills of the future and it does not create ongoing employment for apprentices once they finish their trade.

To make a loan of $20,000 available to a school-based apprentice needs some further explanation. Clearly, we need to see the detail of what is being made available. We need to see how parents or guardians sign onto that scheme. We need those checks and balances in place. What we do not want to see is people as young as 16 entering into loans and perhaps defaulting on those loans. But it seems at this point the government has failed to put in place any measure to protect children. And they are children at 16. They are not able to vote, to drive or do a raft of things in our community and yet the Abbott government sees fit to saddle them, seemingly without any protection, with a very expensive loan. We must have parental or guardian oversight of these sorts of loans.

On top of this, Mr Abbott says he wants people to work until age 70, while at the same time cutting investment in training for workers. His priorities and those of the Abbott government are severely twisted. If we want to be a skilled-up and productive economy, we must invest in training opportunities. We have to be the smart country, but there is no investment coming from the Abbott government. It has just been left to the market, which, as we have seen before, will not look at the opportunities for the future. And the government have indicated that that they are looking to outsource, to give away, the debt management for the trade support loans, so we could have young people with a debt being pursued by loan sharks, getting a black mark on their credit rating and not being able to take credit out in the future because of this ill-thought-out scheme which seemingly enables 16-year-olds to take on a massive debt. This is clearly not right and it is why Labor is foreshadowing an amendment to require parents or guardians to be signatories to these loans. To saddle 16-year-old children with $20,000 debts which are then put into the hands of private debt collectors is quite disgraceful.

The Australian Apprenticeships Access Program assisted vulnerable job seekers who find it difficult to enter employment with nationally recognised prevocational training, support and assistance. I do not understand why a government which says it is concerned about youth unemployment—across many parts of our country, there is very high youth unemployment—would axe that program and leave absolutely nothing to replace it with. We have just thrown young people aside, and all we have got is: 'You have to earn or learn, or you will be severely punished.' We know that many young people, particularly in areas of high unemployment, need additional support. They need prevocational advice and support, and they certainly need mentoring to stay in the workplace, to successfully complete their apprenticeships and to be the highly skilled and well-paid workers that we need into the future to ensure that our economy remains productive. But, again, the Abbott government just seems to want to dumb this down. The Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program assisted young people who face barriers to participation. This is another program that has gone. So I really question where the Abbott government's commitment to young people in our country is. We have got a program of debt being able to be taken on, and we have got support and assistance programs slashed and burnt. I have foreshadowed the amendment that Labor wishes to move. I urge the government to take a serious look at it and support it.

Senator BACK (Western Australia) (12:40): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the apprentice trades loans scheme as it has been put forward to the Senate today in the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 and the Trade Support Loans (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014. The starting point in all of these activities is that, if it is broken, then you have got to fix it. We know the apprenticeship scheme around Australia at the moment is broken. Why do we say that? Because, firstly, there are not enough apprentices going into training; secondly, there are not enough who are completing their training; and, thirdly, those of them who do complete their training, and those who fall by the wayside, generally are dissatisfied because of the conditions under which they went into those programs and because expectations may not have been met.

My colleague Senator Lines, also from Western Australia, mentioned the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program. One of the failures of the access program was that, with a KPI of 40 per cent, it was only achieving 25 per cent—just half what its expected outcomes were. That gives you an indication of why this government had to make changes—and make changes we have. From my own background in business, I am very proud to say that I have employed apprentices at every opportunity. Sometimes they have stayed with us on completion. Other times, bigger companies have snaffled them, which has always been a cause of complaint to me. But I am proud to say that, almost without exception, those who started apprenticeships with me did conclude them and I was able to employ them.

This scheme is an investment of some $1.9 billion, following up support of some $476 million in the Industry Skills Fund. How is it being structured? It is being structured around a skills needs list, which I have in front of me, of over 70 areas that have been identified for apprenticeships. That does not take into account agriculture and horticulture, which, as you would expect, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would be very pleased to speak to separately. But, as part of my contribution, I do want to speak about school based traineeships and the success of this program and indeed how this new scheme is going to interleave with these school based programs. And, unless I am interrupted by my colleagues, I hope to get to what I believe to be very exciting information, which has only come to me in the last 30 minutes, from the director of the Kwinana Industries Council, on the industrial strip in Western Australia.

But let us go back and reflect. Why did the old Tools For Your Trade program, of $5,500, fail? I do not know whether you did the old course in bricklaying, as I did, Mr Acting Deputy President, but the cost of tools for bricklaying is meagre compared to the cost of tools required in other trade areas. It is sufficient to say that the quality of my bricklaying led me not to that trade but eventually into the Senate, but nevertheless it does make the point that the funds required for different trades are so substantially different that the figure of $5,500 is excessive for some and meaningless for others. So what does this program do? First of all, it has a loans scheme for up to $20,000. It is structured as $8,000 paid on a monthly basis, some $666, in the first year of an apprenticeship. It reduces from $8,000 to $6,000 in the second year, then to $4,000 and then to $2,000. I make the point that it is not compulsory to take out this loan.

We hear comparisons being made by my colleagues on the other side going on about low-paid apprenticeships et cetera. They seem to overlook the fact that, when somebody is a student—studying a diploma, a higher diploma, a pre-university bachelor degree or a degree itself—they are not working at all unless they work during vacation time. Whilst an apprentice's wage may be low, it is infinitely higher than the nil wage of somebody who is studying for a diploma or a degree. So, in many instances, the need for a loan may not be there—or, indeed, they may not need to borrow the full $20,000 over the four years. But it gets better, as the repayment of these moneys during their traineeship or apprenticeship is nil—nothing; no money at all. Even if the person did not need the $20,000, at the interest rate that they will eventually pay—currently at 3.75 per cent—who would not take it out? Who would not take the loan at 3.75 per cent, when a personal loan at the moment is nine per cent or 10 per cent?

It is so generous that, during their period of training, there is zero cost initially. Only when they have concluded their traineeship or apprenticeship will they actually start repaying this loan—but only when their salary or their wage gets to, at the moment, some $53,000 a year. Of course, with CPI, that figure will increase—probably to $56,000 to $57,000 a year when a young apprentice starting out today would be likely to conclude, and they will not have to pay any of that back until that time. It has been estimated that, once they are fully qualified, the payback period would be about five years. I travel around the world a bit, and I do not know of any other scheme in existence where somebody can borrow with absolutely no impost on them at the time, pay nothing on graduation, upon completion, and only start paying back, under the tax regime, according to their income earned once they are on about $53,000 a year—or soon to become about $56,000 a year.

Who is eligible for this? Those doing apprenticeships or traineeships at certificate III or IV qualification leading to an occupation, as I mentioned, amongst the 70-plus occupations on the National Skills Needs List. What that does is focus the attention of young people into areas which have been identified by industry, by employers and by governments of both persuasions as being necessary—which, you would therefore expect to lead to not only employment but also useful, enjoyable careers for them. How tremendous is that perspective. Of course, an alternative is an apprenticeship or a traineeship at certificate II, III or IV levels in the agriculture and the horticultural sectors. Again, in that instance, there is no limit.

Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, you know my very keen interest in the field of agriculture, agribusiness and horticulture. I had the pleasure of chairing a Senate inquiry in 2010 into higher education and skills needs in the agriculture and agribusiness sectors of this country. At that time we identified very, very significant needs. It was always a great disappointment to me that at the time Labor Party ceased in government in September 2013 they still had not, under parliamentary and Senate custom, responded to the report of and the recommendations from that inquiry. I hope that is not an indicator of their lack of interest in regional and rural and, particularly, agriculture and agribusiness employment.

The interesting point that came out of that exercise was the need for traineeships rather than apprenticeships in agriculture and horticulture and the need for modules of learning and skills development which somebody could interleave around the demands of the working place—around seasonal conditions, seeding, harvesting, fruit picking et cetera. Traineeships were, by far and away, the more preferable avenue for those people. I completely applaud Minister Macfarlane and his staff for their initiative in allowing certificate II, III or IV level qualifications in the agriculture and horticulture sectors—and I would hope that they would extend to the agricultural machinery sector. In my home state of Western Australia and in other states, they are screaming out for young people to go into the agricultural machinery world. Time does not permit me today to reflect on the excellence of Australia's contribution to agricultural machinery development—going back to the stump-jump plough and the original McKay harvester. We have an incredibly proud history in this country of developing agricultural machinery that provide jobs and employment opportunities not only in this country but also around the world. I am very hopeful and I would expect that the agriculture and horticulture sector would extend to agricultural machinery training and apprenticeships for young people.

The conditions of this program include an opt-in provision. Every six months, the apprentice or trainee, and/or their parents if they are under the age of 18—and I intend to come back to that to address Senator Lines' frenetic and ill-founded criticisms that she spoke about a few moments ago—receive information as to the status of their loan. As I say, it is to be repaid equivalent to the higher education HECS-HELP scheme. Minister Macfarlane must have been predicting Senator Lines' concerns—and I quote:

Can school-based apprentices or trainees access the loan? The answer of course is yes, they can, including those under the age of 18 years. Australian Apprenticeship Centres will soon have information for apprentices and their parents to ensure they understand the responsibilities associated, consistent with other loans such as HELP.

But here is the point:

Note: When a minor (under the age of 18 years) signs up for an apprenticeship, their national training contract is co-signed by their parent or guardian, as the contract is a common law contract between an employer and an employee formalising the terms and conditions. Having co-signed the training contract, a parent will be aware that their child is in training and could be eligible for apprenticeship incentives.

I have vastly more confidence in 16-year-olds than Senator Lines appears to have when it comes to understanding these matters. I do not think there are too many 16-year-olds these days that do not have a credit card or do not have a mobile phone or do not have a mobile phone debt. If it was good enough for me in 1967 as a 16-year-old to sign a cadetship in veterinary science, I think 46 years later most 16-year-olds can, with their parents, sign the contract and understand what it is all about.

I speak if I may on the question of the possibility for these programs to include students still at school. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to share with the Senate a wonderful program which this particular trade loans scheme will feed directly into—that is, one given to me by the director of the Kwinana Industries Council in Western Australia, Mr Chris Oughton. It is a scheme that has now been undertaken for the last 15 years by participating engineering companies up and down the Kwinana strip south of Perth in WA. It involves full-time students at the Gilmore College in Kwinana and training undertaken by the wonderful Challenger colleges in WA.

Mr Oughton told me less than an hour ago that they have had, over the last 15 years, a 98 per cent success rate. Students who start the program in year 11 go through the program to the end of year 12. At the end of that period of time, if my mathematics of multiplying 14 per year by 15 years is accurate, that is 210 students. Better than 200 of those 210 have found employment in the engineering area up and down the Kwinana industrial strip. For those of you who are not familiar with Kwinana, it is one of the highest unemployment areas in Australia. Confounding, isn't it, when you think of our industry south of Perth such as BHP, BP, Alcoa the big shipbuilding industries associated with Henderson. Yet it has been through the intervention of the Kwinana Industries Council, the Gilmore College, the students themselves and the Challenger college along with employers that this program has been undertaken.

Mr Oughton, when I explained to him that school based trainees will be able to participate, said to me that this is critically important. I will tell you why—and I hope I have recorded it accurately. He said to me that if a student is participating in a school based traineeship then the cost of the TAFE component of the program is met whereas if they are only on a work placement then they or their families have got to pay the cost of the TAFE training component. Look how this program is going to feed into that exercise. It has been a fact that there has been a dropping off of enthusiasm by some people. Some employers have not been in a position with the downturn of the economy to actually pay these students on their one day a week. In other instances the students themselves have required financial support.

Minister Macfarlane's program is going to open this up far more widely to that cohort of students. In a high-unemployment low-socioeconomic area, you can see where the coalition is focusing all of its training, its apprentice programs, its pre-degrees, its degrees and its higher-degree programs. But it gets even better as a result of what Mr Oughton told me. I think this will be a catalyst to accelerate. He had only just come out of an important meeting in Perth a few minutes ago—discussing this very matter as it happened—but he told me that they are going to extend this beyond engineering to include telecommunications technology, processed plant operations, business activities, hospitality and IT. So we are going to see in this area of enormous need for trades and other training the benefit of this program initiated by Minister Macfarlane and actually see this focused even further for school based trainees.

Exactly in line with the area I speak of in IT, several of our colleagues recently had the opportunity to see demonstrations by the 3D company here in Parliament House of the use of new printing technology. This technology—as you would be aware but others may not be—actually allows the printing of tools. It allows the printing of a home. In Holland recently, a complete house was built by printing technologies. They told me the other day that in New York this year, in the four days of the car show—Senator Mason is already booking his ticket—they are going to build a motor car and drive it away from the show.

As a veterinarian, I have an interest in tissue reproduction and I have an interest very much in the whole question of the availability of organs for transplant. Our wonderful Professor Fiona Wood in Perth, largely as a result of the shocking circumstance of the Bali bombings, and her team have developed a technique now of taking skin, growing that skin tissue in the laboratory, producing it as a spray and spraying it on to badly burnt victims. They were telling me the other day—and this is very relevant to our discussion—that for a person requiring a kidney transplant, they will be able to take that person's kidney tissue, grow a new tissue by printing and put that kidney back in. Why is this relevant? They said to me the biggest limit to us remaining right out there in the forefront, where Australia happens to be at the moment, will be trained technicians. And they are already focussing on upper primary and secondary so that we can move into the skills development area because we will be needing thousands of young Australians to be trained in this particular technology. Don't worry about the future; the future for Australia has never been better. But we need to recognise that apprentices and apprenticeships and trainees and traineeships are as important to this country as higher degrees and graduate degrees. I for one think that the government is absolutely on the right path when it comes to elevating apprentices and trainees through the scheme we are discussing today.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:00): I agree with the previous speaker about the importance of apprenticeships. The Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 and Trade Support Loans (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 establish the Trade Support Loans Program for Australian apprentices. The establishment of this program was a commitment of the Abbott government in the lead-up to the last election. However, what Mr Abbott did not tell apprentices was that the coalition were going to scrap Labor's $1 billion Tools For Your Trade program. He was deceitful. That deceit now means that what was thought to be an optional loan available in addition to the $5,500 Tools For Your Trade payment is now the only financial support this government will offer to apprentices.

The Abbott budget has taken an axe to the vital supports for Australia's apprentices and workers. These short-sighted decisions put our nation's skills base and future job creation at risk. These cuts highlight the hypocrisy of Mr Abbott's 'earn or learn' ultimatum to young Australians, and it hits apprentices; those starting out in their careers, those who can least afford it.

One Tasmanian man—and I have mentioned this man in the Senate previously—contacted my office to say he was raising his grandson, who was lucky enough to have a bricklaying apprenticeship. His grandson is in his first year of his apprenticeship. He brings home $400 a week and pays board. He is worried that his grandson will not be able to purchase his tools without the support of the Tools For Your Trade program. He does not want to see his grandson take out a loan when his income is already very low.

These and other concerns are all reasonable. Yet the minister has been unable to explain the program and address the concerns which have been raised. In fact, the Abbott government gagged members in the other place from raising the very real concerns of apprentices, families, employers and industry—and the very real concerns that have been raised in this chamber and the other chamber by members of parliament.

Labor will support this bill because the Abbott government has axed all other support for apprentices starting out in their careers, and Labor will not leave apprentices with nothing. However, Labor thinks there are a number of important issues which do need to be acknowledged. A significant issue for those who have already commenced their apprenticeships is that there are no grandfathering arrangements for those who have made financial commitments based on the Tools For Your Trade scheme. Another issue Labor has raised is the lack of information about the total liability that apprentices will face under the Trade Support Loans program. The minister has been completely unable to clearly and properly explain what this liability might be.

Given that Mr Macfarlane is unable to answer questions around financial liability, you can understand why people in the community might have concerns about young apprentices taking on a debt under the program. Labor is also concerned about inadequate protections for school based apprentices and other apprentices under 18 years of age. These concerns remain unaddressed by Mr Macfarlane. In the Senate committee inquiry and in the other place, Labor has also raised concerns about the adequacy of the privacy protections under this scheme.

Also of significant concern is the government's decision to offer these loans as a monthly payment rather than a lump sum option each year. Many apprentices already struggle to live fortnight to fortnight on low wages. Providing monthly payments will not be of assistance to these apprentices who need to outlay large sums of money up front to purchase expensive tools and equipment. This may lead to the situation where apprentices will need to take out loans from other institutions to be able to buy the tools and equipment they need to start their apprenticeships. What this means is that these apprentices will then be taking a loan out from the government to repay the other loan and may even lead to the temptation for many apprentices to use these loans as a wage supplement.

It is for these reasons that the shadow minister, Sharon Bird, sought to move second reading amendments in the other place, and that Senator Carr and Senator Lines will move second reading amendments in this place. These amendments seek to address a number of concerns that have been raised in relation to this scheme but that the government has failed to address. Labor understands that providing real support to apprentices and others who set out to train for a career is important. We understand the importance of creating opportunities for young people. But it is obvious, in spite of their rhetoric, that the Abbott government is not genuine about supporting young people into employment. In fact the budget cuts to education, changes to higher education, cuts to support for apprentices, cuts to Newstart and the punitive approach to young people who find themselves unemployed show the government has no real interest in supporting young people and developing their opportunities.

Youth unemployment is undeniably and unacceptably high, especially in my home state of Tasmania, where in some parts of the state it is as high as 20 per cent—that is, one in five young people without a job. Yet Mr Abbott has completely dismantled the crucial programs that support young people into employment. Not only does the budget cut nearly $1 billion in support payments under the Tools For Your Trade program—which, as I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President, you would know, was an initiative of the Howard government—but it also slashes a further $1 billion in investment in skills and training.

The Abbott government has taken the axe to vital skills and training programs such as the National Workforce Development Fund, the Workplace English Language and Literacy program, the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program, the Accelerated Australian Apprenticeships program, the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program, the National Partnership Agreement on Training Places for Single Parents, the Alternative Pathways program, the Apprenticeship to Business Owner Program, the Productive Ageing through Community Education, and the Step Into Skills program. These programs are critical in providing basic literacy and numeracy skills, supporting apprentices and upskilling existing workers to meet the needs of the modern workplace.

The government have tried to appease community backlash—and there has been considerable community concern—about these cuts by announcing a paltry $5 million for apprentice mentoring. This does not make up for axing $1 billion in investment in skills and training. If the government truly recognised the benefit of mentoring apprentices they would never have cut the Australian Apprentices Mentoring Program in the first place. The Abbott government have betrayed Australian apprentices and workers with these cuts. Investing in skills delivers a growing economy with strong employment and improved productivity. The Abbott government refuses to invest in Australia's workers, industries and regions. They are selling our future short.

Many apprentices have huge costs for tools and equipment. They will now be left with a debt under the Abbott government's program rather than being provided with funds to purchase tools. Many apprentices—including the young apprentice bricklayer I referred to earlier—who have already commenced their trade will now have the payments they were expecting to receive cancelled. This could mean that up to $3,700 for a first-year apprentice has been lost in future payments.

The provision of the optional loan is not opposed by Labor, but it should not have come at the expense of the Tools for Your Trade scheme and should have appropriate advice requirements in place to ensure informed and voluntary decisions by apprentices, some of whom are school based apprentices. The Abbott government took the axe to support for all apprentices. As well as axing the Tools for Your Trade program, they have axed, as I said, many other programs that are designed to support apprentices. Trade Support Loans of $20,000 will be available to school based apprentices aged between 16 and 18 years, and the government have failed to put in any measures to protect children, such as requiring a parent to accompany them. The government confirmed that they are looking to outsource debt management for Trade Support Loans and are potentially happy to saddle 16-year-old children with $20,000 debts and leave them in the hands of private debt collectors. This is one of the most savage cuts in the very long list of skills programs cut by this government.

In comments in The Australian, Tony Nicholson, the Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, makes the point that 'learn or earn' demands on young people require the government to provide the support and training programs needed to get young people the skills they need and get them into work. The Australian Apprenticeships Access Program assisted vulnerable job seekers who find it difficult to enter employment with nationally recognised prevocational training, support and assistance. The program is delivered by local providers who work with local employers to deliver training to meet industry needs, and participants receive individualised intensive job search assistance.

This government has taken the axe to support for all apprentices. There was no warning to young tradies about the cut to Tools for Your Trade before the election and they are quite right to be furious about these cuts. The budget also cut the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program—a program for young people who face barriers to participation. The program helps apprentices successfully complete their apprenticeships and provides support to their employers or supervisors. Mr Abbott has slashed nearly $2 billion out of skills programs and over $1 billion of these funds supported apprentices. Labor put in place real support to help young people, particularly in rural and regional Australia, get and finish an apprenticeship. Mr Abbott is ripping this support away. Young apprentices with the world at their feet will not get the support they need and deserve.

As I said earlier in my contribution, Labor will not oppose these bills. We ask the government to very seriously consider the issues highlighted in the amendments that Labor senators will put forward to make the scheme work effectively and fairly for apprentices, whom this legislation is intended to assist. I ask the government to seriously consider support for the second reading amendments that Labor senators will put forward to ensure that this scheme in some way works effectively and fairly for Australian apprentices, particularly apprentices from my home state of Tasmania.

Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (13:13): As I skip into the chamber to join you, I reflect on what a wonderful day it is today for the French. It is their national day, Bastille Day—a celebration of 225 years ago, the march to the Bastille. The government led Europe at that stage in reform against the aristocracy.

Senator Cameron: The socialist march ahead. You'll have the red flag out in a minute!

Senator EDWARDS: Senator Cameron, we celebrate democracies across all nations. We acknowledge that there have been many dysfunctional regimes over many hundreds and even thousands of years. I like to treat everybody equally, but I also like to give people the opportunity to help themselves and not be helped incessantly by others to the point where society becomes dysfunctional because it becomes an expectation. You do not need to lecture me on the foibles of socialism, Senator Cameron, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I join with the French and the French Australians here today to celebrate their national day. Vive la France!

I rise today to speak on the Trade Support Loans Bill. I heard the last few minutes of the contribution made by Senator Brown. In her contribution, Senator Brown, indicated the Tools For Your Trade was started under the Howard government. That is quite right, but it was a voucher system. When Labor came into power—just like everything else—they turned it into cash-splash with relatively no accountability and no responsibility towards it. As a government, in the first nine months of our reign, we have sought, on the economics of this country, to implement these reforms in these very important trade areas, which will help our productivity grow, so we can reduce the trade deficit that we have with countries like France. We are half a billion dollars in deficit. We export somewhere in the vicinity of $600 million worth of goods to France. Yet, we import a bit over $1.1 billion worth of their goods. Anything we can do to make this country more productive and get it going after the sad six years of the Labor government, where we ground to a halt in a lot of these industrial areas, could only be seen as good.

We have heard many differing opinions this morning from the contributions made from the other side of the chamber on the Trade Support Loans Bill. However, I would like to correct a few of those opinions, particularly of Senator Carr and Senator Rhiannon, who join us in the chamber. The Tools For Your Trade payments failed. Under Labor's administration, this program had become unaccountable and out of hand. That did little to help apprentices complete their training because it was only given in the latter years rather than when apprentices needed it the most. Senator Rhiannon, who is in doubt as to the accountability of the program, will be reassured in the knowledge that this program will not only provide financial support to apprentices but also provide financial incentive for them to complete their qualifications.

Firstly, let me set the scene. I can only take it back to my own experience in South Australia, to the electorate of Wakefield—which is also the electorate I live in, one of the areas of high youth unemployment in this country—nearly 45 per cent.

Senator Cameron: Don’t tell me you are going to stick up for South Australian jobs.

Senator EDWARDS: I will take that interjection from Senator Cameron because Senator Cameron would know that the seat of Wakefield is held by a Labor member, and was held by Labor member, Mr Champion—

Senator Cameron: He has been a 'champion' for jobs! You are talking about anything but jobs, eh? You are being pathetic—absolutely pathetic.

Senator EDWARDS: About the only thing that we can remember of Mr Champion, over the six years he was in government, was his call for the state Premier to introduce a minister for the northern suburbs, because he could not affect any change in that area. He was unable to influence any change. I do not need to remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, of the assertions which Mr Champion had made prior to last year's election, saying that he had actually saved Holden until 2022. They know no bounds, across the other side, in what they will represent. It is like an eraser has been put across the six years of government—that Senator Cameron and his government, in which he was a minister in. They do not understand the drivers of manufacturing, which has driven a lot of manufacturing away from this country. A carbon tax drives jobs offshore.

Let me get back to the electorate of Wakefield. It covers an area of nearly 6½ square kilometres from Salisbury in the northern suburbs of Adelaide to the Clare Valley, 135 kilometres north. Wakefield is named after Edward Wakefield, whose theories of colonisation had a great impact on the formation of settlement in Western Australia and South Australia. The electorate covers industries ranging from commercial retail, technology-based industry, defence, manufacturing, cereal crops, sheep, cattle, market gardens and viticulture. As you can see and hear, it is indeed a very diverse electorate. As I said earlier to the interjections, it has the highest youth unemployment rate for not only South Australia but nearly the whole of Australia. I, for one, am not going to sit back like the member for Wakefield and his Senate colleagues like the former minister, Senator Cameron, in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That probably gives you some idea of the dysfunction that presided over these increased levels of youth unemployment.

Senator Cameron: You would not do anything about it. Why don’t you talk about jobs in South Australia instead of all this nonsense.

Senator EDWARDS: It is almost as if they gave us—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): Order Senator Cameron! Senator Edwards will be heard in silence.

Senator Cameron: This is excruciating!

Senator EDWARDS: The Abbott-led coalition government is building a stronger economy by supporting apprentices to successfully complete their qualifications. This government is delivering on its commitment to introduce Trade Support Loans for apprentices to encourage more young people to take up a trade and complete their qualifications. We are committed to providing opportunities for a hand up and not a handout. We are committed to building a high-quality and nationally consistent Australian apprenticeship system, which supports our apprentices and responds to the needs of employers and the economy. Australia's future productivity and competitiveness depends on a highly skilled and trained workforce. We do the unemployed a great disservice by allowing them to languish on welfare. Trade support loans will provide real support for current apprentices to complete their skills training and to provide a stronger incentive for young Australians to become apprentices. One of the largest challenges in this field is completing a qualification. Nationally, only about one in two apprentices finish their training. I have firsthand experience in this: my son is a third-year carpentry apprentice and he finds it very difficult to get by. I know that this scheme is most welcomed by him and by his employer. I am sure all industry trades on the building sites in the south-east of South Australia will enjoy the benefit of this initiative from the Abbott government.

Investing in infrastructure and abolishing job-destroying taxes is the first step to growing jobs for a sustainable long-term solution for our unemployed. Trade support loans are a part of this strategy. This is the policy we took to the election and this is the policy we are implementing. This is one reason people voted for us on 7 September last year.

Senator Cameron: No, they didn't; they voted because you lied on everything.

Senator EDWARDS: Senator Cameron, I would be very interested to know where you got your money printing press from when you ran the government because you just kept printing money. It was true socialism and it all worked very well right up until you run out of everybody else's money.

I am passionate about the northern suburbs of Adelaide and it would do well for the current member for Wakefield to become the same way. The implementation of trade support loans will benefit this area greatly. The member for Wakefield has given up. He was quoted only late last year calling for a 'minister for the northern Adelaide'. That is his job, surely. He is the member for Wakefield, which takes in the northern suburbs. Why do we need a minister? We already have one elected member. Why does he not stay and do his job? Let us talk about his state Labor colleagues who cover the northern suburbs of Adelaide. What have they been doing for the past 12 years? They are still in government, into their 13th year. There are six state Labor colleagues out there in the northern suburbs presiding over one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. If you look at the facts—

Senator Cameron: Just give up!

Senator EDWARDS: No, I will not give up, Senator Cameron, through you Mr Acting Deputy President. Giving up is very much in the vocabulary of those on the opposite side. They just give up and move along to the next issue, to something else: 'Can't do it, too hard, move along, just give up.' 'Give up' does not exist in our vocabulary but it is very much a part of Labor behaviour and the way in which they run their agenda. The Trade Support Loans scheme offers loans of up to $20,000 which are repayable through the tax system with a safety net—only when they are working and earning a sustainable income of more than $50,000.

Senator Cameron: A 20-grand debt for an apprentice.

Senator EDWARDS: Of course it is. Money is not free. When will you work out that money is not free, that you have to earn it? This is a hand up, not a hand out. This is going to help young people at the most critical time of their lives. It is no different from somebody starting a business when they need a loan for the business. It is no different at all. They get a loan for the business and repay the loan. We are equipping young apprentices with the money, with the ability to get to work, with the ability to buy a car and with the ability to buy the tools of trade. They can get this loan so that they can earn and then allocate money they earn. It is no different from anybody going to university and getting a degree. It is no different from HECS.

I want to empower the trades of this country. I do not know why anybody wants to put a block in front of people living effectively, working effectively and being able to get to work. Why would they not choose to train in a skill? This system will grow the pie, it will grow productivity and it will grow manufacturing because more and more people will be able to go into training knowing full well that they will be able to pay their bills. What can the loan money be spent on? These loans are designed to provide financial support for apprentices to cover their cost of living and learning while training.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left!

Senator EDWARDS: They must be coming quite confounded by what I am saying. It makes common sense, does it not?

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator EDWARDS: Thank you for the acknowledgement, Senator Cameron. How can it be disgraceful? It is just common sense. I am yet to hear from one of the union people on the other side of the businesses which they ran, when they took on trainees and apprentices and how it worked for them in the initial years. What do I hear? Nothing. There were no businesses run by those on the other side, were there? You have not run any businesses. You have just tried to run businesses for other people. I am talking about people who understand the way in which the economy works and understand the drivers of the economy. I would not expect to ever hear anything from you people on the other side about anything that makes sense in the business community because you do not understand it. You do not talk to business owners and you do not get it. Business is not in your DNA and it never will be.

I will give you some examples of what the money can be spent on. Apprentices are given the options to opt-in for six months to buy their tools and then opt-out of any further payments, or apprentices could save their first year's payments to buy a second hand vehicle and then opt-out of further payments, or apprentices can take on the full loan to cover living expenses through their years of training and when they complete their qualification they will get 20 per cent off the $20,000.

It makes eminent sense. It just makes sense. If they finish, they get a reward—a reward for effort; not just a reward for nothing but a reward for effort.

How long will it probably take for an apprentice to pay off their loan? Well, that is what happens—you pay off a loan; you get a 20 per cent completion bonus. If you take that into account, it will be five years after the repayments start. So that leg up into a productive life—

Senator O'Neill: It's leg-up into debt—that's what it is.

Senator EDWARDS: a profitable life, a life with choices, is going to take about five years to repay.

Let us look at Labor's record on youth unemployment. Under Labor, the teen unemployment rate went from 19.6 per cent in November 2007 to 27.3 per cent in September 2013. I do not hear anything at all from the other side on that one! These are indisputable facts: from November 2007 to September 2013, what is disgusting is that they on the other side presided over a nearly 10 per cent increase in youth unemployment.

Senator O'Neill: That is not the case.

Senator EDWARDS: That is the case, Senator O'Neill—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—and I will ask you to come back into the chamber and you can prove me wrong with your facts. Under Labor, the unemployment rate for young people rose from 9.9 to 12.7 per cent—55,000 more young Australians were unemployed after six years of Labor government. Fifty-five thousand more Australians were unemployed after you had finished with your wrecking ball of fiscal mismanagement and had gone through the budget, where we had $123 billion worth of accumulated debt and spiralling towards a $667 billion national debt. You cannot look at me straight in the eye and tell me that that is wrong.

We are about supporting communities. The coalition government is also looking to support those people who move, either to the city or the country, to take up a job in places where work is available. The Relocation Assistance to Take up a Job program provides $6,000 to relocate to a regional area, or $3,000 to relocate to a capital city, and an extra $3,000 if relocating with dependent children. That is a hand up, not a handout.

Apprenticeships are part of this program.

Senator Cameron: Are they lifters or leaners?

Senator EDWARDS: They would be lifters, Senator Cameron—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi—because they are going out to find jobs. This has been such an enjoyable contribution! I personally know that there are jobs out there, that are available in places like Port Lincoln and Port Wakefield. The relocation support program— (Time expired)

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:33): I am pleased to be able to speak in the chamber today on this very important matter. I come to it as a sister to brothers who were very much committed to becoming part of the trade part of our economy, who gathered their skills through undertaking trade qualifications. That has led them into being able to run small businesses and employ many people with the skills that they got as young men who sought a trade qualification. Apart from the ripping apart of TAFE, what so concerns me about the agenda of those opposite is that they really do not understand the nature of the kind of access to money that was happening under the former government, when we were enabling our young tradies to get the money that they needed to get a ute and be able to get on and do the sorts of work that they needed to do.

Labor is absolutely committed to making sure that our young Australians have the support that they need to stay in education, to stay in training and to develop the skills they need to get to stay in work or to achieve work. I could not tell you how proud parents and teachers were of all the trade training centres that I was able to see in my time in the 43rd Parliament that were delivered by the Labor government, which understood the nature of learning and young people and understood parents.

I am sure that there are some people sitting here in the gallery today and certainly people listening to this broadcast who go to sleep at night worrying about what job their son or daughter might be able to undertake, and whether they will be able to keep them at school through years 11 and 12 because they know, instinctively and because of the factual record, that, if you can stay at school and you can get a qualification, you are going to be able to improve your life. You will earn so much more money with these qualifications. There are parents struggling with, 'How do I get my 17-year-old son out of bed this morning and get him to go to school when he hates the learning experience there, because all he really wants to do is to become a tradie?' That yearning of Australian parents and young people who needed access to that learning was answered by the trade training skill centres that were established in schools—established in contexts where professional teachers, well trained, were able to continue to wrap care around these young people, where school counsellors and careers guidance were available in a school community where they were known, and where they could keep their friendships and the supports for their learning as they commenced their training to become masters of trades, vital to our economy and vital to our life.

We understand the importance of training and care in this sector, and I am very concerned about this bill, but we will not be opposing this bill—and that was made very clear by Senator Carr earlier this morning—because we are not going to stand in the way of everything that this terrible government is trying to do. But we are doing our best to put some brakes on what is a very bad proposal by a government that is only here because it lied to the Australian people. There are a lot of lies that are hidden in the detail that they do not want us to discuss about this bill that is before the chamber today, the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014.

Our efforts at this time are dedicated to fixing a number of serious concerns and problems that were raised following the introduction of this particular piece of legislation. The Abbott government is trying to put a bandaid on a problem that the former Labor government was already addressing. Access to support while you are gaining a trade is clearly an issue.

If you come from a regional area of Australia, as I do, where there is no adequate public transport system to move young people to jobs, one of first things you have to do—certainly in New South Wales—is undertake 120 hours training with a parent or a significant adult to help you get your licence. Because there is no bus from Copacabana at six o'clock in the morning to get you to your trades job where you are doing your training at Ourimbah by seven in the morning. It simply does not exist. You have to have enough money to go and buy a ute and you have to have a ute to put your gear in. These practical realities are something I understand—I have lived in communities where the trades sector is the most important part of the economy—and they have to be attended to.

Those opposite have come up with this scheme of: 'We will loan you $20,000 and put you in debt.' But they have not explained if having a lump sum payment is even going to allow someone to buy a $4,000 or $5,000 ute—and they are pretty hard to come by even when I see the cars by the side of the road as I drive up and down the Central Coast roads—that is going to be reliable enough to get you to work so you do not lose your job. Four or $5,000 is not a lot of money. What this government is proposing is not going to address that first-base need and that is evidenced by how out of touch those opposite are with what is really required.

However, after the backlash from apprentices, their parents and employers who have tried to wake this government up to the reality of what their failed implementation process is, the government have decided to come over with a few goodies, to put a little display in the window, to take away the stench of what they are doing. We have had $914 million axed from the Tools for Your Trade program. We have had $32 million axed from the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program. We have had $18 million axed from the Australian Apprenticeship Access Program and $11 million dollars axed from the Apprentice Business to Owner program. Despite nearly a billion dollars of cuts, these guys think they are doing something—or pretending they are doing something—good for the country by offering $5 million to support our apprentices to take out a loan.

It is a shameful revelation of just how twisted the priorities of this government are, and which are on display day after day in this place. They are replacing Labor's very popular and effective Tools for Your Trade program—and this is a program Tony Abbott did not tell voters he would be cutting. He is bringing in the Trade Support Loans program. The problem is it is not flying with the people, because this government has a trust problem. It is clearly evident in this chamber; we could not have seen it more clearly than we did last Thursday. No-one trusts this government. No-one trusts Tony Abbott, because they have been nailed between the eyes with the lies that have been coming forth day after day.

Apprentices should not trust this government either, because a $20,000 loan for a 16- or 17-year-old who is still at school is an absolute crock. It is a disgraceful, and there is no sense of any public good. It completely belies the fact that some young people at 16 or 17 might not exactly know the perfect trade for them. What if they want to be an apprentice hairdresser and they have dreamed about it forever? They finally get there. They set themselves up with this loan and, three months in, they realise that this is not their dream profession but they are then saddled with a debt that this terrible government has inflicted upon them.

Right now, following the government's failure to have the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 debated, apprentices around the entire nation are in limbo because of this shambolic government's decision to end the Tools for Your Trade program in June. They just do not know where they stand. We have got young people across the country who have got a debt from buying a vehicle to get themselves moving. All of a sudden, this government have come in—the adults in the room—and, pardon me, no apprentices know what you are doing. You are not supporting these vulnerable young people at a critical point in their lives. Not only has the Liberal government hurt our apprentices by cutting a billion dollars from the budget; they are being left in the lurch, because no support is coming from this government. It is just a legislative mess, and it is messing with the wrong people. It is messing with young people who have a right to a vision for their future that is far, far more positive and outreaching than this government that is seeking to shut things down left, right and centre.

As recently as 29 June, we had the Prime Minister say:

And from this week, there’ll be new concessional Trade Support Loans available to apprentices learning a trade.

It sounds very good. He went on to say:

This will help apprentices complete their studies.

But the problem is: it was wrong. It was a lie and it is disappointing to see the Prime Minister get such a simple fact wrong about such a vital program for young people in our community. He is giving false hope to those apprentices who thought they might have seen the light at the end of this gloomy, Liberal induced tunnel.

If these loans are not available, the minister must step up and reintroduce the Tools for Your Trade program, because apprentices who are operating and who planned their financial future with assistance from their families and the Tools for Your Trade program are now going to be suffering even more with no assistance, while the government sorts out this mess of a program that they are trying to push through this place today.

As I said earlier, Labor will not be in opposition for opposition's sake, but we have a government that is trying to gag debate on this issue. It is shameful. Why do they want to gag it? Because they do not want to have the media and me standing up and identifying the one billion dollars worth of cuts that they have inflicted on Australia and our young people. They are trying to hide from some very simple but important and effective amendments that we want to move. The fact that they want to shut down debate shows how hypocritical this government is and how disgraceful they are in seeking to shut down important debate and amendments to improve the lives of ordinary Australians. They just do not care, and they do not get it.

The Abbott government gagging members in the House and here raises my concerns that this government does not want scrutiny applied to its shameful policies. It is a slap in the face to the thousands of apprentices who will be worse off under Tony Abbott's cruel cuts to education. When the minister was asked a question in the House of Representatives, it was like a move that would have been applauded in a State of Origin game—weaving, dashing left and right all around the place trying to hide from the scrutiny of questions about financial liability. All he had to say was accusation after accusation about these young people who are just trying to get out and have a go, talking about them being irresponsible with money. He could not explain or make it perfectly clear the total liability that the apprentices will be facing if they take on these Trade Support Loans. This is why we have some very real concerns that need to be addressed in this place today.

As I said, we are not opposing the legislation, despite this shambolic way it has been handled. But these are some of the questions that we need answers to. How are apprentices going to access the loans if there is no legislative framework in place? To make this happen, you have to have a legislative framework. That is a minor point, but it might need attending to. Have protections been put in place for school-based apprentices who are under 18? If you are doing an apprenticeship course at school and you are aged 15 or 16, can you get a loan? Should you be giving a loan to kids at school, putting them in debt to the tune of $20,000? Is there something morally repugnant about that? Certainly there is to me, but we just do not know about those opposite. Saddling the least privileged with high levels of debt is the model of education that this government is set to inflict on this country. Have the privacy provisions in the legislation been strengthened to ensure that apprentices' personal information is protected? We have no answer. They are not answering those questions and are trying to cut debate on this.

Right now, we feel that there are inadequate protections for school-based apprentices and other apprentices under the age of 18 years. This is something that has been forgotten or ignored by this government. It is not just a $5,500 support payment as it was under Labor. That was the government helping you to get on the road, to get your gear and to get your trade. That is what it was; it was $5,500 to help apprentices. This is entirely different. This is applying for a $20,000 loan, a loan that the government will be extending to apprentices and some who are still at school and under the age of 18 years.

The next semester of TAFE will commence very shortly. Apprentices are going to need books and equipment. They need to know where they stand in relation to the Trade Support Loans. But we have no clarity from a government that is in disarray, that got to office on the back of a set of policy lies and very little competency. That is being revealed here. Under Labor, apprentices had the certainty and the flexibility of having the payment. They did not have to worry about repayments. It was an investment in young people. Having worked as a teacher for nearly 20 years and having taught teachers, I have confidence in the young people of Australia. With a bit of support they can do amazing things. This government has a very different view. They have a miserly, mean and debt-ridden view for the future of the youth of Australia. What they are trying to inflict on our country is a disgrace.

Another major issue we have on this side of the chamber is around the government's decision to give these loans only as a monthly payment. That is not going to help the person who needs a lump sum to buy that ute to get going. It simply does not match. There is a gap between the wild rhetoric of those opposite. Their holier-than-thou attitude clearly indicates that they think they can impose this on young people without listening to them, their families or their employers; without looking to the future with inspiration and vision to see an educated, enabled group of young people who have got their trades—vital to our economy. The benefit of Labor's Tools For Your Trade program that invested in young people was around providing that lump sum. It is expensive to get a trade. My brother Sean, who is no longer with us, delighted in his first years of being a plant mechanic. Tools, boxes to put those tools in and a ute to get to work in were vital things for him. It was very difficult for him, but his life would have been improved with $5,500 support from the government. A $20,000 debt, on the other hand, would have been a liability hanging around his neck.

The monthly loan payments proposed by those opposite really do one shameful thing. We have even heard it in the speeches today. They do not even realise how bad it is, what they are saying here. They are saying that monthly loan payments are going to be used by apprentices to prop up their wage. That is what this is about. It is: 'If you want a trade, you had better know that you are going to get a really, really low wage. You just have got to accept that.' And if it is too hard for them to manage on a really, really low wage, the wages will not be improved the wages. No, that is not their plan—go out and get a $20,000 loan. That is what this legislation is about—a $20,000 rock necklace for the youth of Australia. The government have no vision for education. They have no sense of investing in young people. They only have a sense of, 'You want it, you pay for it, and we will punish you and leave you with that liability hanging around your neck'. It is a shameful view of the future.

As the legislation stands currently, apprentices would not be able to purchase that new vehicle for work, that van or that ute. Apprentices would not be able to purchase a new set of knives or a professional set of hair scissors. Make no mistake about it: these loans proposed by those opposite are a salary supplement that young tradespeople will have to pay back at the end of their training. In the House of Representatives, the minister made the point over and over again, demonising the young people undertaking education, that Labor's Tools For Your Trade was not spent on what it was intended for—and without Labor's suggestions, neither will the Trade Support Loans.

The reality is that the Abbott government has revealed in its budget that it is determined to be unfair, to hurt the easiest target and to marginalise the most vulnerable. For young Australians, whether they go to university or TAFE, this government wants to take away opportunities and burden them with incredible levels of debt—because it sees only a dystopian view of the future where the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and young people do not even have a place. If this government was actually listening to the young people of Australia, to their parents, who worry about them as they go to sleep at night, and to the employers, it would not be putting this shambolic piece of legislation before us; it would continue Labor's support program as it was—enabling the young people of this country. (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:53): I do not oppose this bill as a means of supporting apprentices but I believe that there are some serious defects with it and it needs to be amended quite significantly. I also have serious reservations about the immediate and long-term consequences of recent funding cuts for TAFEs. Worrying figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research show that, since 2012, national apprenticeship commencements have declined from 330,500 to 244,700. In my home state of South Australia apprenticeship commencements have fallen to from 25,600 to 15,700 during the same period—that is, a very significant and worrying reduction of more than 30 per cent. These figures show it is clear that we need measures to encourage the take-up and completion of apprenticeships. Equally as important, however, are measures to assist workplaces and training institutions to provide opportunities for apprentices.

TAFE Directors Australia, the peak body representing Australia's 58 TAFE institutions, have raised concerns with me about the real cost of the proposed Trade Support Loans. Unlike current HECS or FEE-HELP loans, which are paid directly to Commonwealth registered institutions, the Trade Support Loans are paid directly to students. As with university study, there is often no guarantee of employment following qualification. Combined with a labour market that has been tightening, there are some concerns about apprentices' ability to service their debts to the Commonwealth and the long-term consequences of their indebtedness.

The labour market is tightening, and it is getting worse. Rossi boots, an iconic South Australian company, missed out on a Defence procurement tender because there was a cheaper import. That does not take into account the whole-of-life costs and the social and economic benefits of making something here in Australia. Where people are employed locally they spend their money in the local community and they pay their taxes—and the company pays its taxes. That is very different from just exporting jobs using Australian taxpayers' dollars.

I acknowledge the analysis conducted by the Australian Greens which has shown it could take a carpenter up to 34 years to repay their loan, a welder up to 13 years and an automotive engineer up to 23 years. The government has disputed these figures and tells us it will take apprentices about eight years on average to repay the loans. Even if the government's figures are correct, with no restrictions on how the loan money is spent these loans could be a very expensive exercise for apprentices in the long term.

I have serious doubts, too, as to whether this loan scheme is the most effective use of public money to correct the worrying reductions in apprenticeship commencements, particularly in the face of recent budget cuts to other programs. These cuts include programs that target disadvantaged and migrant Australians by preparing them for TAFE and other apprenticeships. These programs have demonstrated track records in creating enormous opportunities for vulnerable Australians to enter and remain in the workforce. Although funding to help apprentices with living expenses may assist them to see out their apprenticeship, I am concerned that this measure may come at the cost of programs that encourage apprenticeship take-up. Of further concern is the cessation, without warning, of the Tools For Your Trade grant program. Thousands of apprentices across the country have entered into three- or four-year training contracts on the understanding and belief that they would receive grants of up to $5,500 over the course of their apprenticeship. For apprentices who are in the final years of their course, this news has been a particularly hard blow.

I am concerned that we need to look at this piece of legislation in the context of other amendments that are being proposed. It is important to note that the opposition has called on the government to determine a method of parental approval for loans taken out by apprentices aged younger than 18, which I strongly support; it is a question of appropriate consent for a minor. The Australian Greens have an amendment to include in this legislation a requirement for parental consent, which I think is very appropriate. I congratulate Senator Rhiannon for moving those amendments because they are entirely appropriate. There are a number of other Greens amendments which will be dealt with in the committee stage. I am broadly supportive of ensuring that, if you are going to slash TAFE, you have some safeguards in place.

I also note that the Tools For Your Trade program is having all sorts of consequences: it is retrospective in nature; it was done without warning; apprentices have already started. I note that Senator Day has just entered the chamber. He has a very credible and well-recognised home building company and has been passionate about apprentices as well. I am concerned that, if the government takes away funding like this, it will have a very, very negative impact.

I will not vote against this bill, but I will be supporting a number of amendments that I believe will make this bill fairer. Overall, I do not support the massive cuts to TAFE; we are going in the wrong direction if you want to support the whole issue of apprenticeships; we are slipping behind. If we want to build up skills in this nation and ensure that young Australians have a chance to learn and practice a trade, then slashing money from TAFE and taking money away from apprenticeship programs is a negative step. Having a loan program with certain limits and safeguards may be a way around it, but it is only a short-term solution. The government needs to acknowledge the economic costs of this. What modelling has the government done of the impact this will have on apprenticeship numbers—in particular, taking away Tools For Your Trade, which may have negative consequences in terms of the number of apprenticeships in this country? I look forward to the committee stages of this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:04): In accordance with the Senate resolution of 17 March 1994 on the declaration of senators' interests, I present declarations of interests and notifications of alterations of interests in the Register of Senators' Interests lodged between 11 December 2013 and 4 July 2014.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:04): I present the 157th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Professor Simon Chapman, AO.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BILYK: This report is the 68th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified.

On 24 June 2014, the President received a submission from Professor Simon Chapman relating to a speech made by Senator John Madigan during the adjournment debate in the Senate on 17 June 2014. The President referred the submission to the committee under privileges resolution No. 5. The committee considered the submission at its meeting on 10 July 2014 and recommends that the proposed response be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privileges resolution No. 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:06): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on provisions of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (Abolition) Bill 2014, the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014 and the Health Workforce Australia (Abolition) Bill 2014, together with the Hansard records and proceedings, and documents presented to the committees. I move the other reports be printed.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) ( 17:07 ): The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of a committee.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:07): by leave—I move:

That Senator McEwen replace Senator Urquhart on the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee from 21 July to 22 August 2014 and Senator Urquhart be appointed as a participating member of the committee.

Question agreed to.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:08): I move:

That the Higher Education (Maximum Amounts for Other Grants) Determination 2013, made under sections 41-45(1A) and (1B) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, be disallowed.

Senator KIM CARR: Perhaps I should explain this disallowance motion so that the Senate may find it easier to follow.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We would be most appreciative if you did, Senator Carr.

Senator KIM CARR: This regulation was made under sections 41-45(1A) and (1B) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This determination is part of a measure that would cut $2.3 billion from the higher education sector. It precedes the $5.8 billion in cuts to universities and student support which were announced in the budget. It precedes the government's damaging and alarming ideological agenda to change the very structural basis of the higher education system in this country and this government, in all its manifest hubris, likes to pretend that this is anything other than a Liberal-National policy determination. It is a determination of a Liberal minister.

This Liberal-National party cut is brought about by the Minister for Education, Mr Pyne, who, we all appreciate, is now facing considerable difficulty in this portfolio. This minister has had three separate positions on Gonski. The minister said before the election that there would be no changes to university funding and, indeed, he repeated this promise prior to the budget. We all know what happened in that regard. The minister said before the election he would not raise HECS but now wants to raise HECS to such a level that $100,000 degrees could well become the norm. This is a determination by a minister who, like his Prime Minister, has one modus operandi when it comes to the operation of government policy—that is, the big lie. In no sector of the operation of the Commonwealth has this technique been demonstrated more clearly than in education. This is not surprising because the coalition has long been an enemy of education. The audacity of the minister to introduce these cuts on one hand while pretending the government has nothing to do with them on the other is, by all standards, truly shocking. It shows a contempt for the public, a contempt for the higher education sector.

Labor does not support the cuts to university funding that this determination would enact and we do not support the further cuts to higher education planned by the coalition. Additional cuts are clearly on the way. Make no mistake: whatever the fate of this as yet unseen legislation, which we are now told may well be ready by October, there is no question about what the government intends to do—that is, to cut higher education still further. The government does not properly understand the value or the role of universities in a knowledge economy because it has a very narrow view about putting money into education.

It is not, in their minds, an investment; rather it is a cost because they say there has to be some short-term return that can be measured purely in dollars and cents. Therefore, taking money out of education, according to this line of logic, makes economic sense. Universities, it is argued, produce and disseminate knowledge, they help us solve problems, they make new products and processes, they protect our environment and they help us understand ourselves. In doing all of these things, nations grow in stature, economically, culturally and even politically. Universities should not be treated just as mere degree factories because they enrich our lives. That is what we mean by the public benefit associated with investment in education.

Many of those opposite had the very great fortune to benefit from a free education system. Many of them benefited from engaging in university politics, in sports and in clubs. Some would say they benefited so much that they never actually got out of student politics, that they have never been able to step outside their experience of university politics where they faced considerable hostility and that they want to feed that back through the political system to the end of their days. For some reason, there remains a contempt within the Liberal Party about the university system, a contempt which, in itself, beggars belief. This is reflected in every policy they have brought to bear on the sector. It is astounding that they would point to the Howard government's record on this.

Labor is very familiar with this record. We had to clean it up when were in government. When the coalition formed government in 1996, one of their very first acts was to plunder the higher education sector, without a word of warning. They delivered a massive five per cent budget cut to the higher education sector and none of that was announced before the election of the Howard government. Student fees skyrocketed, Commonwealth supported places slumped and billions of dollars were stripped out of the system in the decade of neglect which followed. They claimed that total government spending for universities increased by 13 per cent in real terms during their time in government. Even if that were true, it would still be a pretty ordinary record. To claim this kind of paltry figure shows the complete lack of understanding on the part of those opposite of the growing role of universities in our society.

Some figures are even more telling. From 1995 through to 2005, direct public payments to tertiary institutions showed no real growth—none whatsoever. It gets worse. Over the same period, total funding per capita of our universities fell by nine per cent. Funding fell due to two things: there were cuts and there was neglect. If we take indexation, the party of self-proclaimed market economists—with the exception of the agrarian socialists that act as their allies—left universities with a system of indexation which was totally and completely inadequate to meet the needs of contemporary Australia. It was a system of indexation so out of touch with the realities of running a modern university that, when Labor adjusted the formula to reflect real cost, it added billions of dollars over the forward estimates—money the coalition had been withholding from universities. With so many economic geniuses in their ranks, one can only assume that it was done deliberately because of hostility! Well, it surely couldn't be just a question of ineptitude! But others would suggest I am wrong on that.

They did not stop there. Not content with draining the budget, they also went after the culture of universities. Sporting clubs, legal services, child care, social events—they all had to go. Of course, that was all tied up with their approach to voluntary student unionism.

Senator Ryan: Hear, hear!

Senator KIM CARR: This decimated student services. I hear 'Hear, hear' from over there. You see—the policy has not lost its flavour for those on that side of the chamber. Only when Labor undid that wrong and brought in the student support and amenities fee did we begin to see essential services return to strength on campuses.

The coalition's meddling on campuses did not just affect student-run services. The long arm of this sort of neo-right ideology reached back into the staffrooms and the administration blocks, forcing universities to implement aspects of the coalition's industrial relations agenda or risk losing funding. Those were the higher education workplace relations requirements under the legislation at the time, and of course they very much became part of Work Choices. The party that claimed to hate regulation created a special branch of it just to tell universities what conditions they could and could not offer their staff.

Those opposite talk about their legacy in higher education—well, let me say to this chamber: it is a legacy that has not been forgotten. The legacy of the Howard era in higher education left the university system in crisis. It was a decade of neglect and much, much worse.

These actions of over a decade ago sound a warning, because it is the same coalition, with many of the same faces, using the same cabinet submissions to operate on the current policy position—as we see, for instance, with the cabinet submission which was leaked in 1999 which outlines chapter and verse what this government is doing today.

It was two months into their term when the government identified $1.43 billion in cuts to the education portfolio. This was on top of more than $3.7 billion in cuts in their first 100 days of government. Mr Abbott once claimed that universities would experience a period of 'masterly inactivity' under his government. Of course, that was wrong—there has been a great deal of activity. Either the Prime Minister was unaware of secret plans to gut higher education or that was, knowingly, totally untrue. So they started with the $3.7 billion worth of cuts and they continued this with an announced $5.8 billion. We saw it in the past under the Howard government and now it is flowing through to this current government.

Labor set about reducing the damage to the universities and, almost as soon as we formed government, we initiated the most significant review of higher education to date—the Bradley review. We also had the Cutler review, and initiated changes to the research program to ensure that we were able to meet the real costs of research. Under the Labor government, Commonwealth funding for universities rose from $8 billion to $14 billion between 2007 and 2013. And, if we were still in office, that amount, under Labor's forward estimates, would grow to $17 billion by 2017. We increased real funding per student by nearly $2,000 in real terms to $18,000 per year. Labor improved indexation and replaced the hopeless, out-of-date system. We increased funding for the science, research and innovation budget by well over 30 per cent, compared to the previous government. We delivered more capital and infrastructure in four years than the coalition managed to do in the whole decade that they were in office. Labor delivered more than $5 billion in higher education and research infrastructure while we were in office. We began one of the largest reforms ever undertaken in the university system, moving towards the demand-driven system which led to the additional 190,000 extra students in universities compared to 2007. The government talks today about 80,000. Well, that record is well and truly surpassed by actual places in universities—and not at a reduced rate; not the sort of proposition that the government is talking about at the sub-degree level. Because of our initiatives today there are an additional 36,000 students from disadvantaged backgrounds actually at university, and we set the goal of increasing the proportion of the population with a degree to 40 per cent of 25- to 35-year-olds by 2020. For women, that goal has already been achieved. And for the whole community, we were within cooee of reaching that goal already—well before the 2020 date. We provided significant funding for those universities with substantial numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But this is a government that actually gets rid of equity targets. This is a government that cuts equity programming. We argue that that approach is wrong. We believe that our university system should be for everyone with ability, regardless of how much money their parents have. That is why we also sought to ensure that the university experience itself was a rewarding one and supported the student services and amenities fee.

We made it easier for young people to study through reforms to youth allowance, so that more than 220,000 young people received the maximum rate—a much higher rate of payment—for the first time. So much of what we did was to repair the damage of the coalition's previous government. The reckless damage and wilful neglect wreaked by the government that is now back in office shows us a measure of how the coalition actually operates in government. We are very proud of our record. We take the view that the Commonwealth of Australia should respect the role of universities and, to this end, we want universities to play a leading role in our nation's future. We believe the economic argument for investment in universities is very, very clear; universities directly contribute about $22 billion to our GDP every year; they employ over 100,000 people; university graduates contribute more than $170 billion per year in wages to our economy; and university graduates comprise about one-quarter of the population that generates almost one-third of Australia' wages. There are about nine Australian companies listed on the Fortune Global 500, but there are 19 universities in the world's top 500—that is Australia making its mark internationally.

Universities play a fundamental role in building Australia's future. They are essential to innovation. They produce the knowledge and the ideas. They help build the new technologies. They help build the new industries and they create the new jobs. They play an essential role in local economies. We just need to look at what is happening at Wollongong or in Newcastle—I might add Deakin University in Geelong and the central role that it plays in rural and regional Australia.

Universities help us to interpret our world and to adapt to change. They help us grow in stature as a nation, and we do not want to see them decimated by a government that has no respect for the work that they do and therefore their importance in our future and the future of a knowledge based economy.

Those opposite have a long history of attacking not just the university budgets and university culture; they, unfortunately, have a well-ingrained process of denigrating their work. They have an indifference to the importance of intellectual work in this society. Their failure to even, for instance, appoint a minister for science highlights the negligence of the government. Of course, we see this replicated in their cruel cuts to jobs at the CSIRO. They have sustained attacks on the independence of the Australian Research Council where again the level of their indifference to the importance of the research highlights the sinister nature of the attacks that this government has launched on the intellectual work of this nation.

MPs in the current government have more than once picked out or named a project run by an eminent researcher and mocked them without any understanding or insight into the project, which of course is clearly unfortunate. I say their attacks on climate change science are a disgrace. These projects and the way research funding is allocated are chosen by panels of peers on the basis of expert merit. They have been successful in an environment in which less than 22 per cent of projects are able to be successful and we see, for instance, that that is a measure of the deep competition that exists within the university system. Yet certain members of this government behave as ignoramuses when it comes to the issue of research projects in this country.

As recently as December, the member for Hughes ridiculed no fewer than 23 recent grant recipients in the humanities, arts and sciences—projects that are amongst the best of the best. If you think I am being too harsh, just think of the member in another place in 2011 who provided us with the revelation that champagne contained carbon dioxide so we should stop global warming by 'drinking chardonnay instead of champagne'. Perhaps this is a measure of the intellectual depth of this government, but I am afraid it is all too serious to be funny.

We have a government that has set upon a course of action of profound hostility to universities. They have used whatever imaginary budget emergency they can find to demonstrate their capacity for cruel and quite vicious cuts to the university system. Their walking away from the Gonski program highlights that they do not have any long-term commitment to education in this country, and the failure of this government to acknowledge their responsibilities to our society and our future speaks volumes.

The original money was set aside under these changes when we were in government for the better skills program, the Gonski reforms, but the coalition has gutted Gonski. It is no longer a six-year commitment; it is four years. The fundamental point about the Gonski reforms is the bulk of the money was in years 5 and 6, the very years that this government has walked away from, despite what was said during the election campaign that there would be no cuts to education and that we could have exactly the same approach to schools funding between Liberal and Labor—it did not make any difference. In government we see this government repudiating what it actually said in opposition, and now of course we see that this is a government that clearly is in the business of saying one thing in opposition and another thing in government. Therefore I submit to the Senate that these measures should be disallowed and the government should not be able to proceed with these cuts to the university system.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (17:28): Amongst all the bluster and all the noise we have just heard from Senator Carr, there is one fact that we did not hear: that these are Labor's own measures. On three occasions in three documents last year, the Labor Party proposed these very changes. All the fiction, the confected reasons and outrage by Senator Carr cannot hide this fact.

These cuts were announced by Labor in April 2013. They were confirmed by Labor in the last budget they presented in May 2013 and they remained in Labor's documents in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook that was taken to the election campaign. Despite all of Senator Carr's mock outrage, these are the proposals that Labor took.

All we are trying to do is to bring the budget back to a sustainable position and, in this case, the Labor Party is stopping us from implementing their own measures. The problem we have is that, as Senator Carr has said in this place on a number of occasions, it wasn't when he was minister. To be fair, that is because we all lost track of the concertina business cards and the constant replacement of departmental letterheads, because the previous government was so chaotic. In my old portfolio they went through half-a-dozen small business ministers in four years, and I lost track of how many in higher education, science, research and school education.

The other words we do not hear from the Labor Party when they talk about alleged savings being directed in certain ways to future years—not in the budget estimates for school funding, even though these cuts were in the budget estimates—is a commitment that they will put the money back. This is all empty rhetoric from the Labor Party. It is all empty rhetoric now they are in opposition. It is all empty rhetoric from Senator Carr who is disregarded by his own colleagues whenever they sit on this side of the chamber. Whether it is about the car industry, the Green Car Innovation Fund being stripped, the uncertainty that even the then Managing Director of Holden Mike Devereux referred to under the previous Labor government or whether it is these changes, all we hear from Senator Carr is mock outrage when he is not in a position to actually change the circumstances.

In the confected outrage of his 20-minute address, I heard Senator Carr refer to the great expansion of university access. The truth is the greatest expansion of university access this country came when Robert Menzies expanded the university system. the single greatest expansion of universities from an elite group in our society was through Commonwealth scholarships and a dramatic increase in the number of universities. This side stands proudly by its record in higher education. The problem with Senator Carr is that he mistakes the NTEU position for something in favour of universities. He talks about how important universities are. He talks about how they can be important to creative thought and innovative thought. He talks about their importance as public institutions, being places to nurture our best and our brightest, giving an opportunity for all. Yet the one thing Senator Carr and the Labor Party will not do is set the universities free, because they still must be run, in that famous phrase, by 'Moscow on the Molonglo'. They still must be regulated in a way that no other sector of this economy is. They must all have bureaucrats overseeing each and everything they do, because they cannot be trusted. Senator Carr's position is entirely and utterly incoherent and inconsistent. I turn to a number of other points he raised.

Senator Birmingham: He is inconsistent.

Senator RYAN: Senator Birmingham, thank you very much. I have lost my train of thought. Senator Carr also referred to the allegation that somehow saving money over the four years of the forward estimates of the budget was going to magically fund Labor's mythical Gonski reforms that were never accounted for. If that was the case, Labor would not have stripped out $1.2 billion from the first four years of those reforms in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. According to the previous Labor government, the students of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory did not deserve to be funded on the same basis as other students. That was gutted by the Labor Party before the election. This government then had to find $1.2 billion to put back into schools education. That move alone demonstrates the hypocrisy and emptiness of what Senator Carr refers to and the fiction that Labor has tried to create that somehow these measures were going to be directed towards schools funding—they were not.

Senator Carr says that we have a myopic view—I do not know that was the word he used—that this is about spending, not about investment. That betrays Senator Carr's factional home in the socialist left, because it is all spending. It must all be accounted for. There is no magical investment budget paper that says somehow we do not have to borrow that money or raise it through taxation. There are three ways to spend money. You get it from somewhere else within government, you increase taxes or you increase borrowings. Increasing borrowings is just deferring an increase in taxation. But Senator Carr tries to create this mythical separation between spending and investment, as if by somehow rebadging it with an NTEU bumper sticker it does not actually have to come out of the taxpayers' coffers—it all does.

Given Senator Carr brought it up, I cannot resist mentioning the issue of student unionism. Senator Carr referred to how proud he was that the Labor Party and their Green allies had brought back in compulsory student unionism through the student services and amenities fee. I imagine that now in this ski season, and it is a good one I understand, Senator Carr is proud of those students working part-time jobs so that those select few can get into Melbourne University's and Monash University's subsidised ski lodge at Mt Buller. Of course, the great majority of students cannot get anywhere near it. You will not see those students who are actually working their way through university, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in the Range Rovers up at Mt Buller this time of year. I am sure Senator Carr is proud of the fact that those students working part-time jobs, pushing trolleys around supermarkets or waiting tables in Carlton's Lygon Street or some other cafe near a university are subsidising the clubs' and societies' activities, the entertainment or indeed the legal services he referred to of the protestors who usually get themselves in trouble on the steps of the Victorian parliament.

Mr Deputy President, I think I was involved in an inquiry with you on this matter once quite a long time ago. That issue itself portrays Senator Carr's lack of concern about equity. Consider the idea that there is this poll tax, explicitly unrelated to anything to do with your university education, that you pay regardless of your means that is used to subsidise the activities of those who do have leisure time at the expense of those who might have to work. It is used to build Taj Mahals like ski lodges and subsidise those on the basis that the great majority of students can never access them. I find this a profound challenge to any vision of equity in the university education system.

This measure is made necessary by the fiscal mess the previous government left us in. Senator Carr referred to a concocted or invented fiscal budget emergency. That betrays Senator Carr's true perspective that there is no problem with government debt. The Greens and other groups run around supporting the Labor Party, saying there is no problem with public debt. They compare Australia to other OECD nations, but they do not compare actual government debt in Australia. They take a very narrow measure of government bonds on issue. They do not take into account unfunded superannuation liabilities that are not yet accounted for by the entirety of the Future Fund. They do not take into account debt that is held at state government and local government levels. The taxpayer is on the hook for all of that. Over the period of the previous coalition government, the strong fiscal position of the Commonwealth is what made sure Australia's economy was resilient from the external shocks of the Asian financial crisis. It actually provided the capital that Senator Carr claimed credit for spending. The previous coalition government had money in the bank through the Future Fund, the Higher Education Endowment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund. Indeed, having a positive balance sheet allowed the Labor government to undertake the most wasteful stimulus program in Australian history.

Senator Carr cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim credit for spending the money that the previous government saved and then say it is not necessary to save money again. The fiscal situation inherited by this government is on a trajectory that is utterly unsustainable. As a country, we have a choice: we can make decisions now, when we are in a position to make them manageable; or we can push them off, as other countries have done, and then they will get much more difficult and much more intergenerationally unfair. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party in proposing this motion is betrayed by that and also by the fact that this was their measure. I will conclude on this point: this measure was announced by the Labor Party in April 2013, it was in the Labor Party's last budget in May 2013 and it was in the Labor Party's paperwork—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—before the last election. All this government is trying to do is put in place a saving that the Labor Party themselves took to the Australian people, to actually save the money that the Labor Party announced they were going to save. They refused to do that, and the hypocrisy is on display for all to see.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (17:38): It is fascinating to listen to how Senator Ryan and Senator Carr see higher education. Senator Carr gave Senator Ryan something pretty easy to come in on. Senator Ryan documented Labor's position in April and May 2013. Unfortunately Labor ditched that position when they went into opposition, which was certainly very shameful. Let's look at what Senator Ryan had to say. Senator Ryan did what so many Liberals do these days; he used Prime Minister Menzies as cover when he said, 'Yes, we care about universities, we care about people.'

Let's look at what Prime Minister Menzies did, which was far different from what the coalition is doing now. It is true that, in the 1950s, Prime Minister Menzies did start to take an interest in universities. He recommended that universities needed assistance and that it needed to be a federal issue and something that the then Liberal government should give attention to. That is certainly very much out of step with what we are seeing from this coalition government. The Liberal government back in the 1950s did commit to recurrent grant funding to our universities. And then there were the Commonwealth funds which were made available for capital expenditure. But the coalition policy now is to slash funding to our universities and push the burden onto students. The coalition is handing out free public money to private sector companies which can now make profits out of higher education. This is quite different from the standards that former Prime Minister Menzies brought to this sector.

It is also a reminder of the whole issue of Commonwealth scholarships and how dishonest this government is. One piece of spin that we regularly hear from the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, when he is trying to justify this very cruel approach, is that these new Commonwealth scholarships will benefit disadvantaged students. The Commonwealth scholarships we have now are nothing like those we had under the Menzies government. 'Commonwealth scholarships' is just a name. There is no federal government money going into them. The whole arrangement is worked out within universities, which is adding to the pressure that they are under and the difficulties that they face. It is very dishonest to use the term 'Commonwealth scholarships'. For older generations the term has a good ring to it. It comes from the Liberal era of the 1960s and the Whitlam era before they went to free higher education. The term 'Commonwealth scholarship' has a good ring to it. It comes from an era when public money was used to assist students who might have difficulty in being able to go to university to study.

Again, we have total dishonesty from Senator Ryan—not surprising, because that is what he is getting from his minister—in terms of how the system works. It was interesting to listen to the banter that was going on. Senator Carr was correct in saying that what we saw from the coalition in opposition was quite different from what we are seeing from the coalition in government. Sadly, that is also something we see from Labor; they are a very different beast when in opposition. The challenge for community groups, unions and the Greens is to keep that pressure on so that they honour the decent policies that we hear more often from them when they are in opposition.

It is worth reminding ourselves just how differently the coalition have conducted themselves within the last year. This time last year we were all out campaigning. And what were we hearing from the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and Christopher Pyne? They were out spruiking that there would be no changes at all to higher education funding arrangements. That is what we heard from them, time and time again, prior to the election. But look what has happened now. We have seen the very ugly budget that they have brought down. We have seen the extreme measures in so many aspects of higher education funding—one of which we are dealing with right now in terms of the disallowance motion. In June this year, on the ABC's Insiders program, we heard Minister Pyne defending the cuts as 'fair and sustainable'. He pulls words out of the air which have no realism in terms of what is actually happening.

Minister Pyne actually said:

I think that the contribution that students make can be rebalanced …

At the moment the taxpayers are funding 60 per cent of the tuition fees of university students, and universities' students are making up 40 per cent. Under our changes, it will be 50-50.

What we know, though, is if you look at the trajectory of where the coalition's higher education policies are going, you will see that there will be an even greater burden on students.

With regard to the regulation that brings us to this debate, the Higher Education (Maximum Amounts for Other Grants) Determination 2013, we do support the disallowance motion. We are very pleased that Senator Carr has brought it on. It seeks to cut over $435 million from the higher education and other grants program over four years. It is another example of where the coalition really are waging war on the funding of the higher education sector, pushing the costs more and more onto students, slashing money out of the universities themselves.

An issue that has had little attention but which is certainly part of the package is the coalition government opening up, for the first time, the ability of private companies, for-profit companies, to access public funding that once went to our universities. Now they can make money out of it. This is deeply troubling. Many institutions that run them often have little experience of the higher education sector. Again, what do we hear from Senator Ryan about a deregulated system? He was bashing the opposition about the fact that they want some regulations. Surely, we need to have some regulations and some standards in how our system is run. Again, going back to the cover that he tried to pick up for himself and his party, in talking about the Menzies' era, there were regulations then. There were standards. When former Prime Minister Menzies started paying attention to universities, one of the things he did was to look for some consistency across the nation. As well as the funding issues, consistency in standards was a big part of it. But what do we get from this government? Deregulation, throwing money at private companies. With regard to the standards within our higher education sector what we will see and where it will lead to is deeply troubling.

Government regulation is cutting support to universities, particularly for the promotion of equality of opportunity and the support of diversity and open access to higher education. This is another aspect of the debate that concerns the Greens considerably. Under the coalition, we are seeing a push to create a higher education system where you would have to be pretty well off to shoulder the burden of the HELP debts imposed by this government. The government's regulation that we are debating here would cut funding for the support of research and training of research students for grants to foster collaboration. This comes at a time when research and innovation has never been more important. I believe it is very important for the development of individuals in terms of what they can offer Australia and, indeed, what Australia's economy can offer the world. More and more, we are becoming a global village and within that we need to share our innovation and knowledge that we develop through our research. But when you end up with a deregulated system, that is barely possible to achieve.

The regulation that we are dealing with will cut funding for grants to support the development of systemic infrastructure and capital development projects at universities. I particularly know from my work in this sector how important that is, particularly in regional universities. It shocks me when I visit a number of universities to see how run down they are. Under what this government is bringing forward, regional universities are going to do it really tough. They are already finding it difficult and, if the budget measures go through—and there are certainly mounting efforts to ensure that does not happen—it will be an enormous setback.

At a time of debilitating funding cuts to our universities, it would further slash support to promote the productivity of higher education providers and grants for activities that would assure and enhance the quality of our higher education sector. These are some of the issues that we see as very important and that explain why we support this disallowance motion.

I think it is also relevant that we are having this debate on a day when there has been another round of polling that shows how unpopular the government's higher education policies are that it wants to adopt. Extensive automative phone polling, undertaken by the National Tertiary Education Union—this was across 23 federal electorates and all states—found cuts in federal funding and changes to allow increased fees, higher loan charges and access to limited federal funding by non-university course providers are very unpopular.

The government would be wise to take that message on board. They would be wise in terms of the wellbeing of the nation and students who are looking to develop their career at our universities. And now we know that they would be wise in terms of the wellbeing of their own party, their own government and some of their own MPs, including the minister, because 69 per cent of those polled said that they oppose significant increases in fees and 65 per cent said that they oppose 20 per cent funding cuts to our universities. Just 28 per cent of voters said that they approved of deregulating the higher education sector to allow privately-owned institutions to have access to Commonwealth subsidies.

This is a strong negative backlash from voters. The public are deeply troubled by the higher education moves of the government. The government, with this very cruel, brutal budget that they brought down in May, are certainly loading the burden in terms of how they are going to raise money and save money onto the backs of the disadvantaged—students, the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and Indigenous peopl

They are all the people who are really copping it, who really will be hard hit by the budget measures.

What we are seeing with higher education is pushing the reach of the damaging, destructive aspects of the budget out to the middle class of Australia. So often, when I am out doing my meetings on the weekend and meeting people socially, I meet people who are really worried about how their own children are going to gain an education. Just today I was told an example of a university lecturer who said, 'I suddenly thought: how are my children going to get the education that I have received?' I was at a barbecue recently—the dad is a lawyer and the mum runs a small business. Their kids were running around; they are quite young. These parents were saying the same thing: 'We look at our children and we wonder: how are they going to get the education that we were fortunate to achieve?' This is starting to trouble people—people from regional areas and working-class people who have not had the opportunity to go to university but, like so many working-class families, hope that their children will be able to. And now we are seeing middle-class families really troubled about what this government is doing to this country. And we know how important education is.

These are very, very important reasons that we need to ensure this disallowance goes through and look to the next stage to ensure that the other very damaging aspects of the coalition's policy do not become law, do not become regulations, in this country. We know there is a sneaky way this government is working—choosing regulations more and more to try and get through its agenda. So I suspect that we will be having more debates along these lines—very important debates—because this goes far beyond education; it goes to the very nature of the type of Australia that we are setting out laws for and setting out a healthy future for.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:54): I would like to sum up this debate on the motion to disallow the Higher Education (Maximum Amounts for Other Grants) Determination 2013. I thank Senator Rhiannon for her indication of support by the Greens. Far be it from me to criticise those that are voting for the proposition we have before us. I do enjoy listening to the Greens provide us with advice on being pure and more proper and more principled than any other political organisation in the country. I suppose that comes from having a party position that allows you to have the very best social conscience that money could buy, as we see within the Greens, who are only too happy to criticise Labor for our actions but do not ever acknowledge the simple facts of life here—that, under a Labor government, support for higher education doubled. When I was minister, the amount of support for science and research increased by 43 per cent, the biggest level of increase for science and research in this country's history. I say to you: 190,000 extra students is a record that any government could be proud of.

Well may you criticise the decisions that were taken in the budget of last May, Senator Rhiannon—you are entitled to put that view—but I think you misrepresented me. I indicated at the very beginning of my contribution that Labor had changed its position. We put aside money, hypothecated money, last year to support the Gonski changes, to provide support for a six-year funding program for the schools system. We kept the budget savings within the education system. We said that, if you want to sustain a higher education system longer term, you have a look at the fundamental problems within the school system. I might also add that we provided additional support in the vocational system—more students in vocational education facilities across this country than ever we have seen in this nation's history. We never get any acknowledgement for that. I also say this—and I made this point in my remarks—that, when the government came in, they abandoned the position that they took to the election about supporting Gonski. They abandoned it and, as a consequence, the original funding that was earmarked for the Better Schools Plan was taken and put into consolidated revenue by this government.

So, Senator Ryan, I return to you, by drawing your attention to the fact that I also said that these are now decisions of this government, initiatives of this government, determinations by a Liberal Party minister. They have become your initiatives. I made that very, very clear. You have made the decision to cut university funding because of your bent ideological presumptions about what universities are about. We heard it from you again today. It was all about subsidising ski clubs. It may well be that your friends spend a lot of time in their Range Rovers at Mount Buller, but I say to you: I do not have that many friends that spend time there. Maybe they are just supporters of Melbourne Football Club; I do not know. But I just make this observation: you have a very distorted view about what actually goes on in universities. Liberal ministers, Liberal members of parliament, have demonstrated an extraordinary ignorance of the importance of universities, and they have a particularly perverse view about the role of education. They say money does not matter, yet they also say it is only reasonable that parents pay up to $30,000 a year to send their children to the most elite private schools in this country. So clearly money does matter to somebody. At Geelong Grammar, tell them money does not matter! Tell the parents that have to pay those fees that money does not matter! To suggest now that money does not really matter to the quality of education, I think, is to misunderstand how it really works.

The proposition we have before the chamber draws attention to the government's failure to fund the school system and the university system and the government's failed policy position when it comes to the question of the importance of education. The government do this under the pretext of a budget emergency, when in fact what they are doing is living out their ideological fantasies. We have had the Nobel prize-winning economist Mr Stiglitz tell us that, by international standards, this is a country to be proud of, that our budget performance is something to be envied, that there is no excuse for the cuts to higher education in this country and that they are wrong—and I think the word 'criminal' was used. That suggests to me just what a difference in mindset exists.

We have a government here that seems to want to mortgage the future. We have a government here that is not interested in ensuring the future. It wants to mortgage the future by suggesting that those with resources—those who are wealthy; those who are privileged—can enjoy and reinforce their privilege by ensuring that these educational institutions, which we all know unlock the door of inequality in Australia, are shut to the working people of this country. That is what this government's policy will mean. You withdraw the public resources and it is the private resources that take their place, so the people with money enjoy the benefits and the privileges of higher education.

We understand that there is a balance. We acknowledge the private benefit, but we also say that the overriding question is the public benefit of investment in education. That is why we say that the balance is about right at 60:40. Under the previous Liberal government, the balance shifted. The Howard government, despite the promises they made when in opposition, increased the level of private contribution by 100 per cent. That is where we get the 40 per cent from. When the HECs arrangements were first introduced they were about 20 per cent.

What we have seen over every successive Liberal government is a continuation of a policy theme of hostility to higher education, the culture of university and the importance of innovation, and a view that those with money should enjoy the benefits of having money and reinstate the privilege that they get from having that money. As a consequence, we are now seeing the Liberal policy under Howard being continued under Abbott. This policy will impose on the poorer people in this country, working people, particularly people in rural and regional areas a profound disadvantage—not freedom; an imposition of government to make the economic inequalities in this country greater. We know what a struggle it is to even up the score in our society. The Liberal's policy is to make that score even more uneven—to reinforce privilege and to reinforce inequality.

These measures that we are seeing today are not about spending money on education. I want to make senators very clear about this. This is about taking money out of education and putting it into consolidated revenue. That is the point of these changes the government has introduced. These are Liberal changes initiated by a Liberal government by a Liberal minister and—as we heard today in the defence from Senator Ryan—are all about Liberal philosophy. For those reasons, I call upon the Senate to reject these proposals and to support the disallowance motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the Higher Education (Maximum Amounts for Other Grants) Determination 2013 be disallowed.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (18:09): I move:

That the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas—Code of Behaviour) Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 269 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2013L02102].

Last day to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.

This list of behaviour protocols is a regulation that was flagged by Tony Abbott's coalition prior to the last election. That we have known about it for quite some time does not make it right. It does not make it okay to start segregating different groups of people by saying that some people have to abide by different laws to others. The ridiculous thing about this protocol is that it is simply listing what law-abiding citizens in this country should be doing anyway. Of course this is not about practicality; this is not about adding anything to the needs of asylum seekers or indeed about the safety of the community; this is all about vilification of asylum seekers and refugees.

This code of behaviour states that individuals must not: disobey road rules, commit sexual offences, commit any criminal activity, harass, intimidate, bully or engage in any other antisocial or disruptive behaviour. I would hope that no-one out there in the community would be participating in these types of activities. But the whole idea of needing a code of behaviour just for someone who is on a bridging visa because they arrived by boat is absolutely ludicrous. When this policy was announced by Mr Morrison, the coalition spokesperson on this issue and now the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, it was laughed at. It was not just laughed at but held up as a pathetic attempt to try and divide and to drive a divisive wedge into the Australian community.

It was no none other than Dennis Shanahan, who, as we all know, is one of Australia's most conservative commentators, said that these protocols were a load of 'nonsense'. I must say, if Mr Shanahan has a problem with this you must think it has probably gone way too far. Mr Shanahan said 'I think this is a bridge too far for the coalition. I do not think you can suggest that everybody should have a warning attached to them. What are they supposed to wear? A scarlet letter 'A' for asylum seeker?'

The precise point here is the coalition is so obsessed with hating asylum seekers and refugees, so obsessed with whipping up fear about these vulnerable people just because of the mode in which they reach Australia that they come up with a list of protocols to say to the rest of the Australian people that asylum seekers are all so bad we have to whole new set of laws just to manage their behaviour. What an outrageous slur on the thousands and thousands of people who have come to this country over generations as asylum seekers and refugees and settled in this country peacefully, cooperatively and have done so with the very real commitment of contributing to our great nation. The idea that we have to—in order to satisfy Mr Abbott's and Mr Morrison's fearmongering on asylum seekers and refugees—have a special protocol to tell people to abide by the law is beyond me. This is about vilifying a group of people because of who they are, where they have come from and how they arrived. I do not step back from saying that at all. That is all this is. It is about fearmongering by the minister of Tony Abbott's government.

The code of behaviour is one page long. You have to sign your name and agree that you will not do any of these 'antisocial activities' and that you will abide by Australian law. The ridiculous thing about this is that, if somebody breaks the law, we have an Australian criminal justice system that deals with it. It deals with most law-breakers pretty well, whether you were born here or not. The whole idea of a special set of laws is to send a message to those out in the electorate that the coalition like pushing their buttons. They are saying: 'Asylum seekers and refugees should be feared. They are bad people. They are so bad we had to come up with a whole new set of laws to manage their behaviour.' What a load of nonsense, as Dennis Shanahan so rightly put it.

There are members within the coalition's own ranks that can already see that this is an appalling abuse not just of government authority in the form of being able to put forward legislation that controls people's lives and send very dangerous messages out to people in the electorate. There are many in the coalition who are sickened by how low this government has been prepared to go when it comes to asylum seekers and refugee policy. Russell Broadbent said there should 'never be special categories of laws for different categories of people'. He said: 'The rule of law should apply to all and we should not set some people apart. This kind of vilification of asylum seekers is unacceptable in this nation.' I could not agree more with Mr Broadbent on that matter.

It is outrageous to see how low, how far down the bottom of the barrel, this government is prepared to go to peddle their fearmongering and their dog-whistling. Some people would even say this is not a dog whistle; this is a pretty loud and clear trumpeting of fearmongering by this government. It is deliberately inciting fear about asylum seekers who live in the Australian community.

The saddest thing about all of this is that those who continue to live on bridging visas in the Australian community are terrified of what will happen next. Why? Because this government continues to hold over their head the constant threat of sending them back to countries where they will face the types of inhumane brutality and torture that they have fled.

We know that a number of these individuals have been so distressed by this circumstance that they have taken their own lives. That is not something that should be taken lightly. It is something this government should be reflecting on; that their policies are pushing vulnerable individuals, who have fled some of the worst atrocities and regimes in the world to come to Australia and ask for help. And we have government policy that is pushing them to the point of self-destruction and even, sadly, suicide. We know that one man in recent weeks set himself on fire and died as a result of the horrific burns to his body. That young man was so desperate not to be returned home to Sri Lanka to what he believed were his torturers that he set himself on fire in order to not have to go home.

Rather than putting forward these ridiculous, fearmongering, insulting vilification-driven code of behaviour protocols, this government should be focussing on what is wrong with a policy that pushes an individual to the point of setting themselves on fire to take their own life so they do not have to be subjected to the awful tortures and persecution that they believe waits for them at home. It is beyond me why this government thinks it is important to continue to peddle the myths and fears around asylum seekers and refugees.

We have one of the world's best and most thorough assessment processes, if we do it properly. We determine whether someone is a refugee. We should have a review process. If they are rejected, there needs to be an appeals process. And, in all of that, you can be treating people humanely you do not have to treat them like they are animals or as if they are criminals.

There is nothing illegal in seeking asylum. I know Mr Morrison has directed all of his Public Servants to use the word 'illegal'. But that does not make it so. In fact, there is not one thing in the Migration Act, which this minister is responsible for, that says that just because you are an asylum seeker or a refugee you are somehow illegal. The word 'illegal' does not appear in the Migration Act in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. Yet this minister and the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, are determined to continue a fearmongering campaign against some of the world's most vulnerable people. Why is that? I will tell you why. It is because they are obsessed with the idea that this issue will win them cheap dirty votes. That is what this is all about.

This is the vilification of one group of people to satisfy the coalition's electoral achievements. We have seen it happen before. It is as though the coalition cannot help themselves when it comes to being given the power to manage Australia's immigration policies. We have a government who detain children on a remote island in a tented prison in the middle of a phosphate mine and they think that is acceptable. We have a government who are now detaining children on a prison ship out on the high seas and they will not even speak about it—not in this place and not outside to the Australian people. When there are cries of help and desperation from mothers detained in the Christmas Island detention centre, we have a Prime Minister who accuses them of moral blackmail. This is how low the government are prepared to go when it comes to dismissing the very genuine needs and concerns of refugees who come to this country and how low they are prepared to go to vilify that group of people.

Last week when the Prime Minister accused refugee mothers—who are struggling with the pressures of being a parent for their children, particularly young children and newborn babies, and are incarcerated in the Christmas Island detention camp—of moral blackmail. It was pretty much the lowest thing I have seen from this Prime Minister yet. I am not holding my breath. I assume that, once he is on a roll, this is where it is going to go. Of course, only a few weeks ago we had Mr Morrison, the immigration minister from the other place, stand up in question time and say the coalition had not even warmed up yet when it came to their policy on refugees and asylum seekers. God help us if this is not 'warmed up'.

What is next? We have vilification in relation to the code of behaviour rules, we have hundreds of children incarcerated indefinitely and we have a Prime Minister who accuses desperate, mentally scarred mothers of moral blackmail. It is hard to be morally blackmailed if you are morally bankrupt, and that is what is wrong with this government. They have no concept of how to run an immigration policy that looks after people and has the care, dedication and compassion that is needed. They do not care about compassion. They do not even care about proper process or the rule of law. All they care about is being able to set their agenda of fear and hate. That is what this government continue to do over and over again.

Despite all the concern in relation to this issue last year when this code of behaviour was first mooted by Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott, I am extremely disappointed that the Australian Labor Party will be voting against this disallowance motion—simply giving the tick and flick to this type of vilification. I hope I am wrong on that and I hope I have been misinformed and perhaps the Labor Party will indeed vote to rid this scourge from our statute books, but I do not hold my breath. I would be interested to see from members of the Labor Party exactly why they believe that this code of behaviour should continue. If we are going to have a code of behaviour in addition to and separate to the basic rule of law for one group of people, where to next? Who is the next group of vulnerable people that the government of the day want to start picking on? Will it be members of the Indigenous community? Maybe just Indigenous kids or single mothers or those who access the disability pension? At what point do we say, 'We're just going to have separate behaviour protocols for every group of people,' because that is the way the government want to control the law-making in this country, or do we stand up and say, 'There is the rule of law, which all of us, equally, are expected to abide by, and, if you do not abide by it, then there is a criminal justice system to deal with you'?

In the last minutes of my contribution tonight, I want to reflect on the comments made by Dennis Shanahan. They ring a very eerie truth. I would like to read them out again so that we can be clear. He said: 'I don't think you can suggest that everybody should have some warning attached to them. What are they supposed to wear? A scarlet letter A for asylum seeker?' Those comments were not made lightly; they were made in direct relation to where this type of attitude goes. It is a slippery slope to allow vilification to be rubberstamped by a chamber of parliament just because the government of the day want to continue to whip up fear and blow their dog whistle. We know that the issue of immigration is consistently used by governments of the day and, indeed, oppositions to garner electoral support. It is about kicking the people who have no opportunity to speak for themselves. This is about pushing issues and blame to a small group of people who have not done anything wrong but have no voice in order to speak up, say no and stand up for themselves.

In this place, our job as elected members of parliament is to debate issues and take on board what the government of the day would like to do, but also to stand up for the rights of people in our country to be treated fairly and equally. I do not think for one moment that it is this chamber's job to rubberstamp and tick and flick the fearmongering agenda of the government of the day or a list of behaviour protocols that do nothing more than vilify a group of people because of who they are, where they come from or how they arrived. This is playing the race card. It is appalling and this chamber should kick it out. We should kick it out tonight and not stand for this type of behaviour or this attitude from the government. This is Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott's fearmongering agenda. The Labor Party and the crossbenchers should reject it.

Proceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (19:30): I too rise to contribute to the debate on the disallowance motion of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas–Code of Behaviour) Regulation 2013. Despite what the Australian Greens say, the code of behaviour, itself, is an educative tool. When you release into the community thousands of people who have arrived here illegally by boat from very different backgrounds, then, as a government, we should at the very least, explain to these people what is expected of them in terms of their behaviour. Examples include people from Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, who either do not speak English or have very limited knowledge of the English language. These people might come from cultures that are fundamentally different to our own—for example, cultures where women are not equal to men and who have had little to no exposure to Australian society.

The regulations that are sought to be disallowed are necessary as they provide the framework for the government to address community concerns about the behaviour of illegal maritime arrivals, who are in Australia temporarily as the holders of bridging visas. To put the numbers into context, Labor was forced to release tens of thousands of people into the community who turned up illegally by boat, because the detention network could no longer cope with the unprecedented level of border protection failure experienced under the former government's watch.

Today, there are more than 25,000 people living in the community on bridging visas, who are part of a legacy case load in excess of 30,000 people, who arrived illegally by boat and were left behind by the previous government. To date, a total of 68 illegal maritime arrivals on bridging visa Es have had their bridging visas cancelled on the basis of criminal charges since 7 September 2013. For the benefit of all senators, these cancellations have been based on charges and convictions for offences, including theft, shoplifting, indecent assault, indecent assault of minors, domestic violence, assault with a weapon, assault occasioning bodily harm, wounding with intent, driving under the influence, stalking, people smuggling, attempting to obtain prohibited drugs, aggravated sexual assault on a person under the age of 16, rape and murder.

I remind senators that codes of behaviour are currently in force in both held and community detention. Therefore, it makes no sense at all that such codes of behaviour are not applied to those living in the community whose status has not yet been determined. Let us just remind ourselves that we already have codes of behaviour that are in place. They are in place in held detention and in community detention. Why then is it unfair to have a code of behaviour in place for another group of asylum seekers who are living in the community?

The grant of a bridging visa to an IMA is a privilege. It is not a right. This government has a zero tolerance approach to those who violate the privilege they have been granted to live in the Australian community. The government makes no apologies for providing a strong and an enforceable reminder of the behaviour that is expected of people living in the community on a bridging visa. As I have already stated, the code of behaviour is both an educative tool in terms of what the person's expectation is and a tool to limit non-compliance as it serves to clearly communicate expectations and standards of behaviour.

Listening to the Australian Greens on this issue, you would think that the code of behaviour places unnecessary and restrictive burdens on asylum seekers in the community. But for those unfamiliar with the code, let me just address what is actually in the code. I would say, everything listed in the code of behaviour is common sense to those on this side of the chamber and to every other member of the Australian society The code, itself, contains six dot points:

You must not disobey any Australian laws including Australian road laws; you must cooperate with all lawful instructions given to you by police and other government officials;

You must not make sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent, regardless of their age; you must never make sexual contact with someone under the age of consent;

You must not take part in, or get involved in any kind of criminal behaviour in Australia, including violence against any person, including your family or government officials; deliberately damage property; give false identity documents or lie to a government official;

You must not harass, intimidate or bully any other person or group of people or engage in any anti-social or disruptive activities that are inconsiderate, disrespectful or threaten the peaceful enjoyment of other members of the community;

You must not refuse to comply with any health undertaking provided by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection or direction issued by the Chief Medical Officer (Immigration) to undertake treatment for a health condition for public health purposes;

You must co-operate with all reasonable requests from the department or its agents in regard to the resolution of your status, including requests to attend interviews or to provide or obtain identity and/or travel documents.

The code itself is particularly relevant where these people have engaged in antisocial or violent behaviour that does not result in a criminal charge. Common issues reported include intoxication, fighting between residents at accommodation, sexual harassment, threats of violence, acting aggressively towards departmental or service provider staff and refusing to cooperate with attempts by the department to solve a person's immigration status.

Again I remind senators that, if you are going to release into the community tens of thousands of people who have had little to no prior exposure as to what is expected by way of Australian community standards, who have English not as a first language and in many cases do not speak English, who have cultures fundamentally different from the culture in Australia—and again I go to the example of where women are not equal to men—I would have thought that, at the very least as a government, we would take the time to explain to those people what is expected of them by way of general community standards in Australia. It is a fact that every single week since the election an average of almost two IMAs have been charged with criminal offences.

The code of behaviour makes it clear that antisocial as well as criminal behaviour will not be tolerated. It sets out clear standards of behaviour and expectations relating to the values that are important to Australian society. It also makes clear that bridging visa holders are expected to cooperate with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding the resolution of their status. The code itself provides a proper basis for bridging visas to be cancelled and to prevent people from reapplying depending on the seriousness of the breach. In cases where criminal charges are laid, visas are now cancelled by this government and the alleged offender taken back immediately into held detention until their case is determined.

The grant of a bridging visa to an IMA is a privilege; it is not a right. This government has a zero tolerance approach to those who violate the privilege they have been given by way of living in the Australian community. This government makes no apology for providing a strong and enforceable reminder of the behaviour expected of people living in the community. Again, just for the record, in relation to the 68 IMA bridging visas which have been cancelled on the basis of criminal charges since 7 September 2013, I remind the Senate of the incidents for which these visas were cancelled: theft, shoplifting, indecent assault, indecent assault of minors, domestic violence, assault with a weapon, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding with intent, driving under the influence, stalking, people smuggling, attempting to obtain prohibited drugs, aggravated sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 years, rape and murder. Again I state that this government makes no apologies at all for sending a strong and enforceable reminder of the behaviour expected of people living in the community on a bridging visa.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (19:41): I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this regulation, introduced in December 2013, extended the ability of the government to cancel a BVE for persons who had engaged in behaviour not considered acceptable by the community. It prevented a person who had a visa which was cancelled due to criminal conduct or breach of the code of behaviour from applying for a further visa. The Labor Party takes the view that it is appropriate that people seeking protection are made aware of the expected standards of behaviour and conduct. In 2012, the Labor government introduced a values statement, a precedent to this particular measure, which was made a requirement for the granting of a protection visa. Former Labor minister Chris Evans also introduced ministerial direction No. 55, which guides decision makers in the exercise of visa refusal and cancellation powers under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.

A character test has existed within the Migration Act for some time. It provides the minister with the power to cancel a visa which has been granted to a person if they reasonably suspect that a person does not pass the character test. The current character test relates to criminal conduct and general conduct that is not of good character. Labor believe that the values statement and the character test currently in place are an appropriate indication of the standards of behaviour that are expected by the community. While we will consult widely and monitor the application of the code over the coming months, we will not support this disallowance.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (19:43): Sometimes in this place we circle around the truth without ever naming it. When it comes to this government's response to refugees and asylum seekers, it is important to name what is going on here. It is racism, pure and simple. There are no other words to describe it, no other words we can use to try to cover up what is going on here. This is a cynical exercise, one designed to seed fear and incitement in the Australian community. Every single message, every slogan every sound bite is designed for the simple purpose of ensuring that people understand that they are different, that refugees are not like us, that they do not share our values. That is exactly what is going on with the code of behaviour. It is a code of conduct that has been designed with one simple message in mind: to ensure that we keep reinforcing to the Australian community that, if you are a refugee or an asylum seeker, you are different—that you do not respect our laws; that you do not respect our values; that you do not respect our women. Every word in this code of conduct has been carefully crafted to ensure that people understand that, if you are a refugee, you are not like us.

It is not just the code of conduct. We have seen it with this government invoking the Defence Force—using Australian men and women who have dedicated their lives to the protection of Australia—for the most despicable political purposes: to create the impression of an invasion of hordes of refugees and asylum seekers, in what is really a naked, self-serving political exercise. Of course if you are in a war, if you are being invaded, then any amount of secrecy is justified, because in a war secrecy is not just justified—it is necessary.

We see the word 'illegal' being thrown around like confetti. They know it is not true. But if you do not respect our values, if you do not respect our laws, if you are illegal, you are not like us. You are so different from us that, when you are living your life in an offshore detention centre, lying in bed, being stripped of all hope, and thinking about putting that noose around your neck, or if you are somebody who is so desperate at the thought of being returned to a country where you face torture and perhaps worse, or if you are so desperate that you choose to cover yourself with petrol and light the match, or if you are a young child who sees no light and decides to self-harm—if you are any of those things and you choose to take your life, to harm yourself, then it is because you are morally bankrupt! It is not because you are in pain or suffering or enduring any of the normal human emotions that any of us would be feeling, facing those circumstances; it is because you are morally bankrupt; you are depraved; you are somehow of a different quality to the Australian people right here now!

It would be a mistake to suggest that this is new. It is true that we have plumbed the depths of political self-interest in the most recent debates, but this has been going on for years. It started with Prime Minister Howard's famous, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' We have heard the demonising of asylum seekers through language such as 'queue jumpers' used of people who, let us remember, are doing nothing other than making a choice that many of us would make. Faced with the threat of torture and persecution, they choose to escape those circumstances. That is absolutely morally justified, and yet we use terms like 'queue jumpers'.

All of this has been tremendously successful. When you ask people about the numbers that we are faced with, people have the numbers completely out of proportion. We have got people who think that there are more refugees and asylum seekers coming to this country than there are immigrants, when in fact the number of refugees coming to this country is only a small fraction of the total of our immigration intake. Because of this fear and anxiety that has been seeded over many years, through things like the code of conduct, we get a situation in Australia where people think that the current policies are justified. That is political success.

Some people might say that this actually says something about the Australian character—that there is a deep vein of racism that runs through the Australian people. I do not subscribe to that. What this reflects is a failure of political leadership, pure and simple. When we look at the South-East Asian refugees that were welcomed here with open arms, we see that Australians are a generous people. Instead what we have is a government that does not just blow a dog whistle. This is not a dog whistle. We have got to call it for what it is, for a dog whistle implies that this is a coded message, to be understood by only a small part of the Australian community. This is a racist foghorn—that is what this is. It is not a dog whistle; it is a racist foghorn.

So it is that we have a document so crude, so Orwellian and so shameful that it takes us into one of the lowest ebbs of this political debate. Let us look at this code of behaviour. It says: 'You must not disobey any Australian laws, including Australian road laws'—because, of course, these people just cannot wait to get out into the community, to start raping and pillaging, and to get to the nearest mosque to sign up to the nearest jihadi recruiting officer! They cannot wait for it! But look a little further: there is of course a reference to Australian road laws, because we have all been in a taxi with one of those dark-skinned drivers who didn't know how to drive or where he was taking us! And then there is point No. 2: 'You must not make sexual contact with another person without that person's consent.' So they are not just lawbreakers; they are not just terrible drivers putting our lives at risk; they just cannot wait to get their dark, grubby hands on our women! That is what this is about. That is what this says. Never mind the fact that most cases of domestic violence and abuse towards women are perpetrated within the family home; never mind the fact that, when it comes to sexual abuse and violence towards women, it is the neighbour, the uncle or the husband that you need to worry about!

The implication here is that our children are not safe either.

The list goes on: you cannot take part or get involved in any kind of criminal behaviour in Australia; and you cannot harass, intimidate or bully another person. Having a code of conduct like this designed by the coalition government would not be so laughable if it had not come from an institution whose own behaviour was so inconsistent with the values of civility and decency that we are asking of others.

Senator Cash talks about the role of women in some of these cultures that are coming to our country. What about the role of the women in the Liberal Party? If women are treated so poorly by some of our refugees and asylum seekers, the Liberal Party hardly offers us a model that we should be looking towards.

Every now and then a chink of light shines through and, when we see refugees being resettled into communities, like in my home community of Colac, we see a response from the Australian community that is warm and welcoming, that says: 'We will look after you. We will give you the protection that you need.' And they become valued members of those communities.

Every now and then you see an asylum seeker who is driven to a desperate act like the young man who set himself alight and yet decided to become an organ donor, wanting to do nothing more than make a contribution to this country.

We cannot let people see that refugees and asylum seekers are normal people, wanting nothing more than to make a contribution and become decent hard-working citizens. So we have got to set the foghorn to maximum volume and create instruments like this code of conduct. We have to go further than that: we cannot afford for Australians to meet refugees, to be exposed to these stories, to learn about the hardships that they are fleeing and hear about the sorts of contributions that they want to make. That is why we keep them locked up offshore. We keep the press away. We keep Australians away, because we cannot afford to shatter the illusion that has been being created by this government and by governments before it.

I do not pretend for a moment that this is an easy issue but I condemn those people who use the tragedy of deaths at sea to justify a policy that is implemented for no other reason—not for reasons of compassion, care or decency—than for the most base political purposes. If you cared about deaths at sea, you would not be using words like 'illegal'. You would not be calling someone who is in a state of desperation a 'moral blackmailer' and you could not be implementing a code of conduct that implies these people are criminals, that they do not share our values and cannot wait to get their hands on our women.

I would like to see a code of conduct that went something like this: no more three-word slogans; no more lies about what it means to seek asylum; and no more using the word 'illegal' when you know it is not true and that it is a fundamental right. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to repeating them. We are going to use care and compassion as guiding principles rather than simply inflaming people's fears and anxieties. We are going to use facts. We are going to reassure people that we do not need the army. We do not need our Defence personnel. We do not need the Navy, because this is a humanitarian issue.

Just as we expect you to uphold Australian law, we will uphold Australian law. We will make sure that we uphold domestic law and international law, which means that we will not forcibly deport you to countries where you are going to experience torture, persecution and possibly worse. Just as we want to ensure that you treat people with respect and do not engage in harassment, we will keep you safe and treat you with respect. We will treat you with the sort of respect that is currently being denied to you, because of your circumstances which involve being locked up in offshore prisons.

We need to name what this is: it is racism. It is not dog whistling. This is a racist foghorn, loud and clear, saying to the Australian community: 'Don't accept refugees. Don't accept asylum seekers. They are not like you and me. They don't share the same values we share. We don't want them here.'

I say to the coalition: they are ordinary people with families, children with the same hopes and dreams that all of us share and we, as a rich, decent and prosperous nation should offer them the protection they so badly need. If we do not do this, this is something that you will carry with you for the rest of your lives.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): The question is that the motion for disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas—Code of Behaviour) Regulation 2013 be agreed to.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (20:16): I thank all senators who have participated in the second reading debate on this bill, the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 and related bill. It gives effect to the government's 2013 election commitment to better support Australian apprentices through the introduction of the Trade Support Loans program. This loans scheme will provide support for apprentices to complete their skills training through access to interest-free loans, of up to $20,000 over four years, to help with everyday costs during their apprenticeship.

The Trade Supports Loans initiative signals an approach of targeted investment in key trades where skills shortages exist. We need to ensure that we are achieving the best value for money in our skills expenditure, which is why this program will target trade occupations in priority areas such as plumbers, diesel mechanics, electricians and fitters. Loans will be available to Australian apprentices undertaking qualifications leading to these occupations.

Currently, there are around 149,000 apprentices training in high-priority qualifications and a further 70,000 commencing each year. We know that about half of those who begin an apprenticeship in these qualifications drop out and most of these are within the first two years of training. More needs to be done to improve this outcome. The program will provide a stronger incentive for young Australians to take up the opportunity that an Australian apprenticeship offers and lift the number who finish their training and become productive members of the workforce. To increase completion rates, a further incentive will be provided through a 20 per cent discount on the amount of a trade support loan borrowed by apprentices who successfully complete their trade. For example, if an apprentice borrows $20,000 over the course of their apprenticeship, which they successfully complete, they will only need to repay $16,000.

We have heard from those in this chamber who are worried the trade support loans will not in fact be the better deal for apprentices. Yes, there are big changes but they are changes designed to give support where it is most needed and we are helping apprentices to transition to this new way of support. The program is being administered through a network of organisations that are already working with apprentices and employers and that understand the training system and what apprentices and employers need. We have also heard that some in this chamber are worried we are unnecessarily burdening young apprentices with debt and not restricting the apprentices in how they spend their loans. The trade support loans are not compulsory but are there to help with when an apprentice needs to make a decision on whether to spend some money now to enable them to succeed in the field of training they have chosen. This will enable them to do whatever they need to do, to help them in their apprenticeship, including finding a place to live that is closer to their workplace, buying a car or ute that can get them to work earlier or purchasing some tools or educational aids that will help them achieve the best they can in their training.

Our apprentices are our future workforce and so we are supporting them through concessional loans when they need it most. They will start paying off their loans when they join that workforce as well-paid, qualified trades men and women. As well as concerns, we have also heard from senators on both sides of the chamber who have benefited themselves from taking on a trade and becoming qualified. This loans scheme will enable more kids from all backgrounds to choose an apprenticeship. We have also heard that lump sum payments would be more helpful. As you would understand, we need to ensure that the apprentice is sure they want to take on the debt and plan for the bigger purchases. This program has been designed to have front-loaded support, with bigger payments coming in the early years when they need them most. Several senators have suggested there is not enough protection of personal information. That is untrue. There are strong protections provided by the Privacy Act. In line with our promise to cut unnecessary and costly legislation and regulation, we are not going to replicate existing legislation and other privacy requirements in this bill.

The government is committed to ensuring that regulation is never adopted as the default solution. There has been a lot of commentary on the misuse of payments that occurred under the previous Tools For Your Trade scheme. Sarina Russo, an Australian apprenticeship centre contracted by the government, in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this very bill, said:

In our experience some apprentices did not use their $5,500 Tools For Your Trade funding to buy tools.

A person will think more carefully about what they spend a loan on, compared to how they might spend money that is just thrown at them. We believe in apprentices and their ability to choose when they wish to receive support to meet their individual circumstances. Members of the opposition have tried to insinuate that we are not looking after apprentices who are aged under 18 or who are still at school. This is also untrue. Great consideration has been given to the position of those under the age of 18. A range of additional materials, including specialised application forms, fax sheets and information for parents have already been developed. We concede that trade training is not a lesser avenue to that of studying at university and it should stop being treated as such. With the introduction of trade support loans, we recognise the barriers young apprentices face, and, in the same way the Higher Education Loan Program has assisted university students, trade support loans will assist apprentices in overcoming those barriers and transitioning into meaningful work as qualified tradespeople.

We are looking at ways we can strengthen industry investment and engagement and ensure that the skills delivered are of high quality and what industry requires. We are also looking at the inconsistencies across the system in qualifications and length of training and how training is defined within the system, and we will streamline our approach for a simpler, more efficient system that enables training solutions that fit employer needs. Improvements to Australian Apprenticeships will be underpinned by the introduction of new support service arrangements for apprenticeships from 1 July 2015 to provide better support for employers and apprentices throughout the period of training.

I commend the Trade Support Loans Bill to the house, but, before I close, I might just make a few comments on behalf of the government on the second reading amendment foreshadowed by Senator Lines. The government will not oppose the opposition amendment flagged by Senator Lines regarding parental consent for minors. The government has already given great consideration and put great care into designing the scheme to ensure that those under 18 are fully informed. A range of additional detailed materials, including specialised application forms, fact sheets and information for parents have been developed. Australian Apprenticeships Centres, who are contracted to deal with apprentices, must take due care in ensuring all apprentices who apply for trade support loans are aware of the obligations and implications of taking on an income contingent loan, in particular any apprentices under the age of 18.

Additional information and references to assist apprentices will be provided to assist them to make a decision about taking on a loan and to make sure they understand the full implications of entering into a trade support loan, including the obligation to repay when they start earning more than $50,000 a year. There will be space on application forms for parents and/or guardians to acknowledge the commitment that their child is entering into, and supplementary information will also be available for parents and guardians to ensure they are aware of the requirements and obligations their child may take on. Additionally, the availability of trade support loans for under 18s is consistent with other income contingent loans, such as the HELP scheme. With those few comments, I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Carr be agreed to.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (20:31): As I foreshadowed this morning, and as has been circulated in the chamber, I move the amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

   but the Senate calls on the government to determine a method for achieving parental/guardian approval for apprentices under 18 years of age, in particular school based apprentices, at the point of signing up for loan amounts.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (20:32): Mr President, I seek your guidance. We wanted to divide at that point and I was not clear what was happening. Could you put the question, again, please?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rhiannon, I will put us to the mercy of the Senate. Let me just clarify that I did call for those of that opinion to say aye and I had one voice and then those of that opinion to say no and I heard no voices. I can only be guided by the chamber. If, by leave—and I am sure that the Senate will agree—I can put that motion again, I will ask for clarity in the voices and if there is a division required I will abide by that. Do I have the concurrence of the Senate to do this?

Senator Wong: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to. The motion we are amending is the motion to read the bills a second time.

Bills read a second time.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (20:41): By leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2), and (4) to (7) and request (3) on sheet 7497.

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "$20,000", substitute "$10,000".

(2) Clause 5, page 7 (line 2), definition of TSL debt indexation factor, to be opposed.

(3) Page 18 (after line 26), at the end of Division 4, add:

25A Additional payment

(1) If the Secretary must pay an instalment of trade support loan to a person on a day, the Secretary must pay an additional amount to the person on that day under this section.

(2) The amount of the additional payment is equal to the amount of the instalment.

(3) The additional payment is to be paid to the credit of the same bank account as the instalment (see section 25).

(4) To avoid doubt, the additional payment is not trade support loan, and is not repayable.

(5) Part 4.3 (Overpayment debts) applies in relation to an additional payment under this section in the same way as that part applies in relation to payments of trade support loan.

(4) Clause 30, page 21 (line 8), paragraph (a), to be opposed.

(5) Clause 31, page 21 (lines 22 to 28), omit subclause (1) (not including the method statement), substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated TSL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated TSL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement:

(6) Clause 32, page 23 (line 19) to page 24 (line 12), to be opposed.

(7) Clause 34, page 25 (lines 1 to 3), to be opposed.

As we are just coming back to this debate, it is worth, now we are in committee stage, reminding ourselves this is another attempt by the government to shift the costs, the funding needs of our public education sector onto students—in this case, onto apprentices. It is about the government saving itself a lot of money.

Abolishing the Tools for Your Trade scheme will save the coalition about $1 billion over the forward estimates. To put it in context, what we are talking about here is an ugly aspect of the policies that flow out of the budget where the government makes up the savings but they are savings at the cost of ordinary people and at the cost of quality education for our next generation of skilled workers.

Our amendments would lower the cap on the total loan available from $20,000 to $10,000. As senators would remember, the essence of this bill is that it turns the Tools for Your Trade $20,000 into a $20,000-loan. This is not the Green's preferred position but it is a way to deal with it that, I think, does bring forward a reasonable compromise. The loan would then be dropped from $20,000 to $10,000 and the difference would be made up by matching with direct government financial assistance dollar-for-dollar up to $10,000. Effectively, apprentices would get a $10,000-loan and they could also then get a grant. This is a simple measure and, we would argue, a very beneficial measure because it reduces the debt burden.

Let's reflect back on the debate because there were some interesting contributions. I very much congratulate senator Deborah O'Neill. She spoke with a real knowledge about the practical realities for apprentices and how important Tools for Your Trade is. She made the important point that we cannot trust the government and that is certainly the case. I hope that Labor, when they reflect on these amendments that the Greens are bringing forward, remember the words that many of their senators brought into this debate. The debt burden that the bill will place on apprentices, if it goes through in its current form, will really be an appalling way to start life. Very young people have not got a clear idea about how to manage their finances, what it means to go into debt and will be, all of a sudden, saddled with a huge debt. Let's remember some of Senator O'Neill's words: she talked about how it is 'miserly' and 'mean', and how it would deliver a debt-ridden future to apprentices. It would be provide a debt to hang around their necks. I very much endorse those comments and I think that it is a real reminder that we need to modify the scheme that is presented in this form that we have in the bill before us.

I commend the Greens amendment. It is a responsible way to go forward. There is still a burden of debt there, which—I have said and I will say again—the Greens are not fully happy with it. We were hoping we could get a compromise so that would not be such a heavy debt burden but still with that element of a grant, so that young people going into the first stages of their careers as apprentices can manage their finances more successfully. I commend the Greens amendments to the Senate.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (20:45): I thank Senator Rhiannon for her contribution. The government will not be able to support these proposed Greens amendments. These amendments would have a significant impact on expenditure. The first amendment, in addition to amendment (3), reduces the amount of trade support loan payments that will be treated as an income contingent loan. This reduction is supplemented by the introduction of an additional payment equal in value to the loan payment and paid at the same time. It effectively turns trade support loans into 50 per cent loans and 50 per cent grant payments. Changing the payment structure in this way is contrary to the clear and stated public policy intention of the government.

The second amendment clause 5, page 7, line 2, in relation to the definition of TSL debt indexation factor, can also not be supported. This amendment removes any indexation, CPI or otherwise, from being applied to a person's trade support loan debt. This substantially changes the treatment of trade support loans from other government income contingent loans and will also have significant impacts on expenditure. So do all of the other amendments in relation to lifetime limits and other indexation related amendments. On that basis, the government is not in a position to support those amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Seselja ): Thank you, Senator Cormann. Before I go to Senator Xenophon, I want to return to Senator Rhiannon's request. Is it the wish of the committee that the statements of reasons accompanying the requests be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the request to which they relate? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

The statement read as follows—

Trade Support Loans Bill 2014

(Amendments, and requests for amendments, to be moved by Senator Rhiannon, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

Statement pursuant to the order of

the Senate of 26 June 2000

——————————

Amendment (3)

The amendment provides for an additional payment to be made to persons to whom trade support loan is paid.

On the basis that the additional payment will result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 104 of the Bill, amendment (3) should be moved as a request.

Trade Support Loans Bill 2014

(Amendments, and requests for amendments, to be moved by Senator Rhiannon, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant

to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

—————————

Amendment (3)

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would clearly, necessarily and directly result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation.

If, as stated, this amendment would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 104 of the Bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that this amendment be moved as a request.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:47): I have a preliminary question. I did not get to my feet in time to ask a broader question about the bill and the legislation. My question, Senator Cormann, is this: in terms of what is being proposed with respect to apprenticeships, has the government done any modelling as to the likely impact on the number of apprentices? We have seen a dramatic decline of apprentices; in my home state over several years there has been a 35 to 40 per cent decline in the number of apprentices. What does the government say will happen to the number of apprentices and the take-up of apprenticeships?

What does the government say will happen when the money for tools is taken away? It could be viewed as almost retrospective: you have started your course; you expect to get a certain amount of money; you went to your course in good faith, with respect to this money and your tools; and then it is taken away from you. But you have already committed to the apprenticeship.

Firstly, does the government concede that there is an element of retrospectivity in terms of taking away money for Tools For Your Trade? Young people have made a commitment to undertake a trade; they have made a massive, life-changing commitment, expecting to get some support from Tools For Your Trade, and that has been snatched away from them.

Secondly, has the government undertaken any modelling in respect of the impact these measures will have on the number of apprentices, and did that modelling or its assumptions rely in part on consultation with the TAFE sector and other interested stakeholders?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (20:49): I thank Senator Xenophon for those questions. I advise the Senate of something the Senate probably already knows, which is that I am not usually the representative minister in this portfolio. It is usually Senator Ronaldson. I am relying heavily on the advice provided by officials here in the Senate with us. 'Has there been any modelling?' I am advised that, yes, there has been and that the modelling in relation to the measures that are part of this bill has indicated that those measures will drive an increase in completion rates of about five per cent. There are of course other support measures that the government continues to put in place, which will seek to boost that further. We do not accept that the changes that are part of this legislation are retrospective. The changes apply to existing apprentices, but they only apply prospectively as per the provisions in the legislation that is before the Senate.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:50): I thank the minister. In relation to the issue of modelling, will the minister advise whether the modelling will be tabled here and now? It is pertinent to the very basis upon which the government says it is undertaking this course of action. Secondly, in relation to the issue of taking away the money from the Tools For Your Trade for apprentices, does the government concede that there are some apprentices who commence their apprenticeship on the understanding that they will be able to get funding for their tools; only to find in subsequent years that that money will no longer be there?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (20:51): Apprentices currently in training will be able to switch to the new arrangements but they do not have to. It is just that they will not get any further payments in the future, which is transparently put forward as part of our budget measures. Obviously what we have put forward in our judgement is a superior scheme which is why we are recommending it to the Senate. In terms of whether I could table the modelling, obviously I am not here and now in a position to do so but I am happy to take that on notice. I will confer with my good friend and valued colleague Minister Macfarlane and check with him if there is anything else I can share in relation to that modelling.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:52): If I may assist the minister, some time ago when Minister Cormann was in opposition, I learnt the value of his pushing for orders for the production of documents, so I have learnt from the master the importance of orders for the production of documents. I foreshadow that there will be an order for the production of documents in relation to the modelling and I hope my crossbench colleagues and the opposition could indeed support that, because we want to see the base for this process. Even though the government does not acknowledge that it is retrospective, the question has been answered and I thank the minister for his frankness. Effectively, you are saying that there will not be the money that was promised earlier. You have to take out a loan for it. I reckon that is a bit rough. It seems that the government is willing to tackle apprentices head-on for their budget savings but will not, for instance, tackle anyone who has $10 million or $20 million in their private super account.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (20:53): Firstly, I am pleased that Senator Xenophon was a student of my practices in opposition. I can assure him that I will do my absolute best now in government to comply with all of the requirements of the Senate in complying with relevant orders or providing an explanation as to why relevant public interest immunities might apply, consistent with proper Senate procedure. Thank you for that, Senator Xenophon.

In terms of your other question, what we are putting forward provides access to more significant support, but it provides that access in a way where, once an apprentice earns more than $50,000 per year, they would be required to repay the support that they have received, which is entirely consistent with the way this sort of support is provided to university students. We think it is important to provide appropriate levels of support to apprentices. We also think it is appropriate that, once apprentices on the back of that support have been able to build a successful career, those funds are paid back so that the government can provide further support to future apprentices. There is no unlimited money pot out there. As Margaret Thatcher said some years ago, pennies do not fall from heaven; they have to be earned here on earth. There has never been a truer saying.

Senator Xenophon, what we are able to do with this bill is provide more significant support based on the proposition that, once apprentices are able to build successful careers, they repay that support so that the government is in a position to support future apprentices. Then we have a virtuous cycle where successful people in the future support other people who could be successful beyond that period.