Division
Sharon Bird by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 6 Subsection 17(5) Omit "more than 5 years", substitute: more than: (a) 5 years; or (b) if the application is to renew the registration of an NVR registered training organisation that the Regulator has rated as low risk (using the Risk Assessment Framework)—7 years. (2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 16 (line 11), omit "registration, including renewal of registration", substitute "renewal of registration". The opportunity to discuss these matters in the previous debate on the second reading of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 gave me the opportunity to outline the reason that Labor has put this amendment forward in the consideration in detail section—and I just want to reiterate it in the few minutes in this part of the debate. I indicated that Labor recognises that the vast bulk of this bill is intended to provide really sensible amendments to the powers of the regulator and the government in order to increase or improve definitional terms—for example, as many members indicated, the fact that the original bill's RTO strict definition was hampering and tying the hands of the regulator with respect to some of those purported RTO activities that were going on in the market—and to provide some significant quality assurance improvements, particularly the ability for the minister to act more speedily to address some of the things that had emerged in the market. We absolutely endorse many of those. The message from those amendments is particularly important and useful for the general public at the moment—and that is why I commend the government for them. It is clear to see day by day from media reports the very unscrupulous behaviour that is going on in the VET market. Only this morning, I opened my own paper the _Illawarra Mercury_ to see another story about more students,
House of Representatives, 2015-03-05. negative: ayes 50, noes 79.
Question
Sharon Bird by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 6 Subsection 17(5) Omit "more than 5 years", substitute: more than: (a) 5 years; or (b) if the application is to renew the registration of an NVR registered training organisation that the Regulator has rated as low risk (using the Risk Assessment Framework)—7 years. (2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 16 (line 11), omit "registration, including renewal of registration", substitute "renewal of registration". The opportunity to discuss these matters in the previous debate on the second reading of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 gave me the opportunity to outline the reason that Labor has put this amendment forward in the consideration in detail section—and I just want to reiterate it in the few minutes in this part of the debate. I indicated that Labor recognises that the vast bulk of this bill is intended to provide really sensible amendments to the powers of the regulator and the government in order to increase or improve definitional terms—for example, as many members indicated, the fact that the original bill's RTO strict definition was hampering and tying the hands of the regulator with respect to some of those purported RTO activities that were going on in the market—and to provide some significant quality assurance improvements, particularly the ability for the minister to act more speedily to address some of the things that had emerged in the market. We absolutely endorse many of those. The message from those amendments is particularly important and useful for the general public at the moment—and that is why I commend the government for them. It is clear to see day by day from media reports the very unscrupulous behaviour that is going on in the VET market. Only this morning, I opened my own paper the _Illawarra Mercury_ to see another story about more students,
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.