Division
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10-19.108.2) to the bill that were introduced by Labor MP [Kate Ellis](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/adelaide/kate_ellis), which means they were unsuccessful. ### What are these bills all about? These three bills [replace the VET FEE-HELP loan scheme](http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/crackdown-on-private-college-loans/7902640). These changes include: * limiting student loans to eligible students for approved courses; * introducing stronger eligibility requirements; * banning providers from using brokers or agents to interact or engage with students in relation to the loans; and * introducing civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. Read more on the [Department of Education & Training](https://www.education.gov.au/vet-fee-help-reforms) website. ### What were the amendments? The amendments would introduce a [VET](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_education) Student Loans [Ombudsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman). The Coalition Government voted against the amendment but Liberal MP [Karen Andrews](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcpherson/karen_andrews) said [in her contribution](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10-19.109.1): > *As I noted in my second reading speech on this bill, the government intends to establish an ombudsman. This will increase student protections and provide a further avenue for dispute resolution. I note that Labor never provided an ombudsman when it established or expanded the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Stakeholders have raised a number of different models for an ombudsman, which the government is currently considering. So, whilst it supports the principle of an ombudsman, it will not support the opposition's amendment.* ### Amendment text See the text of these amendments on [OpenAustralia](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10
House of Representatives, 2016-10-19. negative: ayes 70, noes 76.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10-19.108.2) to the bill that were introduced by Labor MP [Kate Ellis](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/adelaide/kate_ellis), which means they were unsuccessful. ### What are these bills all about? These three bills [replace the VET FEE-HELP loan scheme](http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/crackdown-on-private-college-loans/7902640). These changes include: * limiting student loans to eligible students for approved courses; * introducing stronger eligibility requirements; * banning providers from using brokers or agents to interact or engage with students in relation to the loans; and * introducing civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. Read more on the [Department of Education & Training](https://www.education.gov.au/vet-fee-help-reforms) website. ### What were the amendments? The amendments would introduce a [VET](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_education) Student Loans [Ombudsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman). The Coalition Government voted against the amendment but Liberal MP [Karen Andrews](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcpherson/karen_andrews) said [in her contribution](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10-19.109.1): > *As I noted in my second reading speech on this bill, the government intends to establish an ombudsman. This will increase student protections and provide a further avenue for dispute resolution. I note that Labor never provided an ombudsman when it established or expanded the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Stakeholders have raised a number of different models for an ombudsman, which the government is currently considering. So, whilst it supports the principle of an ombudsman, it will not support the opposition's amendment.* ### Amendment text See the text of these amendments on [OpenAustralia](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2016-10
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.