Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for his question. I know that he is concerned about access to education by country students. Unfortunately, the Liberal and National parties in government were not at all concerned about access to education by country students. In the last five years of the Liberal-National Party government, the participation rates of country kids in universities went down. That is their track record in office. Whilst the participation rates of country kids went down, there were kids living at home in families that earned more than $300,000 a year who were getting full youth allowance. That is what they call equity in the Liberal Party and the National Party—the wealthiest families in the country getting full youth allowance as students live at home whilst country kids have their ability to participate in university cut.

We are resolved to fix that and the bill before the Senate does address that. We have listened to the concerns of students in a transition year who need to leave home in order to study and we have responded to those concerns. Yesterday the higher education sector came out and said to the Liberal and National parties: ‘Get out of the way. Pass this bill.’ Representatives of every Australian university and representatives of students said to the Liberal and National parties, ‘Get out of the way and pass this bill.’ Of the people who spoke, Ian Chubb, the Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, speaking on behalf of the Group of Eight universities, said:

Well we as a Group of 8 support this Bill. We think that it’s particularly important that it pass, that it pass quickly so that we can give some information to and certainty to the students …

Ross Milbourne, the Vice-Chancellor of UTS, representing the Australian Technology Network of Universities, said:

I speak really with my other fellow Vice Chancellors on behalf of the entire higher education sector who’s unanimous on supporting the legislation.

          …            …            …

… from my perspective, failure to pass this legislation today is not only bad for the education system in Australia, but it’s bad social policy and is very bad long term economic policy.

Paul Johnson, the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University, speaking on behalf of the Innovative Research Universities, said:

These students and their parents are having a tough time at present, we all know of the problems in the economy of regional and rural Australia. The proposed legislation will make a fundamental difference to all these families, all these students and their mums and dads.

Then we had the representative of the National Union of Students, on behalf of students, David Barrow, who said:

Let me just say that students unequivocally support these new scholarships.

So in positioning to reject this legislation the Liberal and National parties are ignoring the united and unanimous voice of everybody who speaks on behalf of higher education in this country. You could not be more isolated, you could not be more wedded to an inequitable and unfair system than those opposite. But having not been a friend of students in government, they are determined to be antistudent in opposition. They are particularly determined to be anti the participation of regional students in universities. The amendments that the opposition is moving in the Senate rip $700 million out of scholarships on an ongoing basis, $160 million of it coming out of the scholarships going to country kids—$160 million ripped out of the hands of country kids. That is what the opposition stands for.

As inequitable and unfair and irresponsible as their amendments are, what is even worse is that we do not know whether, if their amendments fail—and obviously they will be defeated again in this House if they succeed in the Senate—when it comes to considering the final proposition, they will pass this bill or reject this bill. We do not know what they will do. Let me just explain to members opposite who are catcalling what rejection of this bill will mean and what they will need to say to their constituents when they go back home.

See this speech in context