Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I understand, Deputy Speaker. I went a little overboard there. I do apologise. But I will say that there are half-truths, there are perversities and there are contradictions and no more so than in the proposed changes to higher education. When we think about winners and losers, I can tell you that the losers from these changes will be the young people who are sitting out there watching this debate today from the gallery. These changes will see universities auctioning their degrees to the highest bidders. The introduction of commercial, compound interest rates will see those much higher loans growing every year. What experts are saying is that, with the new changes, universities will charge what they are currently charging overseas students today. Overseas students doing a law degree at Sydney University pay $140,000. For a nursing degree at Sydney university, they pay $88,500. The interest rate changes will mean that a student who finishes university with a $40,000 debt will pay $75,000. A woman who finishes her university degree and goes into a job that is not particularly high paid may never pay off her loan in her whole working life.

Remember, these changes are being made by a cabinet, of whom 12, as we know, went to university completely for free. It is absolutely perverse. They use their free education to get power and position and now they are using that power and position to slam the door in the face of other young people in Australia who want to access those opportunities. We know from what other speakers have talked about that, very unfortunately but not surprisingly, the biggest impact of these changes is going to be on students from low-income families. I probably should not need to say this, but, without equal access to education, all of us are going to lose. The member for Rankin spoke quite eloquently about the need to try to not limit access to university education but get as many young people in this country to university as we can.

The government has argued that young people from low-income families will not be deterred by these huge fees. This is hogwash. It absolutely defies expert opinion and just plain common sense. A detailed study by Deloitte Access Economics on changes to HECS has shown that, where reductions in university demand have happened in Australia, they have been almost all from students who have come from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have talked to quite a lot of local principals about the changes, and their frustration is absolutely palpable. I want to quote one of the local principals who said to me: 'The amounts that are being talked about will absolutely scare my students away. For these kids, a sum like $100,000 is a TattsLotto win. It's an unimaginable amount of money.' They point out to me the pressure that these young people are already facing within their families to go out and earn more quickly. They think that these increases in fees will be enough to shift the balance, not just subtly but a lot. But the biggest impost they point to with these changes is the impact they could have on the culture in their schools right down the line. These principals tell me that they work so hard to produce environments of excellence and a belief that these students can go on to do anything they want in life, but this culture is being completely undermined by a university system that will see many of them locked out of tertiary education.

The government has argued that there are increases to Commonwealth scholarships and therefore this, of course, answers the access question. This is staggeringly unfair. Why should only a handful of the best and brightest young Australians from low-income families go to university when students from much wealthier homes will get much broader access to education? In Australia, that is just not how we do things. I can say that, as Labor, we will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay. A country like ours should be a meritocracy and nothing aside from your intellect and drive should determine whether and where you go to university. But this is not how things are in Tony Abbott's Australia. If you are a white, privileged male, the government has got your back. But if you are poor, if you are a woman, if you drive a car, if you live in a region, if you are an older Australian, if you are a student, if you are a single mum, and especially if you are a young person, you had better watch out, because these guys are coming for you.

See this speech in context