Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is probably a good point in this debate to remind the government of what the Hawke-Keating reforms were actually about. The Hawke-Keating reforms were about fees of $100 or thereabouts or, at most, maybe $2,000 for a university degree. These reforms are about $100,000 degrees. You must be some kind of dodgy used car salesman to suggest that these reforms are a natural extension of the original Hawke-Keating reforms—from a couple of hundred dollars to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. This is what this government is proposing.

This government does not appreciate that the ability to pay off a debt of a couple of hundred dollars may be done in your first couple of pay cheques, whereas the ability to pay off a degree and a debt of a couple of hundred thousand dollars is going to take a lifetime. When I say 'a couple of hundred thousand dollars', I am talking about the cost of a medical degree. What Sydney uni, Melbourne uni and the University of WA are saying is that their medical degree costs could go up to $200,000. It is what we have seen in the up-front fee debate, and it is now what we are now seeing for ordinary domestic university students.

Let's talk about the capacity to pay and about why this is a debt for life. Let's talk about regional areas such as Tasmania, regional Victoria and North Queensland where the average wages of people is lower than for those in the metro cities. These people do not have the same capacity to pay back debt because their wages are less, yet their fees for university will be just as high. In metro Victoria, as an example, the number of people earning over $78,000—which may be the beginning of an income which can pay back this debt—is 18.2 per cent. But in regional Victoria it is 11 per cent. So they do not have the wages to pay back these debts. That is why it is a debt for life, and that is just for students who graduate when they are aged in their 20s

Let's talk about all the mature-age students, particularly women who go back to university later on in life. You are going to saddle them with a debt. What happens to their debt when they retire? Who will pay back that debt? Will it go to their children? What will happen to that debt? This government's plan is about locking out mature-age students from university. This government is about saddling them with a lifetime debt or locking them out. This government's plan is about locking out working class kids, because working class kids will have to make that tough call—will they get a university degree or will they buy a house? When you go for a mortgage, banks are already asking you, 'What is your university debt? How are you going to pay it back?' It is already a factor, even before these reforms come in.

These reforms will mean students choose not to go to university, and that will put pressure on regional campuses. I note that the previous speaker mentioned the university of La Trobe, but what she did not mention in her contribution is that the vice-chancellor of the university of La Trobe is already saying that, if these reforms go through, there is a high chance the Bendigo La Trobe campus will close. It will close because student numbers will drop. This is what is going to happen on regional campuses. We have seen it happen in the TAFE sector. When student numbers drop because the debts are too high, courses close. When courses close, academics are laid off, and then the viability of the campus is at risk. It will be a slow death—job by job, course by course, student by student.

What this government is doing is setting the bar way too high on debt levels. What this government is doing is not the Hawke-Keating Labor plan, which was to make a small contribution towards your university fees. This is about a debt for life that is more significant than a car loan, that can only be matched by a mortgage for a home. That is the choice that the government is putting to regional kids.

See this speech in context