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

It is great to have the chance to make another contribution on the toxic and unfair first Abbott government budget and in particular to take part in this very important conversation this afternoon about higher education. All of us in the break in sittings have had plenty of time back in our electorates to talk to our constituents about the things they are concerned about. I know that I have been talking to a lot of people about health concerns they have—about the $7 GP copayment. I have heard issues about pensions and the changes being made by those on the other side of the House. It is interesting that no matter who I talk to, whether it is mums, pensioners, young people or even community organisations, pretty much everyone raises a concern about what this government is trying to do with higher education. Day after day in question time the Minister for Education comes in and talks about this perverse equity argument—what about the tradespeople, what about the casual workers, who do not have higher education degrees? I can tell you that that is not how Australians think. The people we talk to in our electorates who do not have higher education do not resent paying taxes so that young people in this country can have equal opportunities. They are concerned about their kids and whether they will get the chance to go to university. They are concerned about their neighbours and their neighbours' children and whether they will have the chance to go to university.

I was lucky over the sitting break to have a wonderful visit to Monash University, near my electorate —the member for Chisholm welcomed us there and we were accompanied by the member of the Kingston, the shadow assistant minister for education. She was fantastic—what a fantastic advocate this woman is for higher education and for equal opportunities in this country. She has done a wonderful job going around the country. We had a crowd of students and a crowd of teachers, and gee we had some interesting conversations. I want to talk about one student I met, a young man named Nic—a student at Monash University. Nic comes from Horsham, and he has been lucky enough to go to Monash but he raised some concerns for me about the impact on regional students. We know that Universities Australia and other organisations have made lots of formal pronouncements about the impact on regional universities, but I found it particularly emotive talking to Nic because this is a young person who is concerned about the young people in Horsham where he come from. He wrote me an email after the event, saying:

I am also extremely concerned about the impact that deregulation … will have on rural areas like Horsham. Horsham is home to Federation University, with only 3 study areas offered … This is a small rural campus, with very little international student attendance … Under deregulation … I just cannot see how the campus can remain open …

If this campus closes, I fear that many people … in the local area would choose to not undertake higher education at all …

My final question is simple: Where are the Nationals in this debate?

It is a lot of fun for us Labor people to come in and have a red hot go at the Liberals, but you do have to ask where are the Nationals in this debate. He finishes his email by saying in respect of country people:

How can their rights be fought for when none of the Nationals local members are fighting for them in the party room and in the parliament?

I want to make some comments about the impact of these changes on Australian women, because we know that Australian women will pay much more for their degrees than men will under the new system. I do not want to go into too much detail, but we know that a female science graduate will pay about $123,000 for a science degree and still be paying off her degree when she is 40 years old. We know that about 40 per cent of women may never pay off their debts in their lifetime. The truth is that women are going to be less likely to study at prestigious universities as a result of these changes.

If you do not believe what I am saying, can I just refer you to the basic principle of microeconomics which states that, when the price of something goes up, demand goes down. If you do not understand that, not only should you not be running the country but you should not be running a lemonade stand. We will see fewer women educated at premier universities around the country. It is a good example of where we on this side of the House see education as the great leveller of social disadvantage. This is the way that a young person who was born into a migrant family in Springvale in my electorate of Hotham can go on and become a partner in a law firm or a member of this House. But what we see with a system like the one being proposed is that, instead of it being a leveller of social disadvantage through education, it becomes an entrencher of social disadvantage. Those with the most means go to the best universities and do the best degrees, and that is the way these powers are entrenched.

There is so much more that I could talk about, but I do want to mention Real Solutions. It is one of my favourite things to look at. When we need a bit of a laugh in this chamber, we like to bring in Real Solutions. On this serious subject, a promise was made, an ironclad commitment, that university funding would not be changed. This has been a spectacular breach of faith by the education minister; it is one of the worst that we have seen in this budget. Labor will continue to fight these changes to the hilt.

See this speech in context