Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to the shadow minister for moving this very important MPI. Might I say what a fantastic shadow minister we have in Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, who, I am very sad to say, we will not be seeing for a little while, but I am very happy to say that it is for a very joyous reason. So congratulations to the shadow minister and all the best for your leave, member for Kingston. It is going to be a wonderful time. I hope you are banking that sleep, too.

The member for Kingston has moved this MPI today because, of course, she understands the importance of defending higher education against attacks by the Liberal government. That is something the member for Kingston has been doing for quite some time. I have been giving a bit of thought the 1990s lately, because this time feels very reminiscent to me of the 1990s.

Up in Queensland, as you might have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—or you would know, of course, being a Queenslander—that we had a state election very recently, which had a very good result for the people of Queensland. It reminded me of a time in the late 1990s when we had another great result for the people of Queensland, and Labor formed government under Premier Peter Beattie, a fantastic Labor Premier. Another thing that is reminiscent of the 1990s—a less happy thing—is that Pauline Hanson has run for parliament in Queensland. You will probably remember that a lot of us were protesting Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s when she was in this place saying such terrible and divisive things in her maiden speech and in others. She has tried to stage a comeback—as though it were the 1990s again—and I am very pleased to have seen Shane Doherty reporting very recently now on Twitter that she has lost the seat by 184 votes, which can only be a good thing. I am not often pleased to see a Liberal-National Party member elected, but in this case I think we should all be pleased about that.

Another thing that is very reminiscent of the 1990s, of course—and I am sure it feels eerily familiar to the shadow minister as well—is fighting Liberal-National governments that want to make it harder for working-class and middle-class kids to get a higher education. The first time I voted was in the 1996 federal election. Unfortunately, my vote did not carry the federal election the right way, I will admit that, but I think I have been trying much harder ever since. One of the first things that then Prime Minister John Howard did when he became Prime Minister was to try and make it more difficult for working-class and middle-class kids to go to university. So we saw differential HECS arrangements, much greater HECS arrangements. People of my age were carrying much more reasonable amounts of debt after receiving a higher education degree because people of my age had the benefit of their HECS scheme introduced under Prime Minister Hawke in the 1980s. But people only a few years younger than me are paying off their higher education debts well into their 30s. If today's coalition government has its way, people will be paying off their higher education debt for their entire life. They will have lifelong debt if they choose to go to university.

Why do people go to university? The HECS scheme acknowledges that there is a private benefit to going to university. There is the benefit of job satisfaction from being able to get a job in your chosen field, if, in fact, your chosen field requires a higher education. There are plenty of ways for people to get job satisfaction that do not require a university degree. But some people want to get a university degree and they do get private satisfaction from that. And they do tend to get a higher remuneration, by and large, if they get a university degree. The beauty of our progressive income taxation system is that if people earn significantly more money than other people then they pay a higher marginal tax rate. We have this wonderful taxation system in this country where people who do obtain that private benefit make a contribution in return.

Not everyone who gets a university degree does go on to make a lot more money. Some people decide to go and work in the community sector or in the not-for-profit sector. Those people tend to already take a penalty for their decision to make a contribution of an altruistic nature to their community. The penalty that they pay is in the form of lower remuneration. For example, if you go and work for a not-for-profit organisation, you tend to get paid less than if you go and work for a for-profit organisation because of the way that not-for-profits are run. It is not an ironclad rule but, by and large, it is the case. So those people who go and get a law degree and who work, for example, for a community legal centre or those people who get a social work degree and go and work for a not-for-profit organisation already take a penalty. (Time expired)

See this speech in context