Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

To Labor members opposite, who think that a scare campaign is just a bit of fun—I have seen the laughter that has gone on today as part of this debate—I say: you have to be very careful what you wish for because, when you get it, it may be different to what you expect. Yes, your scare campaign about $100,000 university degrees might have looked like a bit of fun to you, but it certainly did not to the students in rural and regional Australia. That campaign actually has scared some young people; you got what you wished for. There are young people who have changed their minds about their future education opportunities because of your scare campaign. If that was Labor's intent, I am appalled. But that is exactly what it has done. I had a recent higher education forum, and that was some of the feedback that I got—that the campaign about $100,000 fees has actually prevented some young people from taking up their higher education opportunities. That is exactly what is going on. If young regional and rural students were not facing challenges, here is another one.

We saw what Labor did when they changed the criteria for youth allowance, given the challenges facing rural and regional students with accommodation. This is not their first go at this. We saw the effect on a whole lot of young rural and regional students during those early Labor years. And here they are still at it. That is the bit that I find particularly appalling. It is having an impact. That is the cruel personal cost of this type of campaign. It may have looked like a political opportunity—and they are very proud of those posters—but what is the human cost? Did they ever think of the human cost to a young person who has limited funds and a family in a small regional community that is already struggling to support them to go away from home and study? When they see those headlines—'$100,000 university fees'—what does that do to that family? I do not think Labor even gave any thought to what that might do to the aspirations of younger people.

As we know, universities in Australia have always come at a financial cost to students. Until 1974 university fees were the norm, and governments of both persuasions had policies and plans to make tertiary education available to as many people as possible. A Curtin Labor government increased the number of university graduates. In response it increased the number of scholarships funded by the Commonwealth. The Menzies Liberal government invested in higher education, especially in sciences, investing heavily in additional universities to cater for increased demand. Menzies also increased scholarships, and the coalition created a new category of federally funded tertiary institutions called colleges of advanced education, to provide even more bachelor-level degrees. Of course that very least respected Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, abolished university fees, and then Bob Hawke had to make a different decision and he introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme.

Governments from both sides of politics—the rational ones anyway—believe that students need to make a contribution towards their own higher education. Both sides have a system where government funds the up-front cost, and the beneficiaries, the students themselves, are given the capacity to pay off their debt over time, as their income allows. This makes sure that all students have the same capacity to absorb and pay off higher education fees. But, as I said earlier, we should note that not all students have the same access to tertiary education. Those from a regional and rural area face accommodation and other costs that often are not part of what a student from a metropolitan area faces.

Labor have no understanding of this, or not only would they not have changed the youth allowance—going back all those years to when they first came into government—they would not be out there with posters threatening $100,000 university fees and scaring young people away from even trying to attain their higher education dreams. Those young people will come back to regional areas and be part of our future. That is exactly what we want to ensure. That is what the additional scholarships were about in our plan, and that is exactly what Labor have voted against. They have voted against further and greater opportunity for rural and regional students.

See this speech in context