Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Hansard source

If we cast our mind back to a former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, she actually said once something which is quite pertinent to today's debate. She said, 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' That really is at the core of today's debate on the Free TAFE Bill 2024. 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'

Those opposite are trying to establish some phoney fault lines in this building to suggest that people on this side of the House don't support education, to suggest that people on this side of the House don't support vocational training or university education, to suggest that people on this side of the House don't recognise that a good education is a pathway to a better-paying job and economic success for an individual. That fault line doesn't exist. There is not a member in this place, on either side of the chamber or on the crossbench, who doesn't value education, who hasn't benefited from Australia's world-class education system in one way or another. And there's not a person in this place who doesn't want to see young Australians achieve their full potential.

But there are people in this place who understand the value of taxpayers' money.

There are people in in place who understand that nothing is actually ever free. It's always someone else's money, and in this case the someone else whose money is to pay for Labor's reckless promise is the Australian taxpayer.

'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' Now, we have obligations in this place for those of us who have been lucky enough, as I have, to have served in the cabinet and served in portfolios where we've had responsibility for the taxpayers' money. I had obligations to make sure that, wherever possible, I achieved value for money for the Australian taxpayers. I understand how hard Australians work for their money. I understand that, when they give their taxes to the government, they expect us to work just as hard to get value for money for the dollars they're contributing. There are limited resources. The member for Casey touched on this in his presentation when he said there's an opportunity cost here. The money you spend in one part of government business is an opportunity cost for potential expenditure in another part, whether it's offering services or critical infrastructure in our communities.

What we have here is the government seeking to create a false fault line in the building when it could be working with those on this side of the House and providing more transparency and a better system which we could vote to support. My main concerns with the bill before the House relate directly to transparency, relate to fairness and relate to the fact that this is not actually targeted in a way that Australian taxpayers' dollars should be targeted: at the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged. It doesn't take any consideration of an individual's capacity to pay. For example, if I or someone like me were to undertake a TAFE course under the Labor approach, I'd get a fee-free course. I have more than enough capacity to pay for the course. Why would I get a fee-free course?

On this fairness debate, think about a cleaner. They are some of the hardest-working Australians but not really well paid; an average wage for a cleaner in Australia might be about $60,000 a year. Why should a cleaner who hasn't had the advantages of a university education or a TAFE course pay the TAFE fees of a plumber or an electrician? The plumber has the capacity. On average wages, they make $87,000 a year. An electrician's average wage in Australia is currently $94,000 a year. So why are the taxes of a cleaner on $58,000 a year going to pay the fee-free TAFE of a plumber or electrician? I've got to say that not once in my 16 years in this place has a plumber or an electrician come to me and said: 'You know what? The money I spent on my training was a waste of money.' They know it's an investment in their own future. They're quite happy to pay for the skills and training they need knowing full well that they will benefit from that training in the years ahead. It's an investment in themselves. Those plumbers, those electricians, who have some limited capacity to pay at the time of their study have access to other systems already where they can delay the payment. We have a very advanced system in Australia where you can delay the payment for the course itself.

I want to re-emphasise this. There is not a person in this place who doesn't believe that we should be investing in our young people or that we should be investing in educational opportunities, whether it's through TAFE, VET or on to university, but we on this side of the House want to make sure that we're getting value for money for the Australian taxpayers' dollars, because nothing is ever free. Someone else is always paying. The fact that this bill does not provide any provision to assess an individual's capacity to pay, to contribute to their own education, is a fundamental flaw with the bill before the House.

Unfortunately, this government has form in relation to writing blank cheques and expecting other people to pay. This is another cynical vote-buying exercise aimed at younger voters. What we've seen in the last couple of weeks is that this government has finally realised that cost of living is an issue for the Australian people. It's woken up to the fact after 2½ years and after wasting more than $400 million on a referendum. They finally realise that cost of living is a big issue.

Their first response was to come out with a vote-buying scheme targeted so cynically that it disproportionally benefits young people and people who graduated with a degree in inner urban areas at the expense of working-class people in regional areas. I'm referring specifically to the announcement that the government will pay $16 billion to reduce student HELP debts by 20 per cent. The reason this bill is very similar to the one before the House today, and is so egregious, is that when I asked the Parliamentary Library—a very independent source—for a breakdown on who this will benefit the most—what a surprise! The seats that will benefit the most from this $16 billion are either held by the Labor Party and are under direct threat from the Greens or are held by the Greens themselves and are Labor Party target seats.

The Parliamentary Library data is so unequivocally damning of this plan that I am surprised that there hasn't been more outrage over it. For example, this proposal will benefit 12,777 people in the seat of Gippsland. It's good for them. They'll get that 20 per cent reduction. But, in the Prime Minister's seat of Grayndler, it will help 28,009 students—that's more than double. In the education minister's seat of Blaxland, it's 25,901. Remember, it's 12,000 in Gippsland, 25,000 in the education minister's seat, and 28,000 in the Prime Minister's seat.

It gets worse, because across Australia, when you average out the seats held by the National Party—obviously rural and regional seats—the average number of students across all National Party seats who will benefit from this debt retirement at taxpayers' expense is 13,384. But, when you average out the seats held by the Greens, the target seats for the Australian Labor Party, in the inner city, which is where they're obviously hoping to make some ground at the next election, what do you think the number would be, Member for Nicholls? Would it be more or less?

See this speech in context