Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s unfair attacks on education, training, opportunities and support for young people.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite what we heard from the Prime Minister in question time today, we on this side of the House absolutely believe that no country has ever gotten smarter, has ever become more equal or more prosperous by putting up barriers to education. We on this side of the House know that an investment in education is in fact the smartest investment this country can make. We know that this government's $5 billion in cuts to higher education will damage our universities, will damage our research capacity, will damage our economy but, importantly, it will also damage the opportunities and the prospects that young Australians have today, which is the subject of this matter of public importance. Today in this matter of public importance we make absolutely clear that Labor will not support a system of higher fees, we will not support a system of bigger student debt, and we will absolutely not support a system of reduced access and greater inequality in our higher education system, as this government and that minister would put forward.

We recognise that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education can say whatever they like when they come into this parliament and try and spin their stories and tell us that black is white. We on this side of the House absolutely recognise that there is no question that it will deter some people from going to higher education, if what they are being asked to do is to shoulder a greater debt than they or their families have ever encountered before. Of course it will. It will shut the door to higher education and to a university degree to those individuals not because of their capacities, not because of the number of brain cells they have, but because of the weight of their and their parents' wallets. That is what those opposite put forward and that is what we absolutely reject.

No-one can deny that deregulation will mean fee increases right across the board. The Prime Minister today admitted that in question time. We will see fee increases go up at each university right across the board. What this will do is that it will mean an end to fairness, an end to equity in our higher education system and it will undo generations of reforms which have been based on trying to make sure that the young people of today have greater opportunities than their parents and the grandparents—not the other way around. The Whitlam and Hawke reforms—gone. Getting 100,000 extra students into our universities under the last Labor government—gone. This is why we will absolutely vote against the government's cuts to university funding and to student support.

This is a government that we hear over and over again is obsessed by the ideas of debt and deficit. It is a deeply spurious claim, given that they themselves doubled the size of the deficit as soon as they came to office. We know that they are all talk; we know that they are all spin. But they continue with this spin despite doubling the deficit when they came to office. But what are they proposing to do right now? They are proposing to put on the shoulders of young Australians who aspire to get a great education more debt than any generation before them has faced. What they are doing right now is driving up the debt of every student at university now and every student in the future. Students will be charged more for their degree, they will then be charged more in interest on their degree, and they will then be made to pay it back sooner than they otherwise would of. They are hitting young Australians and hitting them again and again. None of them opposite can deny this because it is their proposal, it is their vision for higher education. We will not share that vision.

Combined with the government's $5 billion in cuts to higher education, deregulating fees will see universities asking how much they can charge students and not how best can they educate students. This government has put absolutely no ceiling on how much a degree will cost. In question time today the Prime Minister was unable to guarantee that science degrees would not go through the roof, he was unable to guarantee that the cost of getting a nursing degree would not increase so that it was bigger than the starting salary of a nurse, and he was not able to guarantee that it would take a mother up to 36 years to pay off her university degree. That is what those opposite are defending. No guarantees, no caps, no limits to the amount of debt that you can place individually on the shoulders of young Australians.

So those opposite should not talk to me about debt and deficit. They should not talk to me about that when they come in here and ask 17-year-olds to take on debts of over $100,000 for the simple task of going to university. That is what those on the other side of the chamber are asking. Those young students are not old enough to vote; they are not old enough to get a bank loan. The are not old enough to get a credit card but this government would see them have over $100,000 of debt on their shoulders. We will oppose that every step of the way.

Recent modelling has shown how fees will increase dramatically. Fees for courses in dentistry, medicine and veterinary science will triple to $180,000 or more. Education will go from $24,000 to $40,000 or more. Nursing will go from $18,000 up to $40,000. Those Nationals keeping their heads down low in the back row should know that this will make it harder for students from regional Australia to go to university, after the Labor government's reforms to open the doors and see more regional students flowing to universities.

We know that prices will rise. We know that the big, old, sandstone universities will be able to charge a premium for those students who can afford to buy into their alumni. Those universities will therefore have more resources. We know the consequences of that: it will create a US-style, two-tiered university system in Australia—or at least the perception of one. And it is not just the Labor Party that is saying that. The Vice-Chancellor of the Swinburne University of Technology has said:

… deregulation will inevitably lead to much higher fees for our students. … Over time, full fee deregulation will lead to a higher education system characterised by the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’.

That is a vision which we reject. This would be to our entire nation's detriment. We believe that all of our universities are only as strong as each other. But the biggest impact—the real tragedy of this—will be on those who choose never to go to university at all as a result of these changes. We can expect that teenagers, 17-year-olds, will make decisions about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. This government would load up these young Australians. As Sydney University Vice-Chancellor said:

It's the ordinary Australians that I think aren't getting enough of a guernsey in this conversation.

We agree. And we stick up for the ordinary Australians. We stand up in this chamber because we promote a higher education system which is accessed on merit, not based on your bank balance.

As if the extreme cost of a degree was not going to deter young people, students would have to start paying it back sooner and with much higher interest rates. We have seen that that will have the biggest impact on women. We heard in question time today about how, in Australia—where it is still women who do to majority of work associated with raising a family, the majority of caring and the majority of part-time work while they do that—a graduate who has time off work or who reduces her hours to have children will take an extra decade to repay her debt and will pay tens of thousands of dollars more in interest. In the early years of her family, this same graduate's debt will continue to spiral. In many cases it will grow to be even bigger than when she first finished her degree.

The Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University of Technology has commented on this too, saying:

However, the proposal to index HELP debts at the long-term bond rate, up to an amount of 6%, instead of CPI, will lead to a rapid increase in individual debts. … This will disadvantage women more than men, who take longer to pay their HELP debt back. It will also disproportionately affect older individuals, people of lower socio-economic backgrounds and Indigenous students.

Those on the other side of the chamber must be very proud! They hit the weak; hit those that can least afford it.

With this Prime Minister we should not be surprised at efforts that will increase the gender pay gap in this country. It comes on the back of the minister who is sitting at the table, who has attacked and slashed the wages of the overly feminised industry of childcare workers. We have seen hits to age care workers. We have seen, time and time again, that this government will attack women disproportionately and make sure that they bear the brunt of these consequences.

But we also know that this whole nation benefits from us having an educated population. It is not about taking flowers and chocolates to your next-door neighbour; it is about recognising that we all benefit from having doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, engineers and artists. In a globalised knowledge economy we, as a nation, need these skills to create jobs and to drive economic wealth. Everyone who does not go to university also benefits from the skills and capabilities of those who do. That is why we created a system where you get some personal benefit so you make a contribution—but it is balanced so that it does not deter people from going to university. Labor create this system and Labor members will stand up in this parliament and oppose any attacks which would see those who are the first in their families to access university having to close the door after them because their children will never afford it. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to respond to the opposition on this afternoon's matter of public importance. It has been very hard, when listening to the opposition in parliament this week, to understand exactly what they believe in. I have listened to the member for Adelaide. I have listened to her often, and I still do not understand what drives her or what she believes in, in terms of the opposition's agenda for education, particularly the higher education portfolio.

But I picked out a couple of things that she said. She talked about driving up the debt of every student. I want to assure her that we care about the debt of every student, but we really care about the debt on the shoulders of every single Australian—man, woman and child—that this opposition has left this government to deal with. If the member for Adelaide cares about the debts of students she should care about the debts of every Australian.

The member for Adelaide also referred to a globalised knowledge economy. I cannot let that comment pass without making a very strong point in response. The point of the university reforms is to enable our students—our graduates—to operate and work in an integrated globalised world economy. Where are the children of many of the members in this place—the children aged 20-something? Many of them are overseas or are working for overseas multinational countries. Their jobs are linked inextricably with the jobs of every student studying at every higher education institution in the world. Unless we keep up we will fall behind. I am surprised, with the emphasis that Labor often has on quality, that they have not recognised that important point.

We should set the scene, because sometimes when people listen to debates in this place, we talk about money and scarce resources and the allocation of scarce resources—which is obviously what we do—and it is as if the money is there and we are just arguing about how to divide it up. It is as if we have different philosophical opinions on what we do with a certain pot of money. Yes we do, but the point to make here is that the money is not here. We have arrived in government with an enormous deficit that we have inherited from Labor. We have arrived in a position not of strength but of weakness and it is our job to turn that around. We are not competing on the same playing field that Labor imagines it is when it talks about the current budgetary situation, which it has airbrushed away as if it does not exist.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you double it? Did you double the deficit?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Adelaide, I listened to you in silence and I promise I will not reflect on your university experience if you listen to me in silence. Labor delivered five record budget deficits. They left a further $123 billion in deficits for the next four years and their debt is costing Australians $1 billion a month in dead money.

Let us look at what we need to do and what we have said we will do, and how proud we are of the university reforms that we have mentioned, the higher education reforms that are part of our budget. This is not a defensive position, this is a positive forward-looking position, and this is in the interests of the Australian higher-education sector, students and the economy as a whole. For the first time ever the Australian government is supporting all Australian higher-education students, with all registered higher-education institutions, enrolled in diplomas and bachelor degrees, including advanced diplomas and associate degrees.

We know that diplomas and other pathway programs are a great way into university for many students, including those from low-income backgrounds. People who have not done that well at high school, and mature-age people wanting to move into a new job, will now have an opportunity to participate in this slightly different form of higher education, which will lead them into a positive pathway for the future, alongside our HECS style loans for apprentices, the Trade Support Loans—$20,000 loans to apprentices, with a significant reduction if they complete their course. That is what we want to see: abolishing the loan fees for HELP loans for vocational-education students and for undergraduate students with non-uni higher-education institutions.

Commonwealth scholarships will help students from low-SES backgrounds, Indigenous students and students from regional Australia. I highlight that point because the member for Adelaide talked about these measures as affecting and disadvantaging rural and regional students. I want to assure those listening—Labor does not bother to read the detail—that universities will need to invest one dollar of every five dollars that they receive in new scholarships, scholarships that they will offer rural and regional students, Indigenous students and disadvantaged students—Commonwealth scholarships that will support those students through their higher-education experience.

No-one needs to pay a dollar up-front. We have to keep repeating this. No-one needs to pay a dollar up-front. Frightening and scaremongering families who, I admit, are writing to me as the local member saying, 'I don't know if I can afford to send my child to university,' is ridiculous, because parents should not be paying the fees of their children at university. Even wealthy parents should not. Students should be paying their own way and they can and always will be able to, under our system, because no-one needs to pay a dollar up-front. You only make repayments when your income is over $50,000. Then you will have to pay a modest rate of interest on your repayments. So to say that you cannot afford to go to university is disingenuous at best and misleading and untruthful at worst. We know that university education is the best investment. I would agree with the opposition on that. I read a report in TheNew York Times this morning that priced the difference in lifetime earnings of someone with a university degree—or, as they say in the States, a college degree—at $500,000 and that is with much higher payments that American students pay for their university degrees.

I stand here and represent the students who will never go near the door of a university. Deputy Speaker Scott, they are the students from your electorate, from Western Queensland, from western New South Wales, from the rural electorates represented by the members on this side of the house who will never go near the door of the university, who will work in manufacturing, in factories, in retail, in modest jobs that will never earn the incomes of the graduates this Labor Party expects our taxes to support. If it is a matter of fairness, this is fundamentally fair.

If the member for Adelaide wants to talk about unfair attacks, she should look no further than the state that the Labor Party left vocational education and training in—a subject dear to my heart—dismantling our successful Australian technical colleges, putting in trade-training centres. I have now visited many of these. Many of them carry on something that does not prepare students for industry, does not make them ready for the workplace and does not actually meet their needs. In fact, in one high school students were studying tools by looking at photographs. In another, they had all their machinery set at the wrong level. We've gotta love our manual-arts teachers—we remember them from the old days—but they do not necessarily provide high-quality vocational training.

So we are fixing that up. We are fixing up Labor's mess. We have the states and territories around the table working on a plan that delivers students, in high school, Australian school based apprenticeships that lead to the world of work. We are linking students to real jobs in the real economy. We do believe in a strong VET-in-schools system. We do believe that it has to be industry focused. The subject of this MPI by the member for Adelaide was training, but she only talked about higher education. It is important that we do talk about training and I am looking forward to the contribution of her colleague. It is vital that vocational courses provide that clear pathway to employment.

I visited Newman College—and I think the member for Lyne might be speaking in this debate—and was incredibly impressed by the way that the college prepared students for the world of work. They understood that Labor's trade-training-centre approach did not work, did not work in the real world, did not work for the students of that college and certainly was not in their interests. Reflecting on the approach we took, the key difference is that it is industry led, because we as the Liberal and National parties understand that if students leave school and are not ready for the world of work then an employer is not going to pick them up. An employer is not going to give them a job. And if they do not get a job 18 months later, they are unlikely to get a job in a hurry. We know that unless we put that a clear pathway in place we will let the students down.

Back to the context in which we are all operating today: Labor's debt and deficit. There is $1 billion of interest every month. Imagine what we could do with that money. Dead money. We saw the Commission of Audit report. If we implemented every single one of their recommendations—and the Treasurer said we will not and we have not—it would still take until 2023 to pay back Labor's debt. I know that is only on the government spending side and there is a taxation side—and, of course, we have got to keep that down—but I use that example to highlight the scale of the problem that we are here to fix. The Australian people can trust this government to do what we said we would do.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely endorse the matter of public importance put forward by my colleague the member for Adelaide, and I am very proud to contribute to this debate as the shadow minister for vocational education and training. I would hate to ask those sitting on the opposite side at the moment to name their minister for vocational education and training. It is not the minister who was at the dispatch box. I bet most of them would not even know who it is. That is the priority the current government has given to vocational education, training and skills. I have not heard any yelling out of the actual name so far. I would suggest that is a pretty good indication of where their priority lies.

The particular matter of public importance is before us because, like my colleagues, I happen to believe that the vast majority of young people are not only very keen to get a job or to do the training they need to get a job but also are actively out there trying to do so in what can be a very tough environment for young people in the workforce. In my own area, in the Illawarra, we have a high level of youth unemployment. I actually have a lot of faith in the young people in my area that they are not just lounging around being lazy and not being bothered to get off their bums to go out and get some education or find a job. That is not what is going on. The reality is that the vast majority of them really do want a job—and it is tough out there.

Of course we support the importance of focusing on providing the education and pathways that young people need in order to get into those jobs. There is no argument about that. Of course, we support it. What we do not support is saying, 'If you don't comply, you can starve.' We do not support saying, 'If you've already done one qualification and you therefore are not entitled to free access to another qualification, we're going to cut your money off so that you have no chance of actually having the money to pay the fees that will be required for another qualification.'

We do not support the proposal that says, 'If you'd like to be an apprentice'—an entirely worthwhile ambition, according to the minister—'and you are having some difficulty accessing an apprenticeship job, we'll cut the apprentice access program.' I have visited providers like the Motor Traders Association in Western Sydney who used and ran this program—the very program that provided the links and opportunities for disadvantaged young people to get into an apprenticeship. If people get into an apprenticeship it is really important that we help them and their employers support them getting through to completing that apprenticeship. But what do you do in government? You cut the apprentice mentoring program—the very program that worked with those young people and their employers to keep them in those jobs and get them through to completion.

We do not say, 'If you want to get the skills that you need in basic literacy, numeracy, computer skills, job-seeking skills and presentation'—thinking about how you need to deal with interviews and present yourself to get a job—'we will just cut the programs that provided that training.' I visited Youth Connections in my area with the member for Throsby. I met a whole room of young people, sitting on computers, doing courses, talking to people about interviews they were going to and how to best answer questions and doing a bit of practice. It is a wonderful program with highly successful outcomes. What happened to that in the budget? What happened to that in the priority of connecting young people to jobs? Gone again!

Then I went along to a local function held by the Partnership Brokers. Again, this is in our community—local organisations and not-for-profit organisations all coming together and working with employers to connect young people to jobs. What happened to that in the budget? How does that fare under the government's claims that it wants to make sure young people get into education and training? Gone again!

This is the reality of a government that fundamentally does not trust young people, that fundamentally would rather attack their motives and their commitment to finding a job than put in place the funding and the programs that will deliver. I will answer the question that I started with. The minister who has responsibility for vocational educational and training and skills—for those on the opposite side who still, after four and a half minutes, have failed to find a name for him—is Minister Macfarlane. He thinks they waste their money on tattoos and mag wheels. Young people are better than that, and they deserve the support of the government—not the cheap attacks that they have seen on them and their opportunities in this budget.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party continue to deliberately mislead the Australian people. They repeat their scaremongering in the hope of being taken seriously.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We go through this every day. The term 'deliberately misleading' is unparliamentary and the member should withdraw.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Ryan, use of the word 'deliberate' does determine that it is unparliamentary and I ask you to remove the word 'deliberate'.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. The Labor Party continue to deliberately scare the Australian people. They repeat their scaremongering in the hope of being taken seriously, and repeatedly they will achieve the same result: failure. The reality is that funding for education, opportunities for young people and the quality of our schools, training institutions and universities are all going up under the coalition government. Those opposite must be on some powerful hallucinogens and living in an alternate universe if they cannot understand that the coalition government has, in fact, put more funding into schools than the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments did.

The coalition government is expanding opportunities for more people to study through our reforms to higher education. Australian universities will be able to compete with the best in the world by having the freedom to innovate, a greater ability to invest in world class research, and the capacity and flexibility to respond to the needs of students and business. Education is our fourth largest export—after coal, gold and iron ore. Our universities have been held back and are starting to be outdone by our neighbouring countries, meaning fewer students are coming to Australia and, therefore, billions of dollars annually are being removed from our economy.

The government's education plans will help our    universities become more competitive with those in the United States and Europe. I would like to stress again that, contrary to the scaremongering by Labor and the Greens, the coalition has not cut any funding to schools. In fact, we have increased funding to schools by $1.2 billion in the forward estimates—after Labor snuck it out in the lead-up to the last election to hide the true state of their budget disaster.

The $50 billion dollars alluded to by Labor was never in the budget. It was a pie-in-the-sky pipedream of funding Australia could never afford and was never budgeted. The legacy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments is that we are now wasting $1 billion a month paying interest for their debt—money that would be better spent on health and education but, because of Labor's poor and reckless financial mismanagement, the priority must be to fix the economy. You cannot fix the economy without fixing the budget.

The coalition reforms to education mean that our nation has a future as a country with universities of such calibre as to rate in the top 20 worldwide—to be among the class of universities such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. But it doesn't stop there. Not only are these reforms removing the glass ceiling for our top universities; they are allowing all of our universities to focus on delivering the courses and programs they do best.

These reforms will expand opportunities for students who would not otherwise have gone on to higher education. By expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, more students will have the opportunity to undertake the level of higher education that is right for them.

The massive expansion of the Commonwealth scholarships initiative will see more opportunities for students from low socio-economic backgrounds and from regional areas. For the first time in our nation's history, the Australian government will provide for all students in all higher education institutions, be they universities, colleges or those TAFEs registered as higher education providers, whether in the cities or the bush. Under these reforms, the days of Australians having a limited choice in high-quality education will be gone.

To be at the forefront of this new initiative to change our education system for the better is truly exciting, but these initiatives are being threatened by the small-mindedness and selfishness of those opposite to stand in the way of improving our education system. On this side of the chamber, we believe in strengthening our education to provide our future generations of Australians greater opportunities and access to genuine world-class education.

We believe that it is our most fundamental duty as parents, adults and community leaders to give our children, our future generations, the best opportunities and best potential for success. It is a shame that those opposite want to deny these opportunities for future generations. They continue to stick their heads in the sand and deny that the reason the budget needs repair is as a direct result of their financial incompetence—the greatest financial deterioration in our country's history.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: if I may just correct a remark that I made at the end of my MPI speech: I said that if we adopted every recommendation under the commission of audit, we would not pay back Labor's debt until 2023. In fact I was wrong: we would not run a surplus until 2023—an even more horrifying reflection on the size of that debt.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a load of rubbish we have heard from those opposite. They come in here and they talk about opportunity for young people when they are the ones reducing the opportunities for young people. They come in here and try and say that it is all Labor's fault. They are in government. They doubled the deficit in six months. They are the ones responsible for their own decisions. They are the ones responsible for cutting programs like Youth Connections. They are the ones responsible for the $80 billion cut to health and education so that young people right across the country will not be getting the education they want, deserve and will need for jobs. They are their cuts, and they need to take responsibility for them.

The people on this side, the opposition, do not accept this rhetoric about young people and we do not accept that they are genuine about opportunities for young people, because they could not possibly be, given what is in their budget. We heard from the last member that people are scared. Too right people are scared—they are not scared by what we are saying; they are scared by the budget. If they go out into their electorates and talk to people, that is what they will hear.

We have got teenagers terrified now about whether or not they are going to be able to afford to go to a university. They are terrified about going to a university—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're scaremongering.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not my scaremongering; it's your budget that is the problem. It is your budget that is scaring people. It is really frightening people out there. Those young people are frightened and terrified about whether or not they are going to be able to afford an education.

What is worse, of course, about all of this is that we have heard that young people who don't have a job and can't find a job are going to have to live on nothing for six months when their Newstart is cut off—nothing: no income, no support, nothing for six months. People under 30—what are they supposed to do? Are they going to rely on their parents at 28?

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can work for the dole.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are going to work for the dole, are they, the member for Lindsay? Work for the dole at 28 if they have already got a tertiary qualification or a trade certificate, are they? Is that what they are going to do? I think that they will really feel valued when they have got a HECS debt and a degree and you are making them go and work for the dole, particularly given work for the dole—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask that Deputy Speaker Mitchell withdraw that unparliamentary term.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it would assist the House, I request the Deputy Speaker to withdraw.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw a term that was used for someone yelling out that is not—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just ask you to withdraw.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These 28-year-olds, who may have an electrician's or plumber's trade certificate or a university degree, will be relying on their parents or having to rely on charity to survive. What do they think this is going to do to those communities where there are not enough jobs for people? What do they actually think is going to happen?

We have got a whole range of community organisations out there saying what is going to happen, and they are saying that poverty and homelessness will increase. I hope you are really proud of that on the other side, because that is what your budget is going to do to people. It is not okay to say that people need to live on fresh air for six months of the year. What is worse is, if you analyse the budget, they could be living on fresh air for six months of more than one year; it could be six months of several years until they find a job—six months each and every year that they have to live on nothing. That is what you are doing to young people. You are hiking up their HECS fees so that they cannot afford to go to university. You are increasing their debt. You are denying them proper education. You have ripped money out of trade training centres.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, the member has been in the House long enough not to say the word 'you'.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I request the member for Franklin to direct her comments through the chair.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are obviously concerned and interrupting my flow. They are very concerned—and they should be concerned if they are not—that all this money is being ripped out of trade training centres, it is being ripped out of apprenticeships, it is being ripped out of schools and, of course, they are trying to put up HECS fees for students. It is not okay. If you really want opportunity in this country, if you really want to grow jobs, if you really want educated people in the future to innovate and to create more jobs in this country, they need proper support and proper programs. They need programs that work, like Youth Connections, which had an 80 per cent success rate for students who were disengaged. Why would you cut it? Because you do not understand what it does and you do not understand what your budget is doing. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this MPI. We have just had the budget. Everybody knows it is not that popular. When you look around the country, people should be asking themselves: why did they do this, why did they have a budget which is that unpopular, why would they do that to themselves? It is about accountability and responsibility. It is about looking into the future, looking at young people—like those young students up there in the gallery—being able to look them in the eye and say, 'No, you don't have to bear the responsibilities of the red-ink side of parliament and your children will not have to bear that responsibility,' because someone is going to stand up and start acting right now. The opposition over there, the last government—an organisation that was nothing but red ink—talk about their Building the Education Revolution which they presided over, a program which did nothing but revolve like money down a plug hole. Where was the response to the revolution they presided over? There has been nothing but a decline in our education outcomes compared to other countries.

What they provided us was red ink and generational debt, which someone has to act on. So when the rubber hits the road, someone needs to make decisions for this country to live within its means. Someone has to ask everybody to help pay for what was left to Australians and to future generations. That is where it all comes out in the end. No-one likes it. I am not happy that people in my electorate have to pay a little bit more or not get as much from the government because of the last six years of spending, borrowing and promises that would see this country, over 10 years, go to $667 billion in debt. Who can say there is no problem when $1 billion a month is required just to service the debt they left? Who can say that that is good or that that is appropriate? Something needs to happen. Someone needs to take responsibility. As I said yesterday in our party room, if doing the right thing for future generations costs me my position, then that is the way it should be. People should not just accept what the other side is saying—that there is no problem, you can keep on spending, you can keep getting everything you need.

If the red-ink side of politics got back into government, we would probably be up around the one trillion mark very quickly and how soon is that going to be paid off? I worry for future generations—not just the next two but after that as well. Someone has to take charge and someone needs to accept the responsibility. I am hoping that the Australian people will come along with this and will understand that something needs to be done. We just cannot go on backing a side which just talks about self-interest, which reaches out to people and says, 'You don't have to worry about it. You've got nothing to do with this. We can keep on going in the same way,' because it is just not true. The time has come.

What I like about the education spending in the budget is that the minister has been able to put $1.2 billion back into the schools budget to help Western Australian schools, Queensland schools and Northern Territory schools. So as we move through the forward estimates, contrary to the mendacious comments of the other side, the government have increased education spending. So what they say is not true when they criticise and talk about cuts. The budget has to be sustainable across the education portfolio and across all portfolios. One side is taking responsibility, realising that something needs to be done and not inflicting debt, deficit and lost opportunities on the next generation and the generation after that. Only one side is standing up for the future of this country, rather than those who betrayed the future of this country.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to emphasise just how much this latest budget is going to impact the people of McEwen. It is always good to follow people such as the member opposite, the member for Cowan, who show absolutely no knowledge of what they are talking about. He talks about deficit, he talks about all these things but fails to mention that, at the same time as they are cutting every bit of support for apprentices, forcing them into debt, they want to make sure that people earning over $300,000 get $50,000, $2,000 dollars a week, in paid parental leave. They talk about the size of the debt but they fail to mention that in the nine months they have been in government they have increased the debt by $67 billion. So when the intellectually bereft are over there saying, 'We're paying back Labor's $1 billion debt a month,' they put taxes on business to make sure that their millionaire mates can have babies and get $50,000 or, as it works out, $48 per hour in paid parental leave.

Let us go to the other end of the scale and look at what is happening with apprentices. I notice the minister is in here—and I do not actually mind her too much; she is not one of the bad ones. She said that we are only talking about education. Not one of the colleagues she gave her talking points to actually mentioned apprenticeships. Those opposite have no idea about what happens with apprenticeships. You only have to listen to the minister's words. She said, 'Most MP's children are either overseas or working in overseas companies.' I do not know what land they are living in over there, but most kids I know in our area are trying to get a job, trying to get an apprenticeship.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for 'refugee boats on freeways' chips in. Let's look at how much industry support you have given young people since you have come to government. How many thousands of jobs have been lost in manufacturing and automotive and the airline industry since you came to government? You have walked away from looking after young people and their future. The only thing that the government have done is saddle young people, who may not have the silver spoon in their mouth like many opposite have, with a lifetime of debt. They have taken away the support for apprenticeships. Those opposite say, 'Young people, they're using their money for tattoos.' What an absolute joke.

I got an email from an RTO this morning. The printing industry is on its knees in this country because this government walks away from industry. It says to young people, 'Earn, learn or leave,' but for industry this government walked away. It does not support industry and it does not support young people. This RTO wrote talking about the tools of trade cuts that are already affecting his apprentices. He said, 'Basically, our apprentices signed a contract on the basis that they would receive funding over the term of $5,500.' What those opposite never mention is that they have cut the funding from 30 June. Apprentices already signed up are being left on the scrap heap. He also said:

Some of our apprentices have purchased tools and now they will be left out of pocket. The printing trade already has a skills shortage and this just makes it harder, especially in our regional areas.

A government member interjecting—

You're a printer? I have got four generations of printers in my family. It is a disgrace that you are allowing the industry to be punched offshore. Already out of that $5,500 they have to pay colleges $1,350 a year to do the course. That is not tattoos. That is not mag wheels. What is disgraceful is the way you expect young people to be left on their own.

Take a 29-year-old fella in, say, Sunbury with a couple of kids. Thanks to this government failing industry, he loses his job at Ford, through no fault of his own but through the government failing to support industry and support jobs. He now has to say to his family: 'We can't pay the mortgage and we can't pay for food because I've got no job. And, by the way, thanks to the mean-spirited, deceitful government that we have in this country, I don't get any access to Newstart.' There is no support at all. They are left on their own and expected to fend for themselves. What do you think the outcome is going to be for those families and those young people who want to get ahead? This government rejects young people— (Time expired)

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The attacks during this MPI on the government's education policy are quite hard to digest. The reality is the exact opposite of what has been espoused. The facts from the budget are that this government is spending $5.7 billion more on education over the forward estimates as a result of all the announcements in the budget. So how on earth can we be accused of cutting funds on education? The answer is: those opposite are just playing politics. Over the next four years, we will see recurrent funding for government and non-government schools increase by $4.6 billion to a record $64½ billion. If you recall, in the week before the 2013 election the then government, our current opposition, conveniently forgot about $1.2 billion for Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. We had to put that back in. In the budget there is $15.6 billion for universities this year which will continue to increase every year, including $11 billion over four years for university research.

In the trades and skills space, things have changed. People on the other side seem to have a problem with change. We are replacing an ineffective scheme with what should be a much better value scheme for apprentices—that is, the trade support loans, with $1.9 billion over four years. That will support their wage. They can use it in the way that they see fit and most productive. If they complete their apprenticeship, they get a 20 per cent discount on the money that they owe. So already they are almost getting the equivalent of the previous tools for tradies grant scheme. In question time, the minister for trade mentioned his department was getting advice that it was not being used widely, so that is why we have got this in place. It will support people. It will increase their ability to complete their apprenticeship. Overall there is a 50 per cent noncompletion rate in apprenticeships. In the first two years, 30 per cent drop out. Trade support loans should address the ability for apprentices to support themselves as well as getting their tools of trade.

There is a billion dollars for the Adult Migrant English Program. There is $250 million for industry workforce training and many other initiatives. But you have to look at the likelihood of getting an apprenticeship and I have spoken to a lot of the small businesses in my area in Lyne over the last eight or nine months. The changes that came through Fair Work last year, which were hailed as a boost for apprentices, saw an increase of about $100 a week for apprentices. It sounds good. I can understand why an existing apprentice would have thought his Christmases had all come at once. I would be happy, too. But it meant that these businesses subsequently said there was no way they could afford to put on any more apprentices. There are consequences for every action. This trade support loan will allow apprentices to support themselves over their apprenticeship in a way that they have not been able to do until now.

Let us quickly talk about higher education. I mentioned change. Things are changing in higher education. It is changing the way higher education is funded. Most people do not realise that the Commonwealth government already supports on average 60 per cent of the cost of a university degree. But only 30 per cent of the population go to university, and they end up with a higher income as a result. We are trying to increase the number of people that go to university by supporting, with Commonwealth supported funds, other educational institutions with diplomas, associate diplomas and associate degrees. Hopefully another 80,000 more people can get to university. It will mean that there is greater competition between the universities so that the product is better and more sustainable. The Commonwealth supported scholarships will come as a result of the extra funding. One in five dollars of the extra funds raised by universities has to go to Commonwealth supported places. (Time expired)

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

I was the first in my family to go to university. At the time I started my university courses my mother was a cleaner and my father was a mechanic. We were one of those working-class families where my parents decided, 'Our girls will go to university.' But of course they did not have the economic means to support all of us, so we worked and supported ourselves through university. The university I went to—I grew up in a regional area and I moved from the country to the city—was the University of Queensland, which is in the member for Ryan's electorate. I can remember when I first enrolled and started at university in 1999. The big debate back then was about the Howard government reforms to higher education.

Every time the Liberals and the coalition get elected they attack universities. They attack students who choose to go to universities and they look at increasing fees. At that time, Howard, as bold as he was, tripled HECS fees. But he did not proceed with completely deregulating university fees. At the time, he cut university funding, but not at the level that this current government is cutting funding at. At the time, he tried to introduce—and he did successfully, after many battles—up-front fees. What we saw at the University of Queensland and Melbourne University with the introduction of up-front fees, where it was not about your brains but about your wallet, was the introduction of $100,000 degrees. So to sit there and say it is not going to happen is being delusional because it did happen the last time the Liberals had the power.

This is what Liberals do when they get in. They do not consider seriously the implications for people from regional areas trying to gain a university education. The Abbott government's first budget marks the end of a fair and affordable higher education system, and it is a betrayal to students and their families. This budget is forcing young people to make a choice and forcing their families to make a choice. Will they choose to go to university or will they buy their first home? This is not just about the working-class families. This is also about the middle-class families. Parents will start to ask themselves whether they can afford to support their students and pay for their young people to go to private schools. Will they save that money to pay for their universities? Start to think about what happens throughout the education system if your university fees will be the cost of a private school education in some schools.

Low-income earners, rural students and regional students will all be hit hard by these changes. More than $5 billion have been cut from higher education, and it is not okay. This is not something we are just making up and scaremongering about. This is something that people in our communities know about. Just some of the comments that I have received in my regional electorate of Bendigo include this one from Rozi in Kyneton:

I am not writing out of self-interest—I've finished my university education.

I am writing because I am concerned that these policies will create a two-class system in our universities and make it impossible to go to better universities if their parents are not wealthy.

This is from Rachael, a Latrobe University current student:

I am writing on behalf of myself and a group of my friends who have just started university ...

We are aged from 18-22 and are all completely outraged at Tony Abbott's proposed cuts to education.

Rachel says she and her friends worry about their brothers and sisters who are younger, and that they may not go to university because of the comparative cost of their fees. She goes on:

Most of us were already concerned about the debt our courses would accrue, but some of my friends have talked of dropping out if Abbott gets his appalling education budget through.

These are not my words. These are the words of my community.

Ms Scott interjecting—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are out of your seat.

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

Who goes to the Bendigo Latrobe University? Twenty-five per cent of the people at the Bendigo Latrobe University are from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They are Jarrod, they are Kate, they are Jacob. They are people who cannot afford to move away, because of their family budgets. This budget, the funding cuts to universities, the way in which fees will be increased, will hit them hardest.

Finally there is this idea about 60 per cent paying for it. Once you have a university degree, you are a taxpayer and you contribute towards the next generation of taxpayers. So stop with the misleading truths and let us focus on getting— (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand she is a new member and may not have been here for all that long either, but it would be helpful if you could advise the member for Lindsay that it is inappropriate to be interjecting outside of her normal place.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay should be aware that if she wishes to interject she should be in her place.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance today because, far from what members on the opposite side are trying to promulgate, I am proud to be part of a government that is providing even more hope and more opportunity for our young people, especially our young people on the Central Coast.

We all agree that young people are the future of our nation. Providing better educational and training policies that invest in their potential and their own personal aspirations, dreams and hopes is key to ensuring that our young people have the best possible tools at their disposal to carve their own path of success through life. And that is exactly what we are doing. This budget is a blueprint for that hope and is a path forward to create exactly what we committed to deliver in the lead-up to the election.

Unlike what those opposite might believe, this government is investing a record amount of $64.5 billion in recurrent funding for schools over the next four years. We know that, while funding is important, it is not the only factor to lift student results.

Quality teachers, increased autonomy, a rigorous and high-quality curriculum, and increased parental engagement are key. I am proud to say that I have visited many schools in my electorate on the Central Coast and I see evidence of the benefits of these important factors in improving educational outcomes for our young people. This focus on quality outcomes extends to the skills and training sector.

One of the key pieces of feedback in a roundtable forum we held in Gosford recently related to the difficulties associated with Labor's failed $2.1 billion Productivity Placements Programme. Reducing red tape and streamlining access to programs were also key points raised, something we are determined to tackle.

We are investing more than $5 billion in skills over the next four years to secure the future of the Australian economy, which includes $1.9 billion for our trade support loans and $250 million for industry workforce training and much more.   

For the first time ever, the Commonwealth will provide direct financial support for all students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees with all registered higher education institutions. In addition, young people will now have access to fantastic new Commonwealth scholarships for university students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, thanks to this government's positive investment in the future of young Australians.

I am determined that the Central Coast be a place of opportunity and that our region be the home of world-class education, training and opportunity. This budget is a blueprint for how we can begin to realise this dream.

It is an honour to represent a government in my local community that, in just nine months, is already delivering our growth plan for the Central Coast, delivering more jobs and job opportunities for young people, with the location of 600 Commonwealth jobs right in the heart of Gosford. Imagine what that will do for young people here on the Central Coast!

The reality is that none of Labor's youth programs were actually linked to any measurable outcomes for educational improvement. Labor did not provide any further funding or budget allocation for various youth programs. I support the government's budget. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this discussion has expired.