Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Griffith has moved, an as amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by 90-second statements, we do agree, across both sides of this House, in the importance of higher education and vocational education to ensure that students leaving high school have a pathway to a career that they wish to pursue. I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 to provide a new minimum repayment threshold for the compulsory repayment of Higher Education Loan Program debts. The government is committed—and this is the importance of this bill—to a stronger, more sustainable student-focused higher education system for all Australians. The government has, over the past two years, consulted extensively on higher education reforms in order to seek to achieve this. This bill plays a key role in delivering sustainability to our world renowned student loan scheme, which is underwritten by the taxpayer.

This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by providing a new minimum repayment threshold of $45,000. This bill also indexes the HELP repayment thresholds to CPI, instead of average weekly earnings, and introduces a limit on the amount that a student can borrow under the HELP scheme of $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses, and $104,440 for other students. These provisions are about ensuring a fairer deal for Australian taxpayers, who, ultimately, provide this support to students. Through consultation with key stakeholders, the government found that there was strong evidence that we needed to get the cost of higher education under control, that universities were capable of making a contribution and that the student loan program needed to be made more sustainable.

It's worth noting that taxpayer funded student loans currently stand at some $55 billion, and, without changes to current policy settings, a quarter of all new loans are expected to never be repaid. The government has found that since 2009 taxpayer funding for Commonwealth Supported Places in higher education has increased by some 71 per cent, growing at twice the rate of the economy. Independent analysis from Deloitte also found that average funding per domestic student for universities increased by some 15 per cent between 2010 and 2015, while, over the same period, the cost for universities to deliver courses only increased by some 9½ per cent. Lowering the starting repayment threshold for loans to $45,000 with a one per cent repayment rate is an affordable and fair ask for students to start repaying their debt to Australian taxpayers.

When the Turnbull government worked to bring the Australian people higher education reforms, the government put in the time to consult students, academics and policymakers, review more than 1,000 submissions to our discussion paper and work with a panel of experts guiding the development of this policy. The government is delivering on its promise to pursue quality and excellence in Australia's higher education sector. We're ensuring students have the support they need to succeed, while also making sure the system is financially sustainable for future generations. We want future students—our children and grandchildren—to have the same opportunities that this and other generations have had. Our reforms guarantee students will not have to pay a cent up-front and not face fee increases. Our reforms ensure the government continues to be the majority funder of higher education Commonwealth supported places on average and demonstrate that the scare campaign by those opposite, about prohibitive fees, has no validity. But we're used to that from those opposite. They sit there and they carp and complain about everything, but they never actually demonstrate anything useful to the Australian people, other than wanting to increase taxes, regulation and red tape. We've seen from their past record with the VET FEE-HELP debacle that they're not much good at managing anything either.

One of the most important points I want to make about this bill is that students from disadvantaged backgrounds will continue to benefit from support through the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, in which we're investing over half a billion dollars over the next four years. The government's reforms strike the right balance in fairness for all parties involved. The reforms will ensure our record level of investment in higher education results in better opportunities, better results for students and better value for Australian taxpayers. The government is providing record funding for higher education, with over $17 billion this year, and is supporting regional students through the $290 million in regional loading for regional campuses over the next four years, rural and regional scholarships and a new initiative around regional hubs.

Australia has a world-leading higher education system that continues to provide employment and income advantages to its graduates. Our government cannot afford to be complacent and risk jeopardising these opportunities for future generations of students who also want to be able to access student loans that remove all up-front fees from higher education, facilitating their enrolments, no matter their background or their financial circumstances. Australia's higher education system is excellent and recent rankings put it as very highly regarded, on global terms. In my electorate of Forde, Griffith University's Logan campus has gone from strength to strength, with students recognising its excellent educational opportunities and convenient location. I want Griffith University at Meadowbrook to continue to prosper and grow. By working with us, students, universities and taxpayers will see this government deliver improved choices, financial stability and accountability to Australia's higher education sector.

I reiterate my opening comments: it is important that we provide the opportunities for Australian students to pursue a career of their choice as they leave high school, whether that's facilitated through higher education study at university or through study at TAFE or a private college, through VET FEE-HELP. It is important that we ensure our students are given every opportunity as they seek to enter the workforce and further their careers in the future. This is in stark contrast to the approach of those opposite, who when last in government announced $6.6 billion worth of cuts to funding for the higher education sector. The coalition government is delivering a responsible suite of reforms that are fair and, importantly, seek to empower student choice. I commend the bill in its unamended form to the House.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reflect on a couple of things the member for Forde said earlier about the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. One is the consultation said to have been done with the sector and students. I struggle to find any support for the measures the government is trying to introduce in this bill before the House. Universities Australia has done quite a lot of study into exactly what contribution universities and students have made to budget repair, and estimates that since 2011 universities and students have contributed over $3.9 billion to the task of budget repair in this country. I agree with what Universities Australia has said, that perhaps they have contributed their fair share to budget repair in this country. This government might want to consider its tax reform and the $65 billion worth of tax cuts it's giving to large companies, as well as to individuals earning more than $180,000 a year, rather than attacking universities and students earning $45,000 a year, if they even get to do that.

This side of the House does not support an attack on students, as I've suggested. This bill would attack and undermine the fairness of Australia's world-class student loan scheme. We on this side of the House, the Labor Party, have a proud record when it comes to higher education. Back in 1989 Labor introduced the first income contingent loan scheme, HECS, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. It contributed to an expansion of higher ed in this country and was part of the foundation of our fair and accessible higher education system. When last in office we increased funding for universities from $8 billion to $14 billion a year. We introduced the demand-driven funding system, which enabled more people to go to university. This led to an increase in participation from disadvantaged students. In fact, the system allowed an extra 190,000 students to go to university. This is an important point to consider when research tells us that by 2020, in only two years, two out of every three jobs created in Australia will require a diploma or a higher education qualification.

Despite this, the government introduced a bill that ignores the reality of the modern world, where further and lifelong study is essential to our economy. It is working to limit the aspirations of students and their families, denying university access to students and undermining the qualifications this country needs from its workers and workforce in the future. We need more, not fewer, people to go on to further education and gain the qualifications they need for the benefit of this country. This government has systematically attacked universities, students and education as a whole. This Liberal government has attacked higher education with a freeze on university grants—effectively a $2.2 billion cut—meaning 10,000 university places will be unfunded. So that means 10,000 fewer students at universities.

We witnessed this government introduce an unfair funding regime that cut $17 billion from schools, hitting public schools the hardest. We all remember the 'not a dollar difference' campaign—well, there's a lot of difference. We've witnessed this government wallop vocational education and TAFE, with a whopping $3 billion being ripped from their funding. This government has the gall to say these cuts are necessary, while, at the same time, they can throw a staggering $65 billion tax cut bonus to the big end of town. I mean, what a nerve.

We have consistently fought this Liberal government's attempts to introduce $100,000 degrees in this country, and we'll continue to fight this attempt to undermine the repayment threshold on student loans. It's known that higher student debt is a genuine barrier for low-income and disadvantaged students when it comes to study. We know these government cuts will affect students from Brand, from across the towns of Rockingham and Kwinana. We know this, yet instead of increasing participation and assistance in higher education this government is making it harder for people to study and harder for their families to support them.

This is not the first attempt by this Liberal government to lower the repayment threshold for HELP. In last year's budget they tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000 a year, and they failed. We will not support this latest attempt at lowering the Higher Education Loan Program repayments to a $45,000 threshold, which is only $9,000 a year more than the minimum wage in this country. It is simply too low. It will be a millstone around the necks of new graduates who are looking to begin their working lives. This debt will be a burden to people.

How can someone starting out even think of paying a mortgage or getting married, or starting a family, when their income is sequestered by student loan repayments? Add to that the increased casualisation of our entire workforce, across the professions as well as in blue-collar work, where long-time employment contracts no longer exist or rarely exist. People find it impossible to secure housing loans, even personal loans for cars and the things that everyone takes for granted. Then you add in, with your profession, a debt of this magnitude—much higher than when I went to university and paid HECS—and they have to start paying it off at $45,000 per annum from their income.

Contrary to the Prime Minister's advice that people go out and buy homes for their children, in the real world—certainly in the real world of Brand—this does not happen. In my electorate, I can tell you, parents struggle with paying their bills, thanks to this government's attack on penalty rates. I can tell you that parents are struggling every day with underemployment, unemployment, rising costs of living and stagnant wages growth. I can tell you that parents are struggling to pay their own mortgages—never mind being able to help their kids buy a house. I can tell you that in the everyday world, when they finish uni, young people, students, are on their own when it comes to finding their own homes and paying for them.

Another concern to be had with this bill is the impact that the proposed changes to the HELP repayment thresholds will have on women. Mark Pace, the president of the National Union of Students, has stated: 'We know from the National Tertiary Education Union's submission to this Senate inquiry that 60 per cent of all Australians with outstanding HELP debt are women and that two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the new proposed repayment thresholds will also be women.' So I cannot support this.

In conjunction with this, student debt overall is a major concern in this country. Australian students already pay the sixth-highest contribution to the cost of their degrees in the OECD. This is significant. Making it harder for students to study, we are risking participation in post-secondary education that we need for the benefit of this country and for the economy of this country. We risk being left behind the rest of the world with short-sighted punitive measures such as those in this bill. We do not want a system where students have to take out commercial loans, or their families have to take out commercial loans, in order to fund their university fees.

By putting universities in a funding vice, I can only imagine that the intention of this government is to push institutions toward having to institute higher fees. We saw this happen under the Abbott government when they tried to deregulate the entire system. That's when we saw the announcement of $100,000 fees—sadly, out of my home institution at UWA.

There is no equitable scenario in the agenda being pushed here. What we are seeing is the opportunity of a better future that higher education affords being taken away from those who cannot afford it. This bill is about the wrong priorities of this government. We have a government driven on giving tax cuts to millionaires—to the detriment of those in need of support. It's a government delighting multinationals with tax cuts—showering the big end of town with a $65 billion tax cut—and then getting them to write letters to crossbenchers. This is the great compact that this government has with large corporations to buy some votes in the other place—a letter.

The flipside to the largesse of this government is the educational future, the employment opportunities and the standard of living for everyday people for whom university will be out of reach. Instead of breaking down barriers to higher education, this government is actively looking to build up barriers that prevent access to university. What we need to be doing as a country is investing in people and enabling them to realise their potential. We need to embrace the fairness of our world-class student loan system and we need to protect it, and we certainly should not be doing this act of destruction.

I mentioned at the start of my contribution on this bill the magnitude of what universities themselves, as well as students, have done in the activity of budget repair. I'm going to read from a Universities Australia paper from April of last year, 'The facts on university funding', where they conclude:

Australia's universities and their students have made a very substantial contribution to repair Australia's Budget position since 2011. They have done their bit.

Any further reductions would increase financial pressures for students already under stress and put at risk the ability of our world-class universities to continue to deliver excellence in education and research—the foundation of our third-largest export industry and the bedrock of future economic prosperity.

It's important to understand how universities are funded. To ignore the fact that, over the many years of universities in this country, student fees do end up subsidising research is to ignore what is true. Maybe people don't agree with that being the case, but it is the case and, until we have a greater reform of our research and science funding system and how it intersects with our higher education student payments and fees system, it will remain the case—and we need to address the world as it is.

I want to chat briefly about the student experience because the bill before us will affect that. It puts the current student experience at risk, and I note that the student experience has been in decline for some time. It's a critical part of the role of universities to provide a safe and inclusive environment that enables young people—and mature age students, of course—to actively participate in the university community through clubs and societies, sporting or interest based, or culturally based focusing on international students, who provide us with our third-biggest export in this country.

As costs to attend universities increase, especially for local students, and students are exposed to ever-increasing fee liability on completion of their degree, it becomes harder for student societies, student unions and guilds to attract members, participants and the volunteers that keep these groups running—groups that add so much to the life and vibrancy of university campuses around this country. In parliament today, I spoke with the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which is celebrating its 20th year. Groups like this get together and depend on the volunteer students who can generate interest on topics. Today, they were asking parliamentarians to talk about their experiences in this place and the road to this place. Firstly, I'd like to thank those students for their terrific work and what they're doing, and for organising for 60-odd members of the Union of Jewish Students to be here in the House today. But these kinds of groups are at risk when people can no longer afford the time because they have to work ever-increasing hours at their jobs, which pay less because penalty rates are cut, so that they can, in some way, contribute to their education because their parents are unable to support them, or they're simply not able to move out of home—all the things that seem to go along with a university education, or did once. I'd also like to thank Ariel Zohar for the invitation to speak to the Australasian Union of Jewish Students today.

There are other institutions that are important across universities. At the university I studied at, unbelievable fundraising activities took place. These groups face the very real challenge of students no longer being able to participate in them. I think of the university camps run at the start of each year for disadvantaged children across Western Australia. It's been going for a long time, but it's increasingly challenging for those groups to have students involved because of the pressures that the costs of education are placing on what we might think of as not study time but, nonetheless, a valuable part of the student experience at universities in Australia.

These institutions and international societies—the Association of Malaysian Students and the Singapore Students' Association—of course, are very important in the system in Western Australia, as they are where our educational exports come from. The highest number of Singaporeans outside of Singapore reside in Perth, and a lot of that is off the back of Singaporeans having come down from Singapore to study in Perth because it's close to their home. And so I thank all those students who participate, who help to welcome new international students to our shores and who make them feel welcome at our campuses.

Obviously, many of us in this chamber have been to orientation days. Recently, I was at Murdoch University and Curtin University, and whilst I did say hello to the Liberal clubs, of course I stayed and said hello to the Labor clubs. I would like to shout out to some good people who are engaging with local students about getting involved in talking politics: Lewis Whittaker, Kai Donaldson, Erin Horrigan, Chris Lesiter, Jay Wood, Conor McLaughlin and Braydon Wagstaff.

Over at Curtin, a great institution where I went with the member for Kingsford Smith, we talked about the Australian republic and the move for an Australian head of state. We had the great support of Jason Lawrence, Beck Bogdan and Bridget Edwards. There will always be students who can do it and who will do it, but I think it's time that all governments laid off students at universities in their passion for budget repair. We know that budget repair is critical. We support that, but these people—students and universities—are not the people to use to correct the budget.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. I thank the member for Brand for her contribution, and heartily endorse her work with the Australian Republican Movement to make sure we get some progressive change there. I want to say up-front that Labor opposes this legislation. I feel strongly about the measures that the Turnbull government is attempting to legislate in this bill.

I begin with a bit of history, both personal and national. I taught English, geography and a few other subjects in state and Catholic schools for 11 years. I have two sons, one in grade 4 at a state school and the other in grade 8 at a Catholic school. I was also a union organiser for private schools for a couple of years. I'm very passionate about the education of my own children—although neglecting them often by coming to Canberra—the education of all children in Moreton and the future of education in Australia.

There is a quote from Confucius that I like to use when talking about this topic. It says, 'If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for 10 years, plant trees. If your plan is for 100 years, educate children.' Clearly, as a nation we should be planning for 100 years, but, instead, this bill before us is an unfair piece of legislation that attacks students and undermines the fairness of our world-class student loan system.

In 1989 Labor introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. It was the first income contingent loan scheme, and would become the foundation of Australia's fair and accessible higher education system. I do declare up-front that I did not pay HECS in my first qualification to become a teacher. That was a different time, and it is unfair that someone in my generation got the benefits of free education coming through under Whitlam and the like.

Nevertheless, Australian Labor brought in these changes, based on the belief that it is fair and reasonable in the current economic climate that students should contribute to the cost of their public education to the extent that they obtain a private benefit from such studies. It enabled many young people who would otherwise not have gone to university to gain a tertiary degree. It gave them an educational opportunity. I know that as the first of 10 people in my family, raised by a single mum, to obtain a higher education qualification.

It is not always an easy or direct path to university education, but we, as a nation, should be making it easier, not harder, for people. There are many examples of Australians who have gone on to make extensive contributions to society after taking a more meandering road, shall we say, to their educational attainment. Our country is far better off for their having made those sacrifices and taken those brave decisions. After becoming a teacher, I became a lawyer. I went through night school while I was teaching, and I saw how difficult it was. But I would like to point out two particular lawyers who work in the legal system. One is the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, a Queenslander. Chief Justice Kiefel left school at 15 after completing grade 10. She completed her secretarial training at the Kangaroo Point Technical College in Brisbane and worked as a secretary for a variety of companies, including a building society and an exploration company, before working for a group of barristers. While working she completed her secondary schooling and then began studying law. I think the Chief Justice has done all right for herself—being Chief Justice of the High Court—all things considered and by any measure.

Another example that many in this chamber would know is my friend, the Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath. Yvette left school at 15 and worked in clerical and hospitality positions. Eventually, she put herself through night school while continuing to work and raise a family. The Attorney-General of Queensland obtained a Bachelor of Laws from QUT and she is now Queensland's first law officer—a great success in anyone's eyes—and is well loved by many in this chamber.

They're just two examples. There are many other people, who may not be as well-known as the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General of Queensland, who for whatever reason have not thought that tertiary education was something they could or should attain when they finished high school but who have later obtained a higher qualification and achieved great things.

HECS and, more recently, the HECS-HELP scheme, along with other measures designed to encourage university participation, have successfully boosted university attendance by minority groups, including first-in-family tertiary students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students. In particular, participation for students with a disability has increased by more than 106 per cent; Indigenous students—an increase of 89 per cent; low-SES students—increased by 55 per cent; and regional and remote students by more than 48 per cent. One would think that the National Party—those supposed champions of the bush—would be doing all they could to support this legislation. Instead, they bend over and let it go through on behalf of the Liberal Party.

The MYEFO package of $2.2 billion of cuts is the out-of-touch Turnbull government's fourth attempt since coming into office to cut universities and make students pay more. At Christmas the Turnbull government froze university grants effectively ending demand-driven funding. Also announced were the measures contained in this bill which seek to enact a number of changes to Australia's world-class income contingent higher education loan scheme.

This legislation sets a new repayment threshold for HELP from 1 July 2018, starting with a new minimum repayment of $45,000. It aligns indexation of HELP repayment thresholds to CPI instead of average weekly earnings. It introduces a new combined loan limit on how much students can borrow under HELP, including VET student loans, HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP. The new limit would be $104,000, or $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry or veterinary science. It also makes changes to the Student Financial Supplement Scheme and its repayment thresholds.

This legislation is unfair, out of touch and a complete rip-off for students. Students should not be looked at as cash cows for budget repair—the very same budget that is handing out $65 billion to large corporations, particularly banks and multinationals. We know that higher student debt and the potential for significantly earlier repayment are genuine barriers to study for low-SES, disadvantaged and regional students who may need to travel for study—so extra hurdles in front of them. These students are less likely to be able to rely on parental support during university or the early years of their careers—yet another reason this policy will cause those from certain backgrounds the most suffering.

We should be doing all that we can to increase participation in higher ed, not making it harder. If we don't boost participation, we risk being left behind compared to the rest of the world. Universities should never be only for the elite. We need our brightest to be given opportunities, not just those who are the most well-heeled. Universities should be melting pots of society, bringing all parts of our community together—the bush and the city; Indigenous and non-Indigenous; and rich and poor. They should be bringing people together to research and make discoveries that will make all our lives better and develop the industries and jobs of the future.

This bill is another episode in the sorry saga of this government trying to gut education in Australia, whether it's in schools, vocational education or at universities. Last year, the Turnbull government tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. That was just one of the measures in what was a fundamentally unfair LNP budget. It was the same budget that saw the big business tax giveaway to the top end of town blow out to over $65 billion. Labor joined with students around Australia and fought to stop this measure being implemented by the Turnbull government. Now it is proposing a new minimum threshold of $45,000, but it's still too low.

Labor believes the current repayment rate is about right. We don't want to make students repay their debts right when they're starting a career, trying to start a family or save to buy a house. This is yet another example of the Turnbull government failing to act to make Australia fair. Labor's proposal to limit negative gearing will give young first home owners a chance to compete in this market.

Recent analysis revealed that low- and middle-income areas of Australia will be hurt most by Prime Minister Turnbull's $2.2 billion of university cuts. Western Sydney, western and outer Melbourne and outer metro Brisbane and Perth are all being hit particularly hard. When Labor uncapped university places these areas saw a huge increase in the number of students attending university, because that's where the demand was. Statistics show that participation in higher education in outer suburban and regional areas still lags behind the wealthier inner urban areas. I've said in this place before that your bank balance or your parents' bank balance should not affect your ability to go to university; it should be your intellect, not your postcode, obviously.

Labor opened the door to higher education for hundreds of thousands more Australians, but the eternally out-of-touch Prime Minister Turnbull has slammed that door shut. It's estimated that up to 10,000 people could miss out on a place at university this year and next year, because of Prime Minister Turnbull's cruel cuts. This is a sorry blow to the many year 12 graduates who studied so hard in the hope of getting into university but now might not be able to enter. Since the cuts were announced before Christmas, there have already been reports of some universities turning away students and cutting programs. This bill puts higher education further out of reach for Australians.

In my own community, Griffith University is set to lose $92 million. I oppose this bill on behalf of all university students at all universities, but particularly the more than 13,000 students who attend Griffith University in my electorate. I was at Griffith University on the weekend for a citizenship ceremony as part of Harmony Day. It was a joint venture with the World Arts and Multi-culture Inc. I'm wearing the tie that Professor Martin Betts, from Griffith University, gave me to show my support for Griffith University. I also give a shout out to Lewis Lee who emceed a wonderful event on the weekend.

The Higher Education Loan Program, referred to as HELP, is the cornerstone of Australia's higher education system. In a submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, Universities Australia, the peak body representing the university sector, recommended that the government not set the minimum repayment threshold below a level that reflects a reasonable graduate earnings. A number of other submissions to the Senate committee inquiry raised concerns about the possible impact of a lower HELP minimum repayment threshold on access to higher education and graduate living conditions. The NUS and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations have collaborated on a campaign called Bury the Bill to oppose this piece of legislation, stating it:

…condemns lower-earning graduates to pay back their student loans when barely earning minimum wage.

That's right, the government's proposed repayment threshold is only $9,000 more than the minimum wage.

Another submission, this time by the NTEU, raises significant questions about whether this government has bothered to fully understand the impact this change to HELP repayment thresholds will have on women. In their submission they analysed data obtained from the ATO showing that 60 per cent of people with a taxable income and an outstanding HELP debt are women. The same data also showed that the taxable income of these women was significantly lower. So not only are the majority of HELP recipients women, they are also earning less than their male counterparts. It is a real double whammy, made worse by the Turnbull government's further increase in the repayment burden in a system that is already skewed against women.

The Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities argued in its submission that the measure will have a disproportionate impact on graduates of humanities, arts and social science courses. They often take a longer time to establish their careers and are more likely to be women, resulting in periods of lower earnings. The Equity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia, in their submission, suggested the limit:

… may impact negatively on students who incurred a VET student debt as a pathway to higher education. In addition, the method of determining the loan limit is not explained, and may have implications for students accessing Start-up loans.

Likewise, Science and Technology Australia raised concerns about the impact on those entering university from VET pathways and then undertaking further training to become teachers, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—the industries of the future creating the jobs of the future.

Labor believes in fairness for all Australians. Labor believes in everybody having a fair go. Labor believes in all Australians being able to achieve their potential. That is why Labor opened the door to university for hundreds of thousands more Australians. But Prime Minister Turnbull has slammed that door in the face of young Australians who dreamt of a university education. The Turnbull government is ripping $436 million from Queensland universities. Griffith University, in my electorate, will have $92 million ripped from their funding. The Turnbull government's cuts to universities have effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of uni places, taking us back to the dark days of the Howard era. We should be supporting our young people to strive hard and let them get ahead. Some young people in my electorate who will now be prevented from enrolling in university will have worked hard throughout their schooling in the hope of going to uni, but they've had their hopes dashed by an uncaring Turnbull government.

The Turnbull government have their priorities wrong. They're keen to make life easier for big business by giving away $65 billion in tax, but at the same time they're prepared to prevent our children from receiving a quality education, dashing the hopes of these young people, these smart people, these people who will create the jobs of the future. These proposals, coupled with the other MYEFO higher education cuts, raise significant questions and cast doubt over the future of the demand-driven funding system. They take a swipe at the ability of HELP to genuinely increase access and participation in tertiary education. That is why I do not support this legislation. (Time expired)

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to be part of the party that stands up for education. In Labor, we believe in education. It's why Labor's been fighting for strong educational outcomes for Australians for many years. I don't believe investment in education is something we should be having to fight for, of course. We should be just fighting for what's right, for what just makes sense for the future of our country, for what all of the research says is a good idea, both in educational outcomes and as an investment in the future of Australia. But fighting for education is what we need to do with this government, because this Liberal-National government is doing whatever it takes to undermine every single educational system in Australia, from early childhood education all the way to tertiary studies.

What we know is that families with young children will be affected by the government's planned childcare package, which will see 2,239 families in my electorate worse off, 2,239 families whose children will have reduced access to affordable early childhood education. Families with school-aged children will suffer the brunt of the Liberals' $17 billion cut from schools and, once you're out of school, young people are faced with a $3 billion cut to vocational education and training. For those who would rather go to university, they will have to endure a $2.2 billion cut to unis. The University of the Sunshine Coast, which has just begun its first semester operating at the Caboolture campus, will be hit with a $34 million cut. I've been having a number of conversations with the USC staff, who are worried about the impact of cuts on their existing operations and on their grand plans for the future for our region. These cuts are disgraceful, and they are in stark contrast to how we on this side of the House see priorities.

When Labor were last in government, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. The steps that Labor took opened the doors of universities to 190,000 more Australians, many of whom became the first in their family to go to university. This was a great step forward, but the conservatives are determined to stand in the way of progress, and they're seeking to do this today with a bill that directly attacks students seeking to further their studies. It attacks students and undermines the fairness and integrity of Australia's world-class student loans scheme, the Higher Education Loan Program, or, as we know it, HELP.

Any changes to the HELP scheme need to be considered and evidence based. I'd like to point to a quote from Ms Catriona Jackson, the Deputy Chief Executive of Universities Australia. She said:

… the first principle—the first thing you must keep in your mind when you're changing this fundamentally important scheme—is to do no harm.

In last year's budget we saw the government attempt to compel students to start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. That's barely more than the minimum wage. That failed, thank goodness, and unsurprisingly so, because Australians value people who seek to further their education. That's why, we know, the Liberals are trying again with a slightly higher repayment threshold. It's $45,000 this time but it's still far too low. In fact, as the ACTU have stated, it's a mere $9,000 more than the minimum wage.

The point of these loans isn't to churn someone through a degree and be done with them; it's to give them an opportunity to set themselves up with a career that will benefit them, benefit their families and, of course, benefit the country. Students should not have to repay all of their debts in their first, low-paying job after university, especially not when the cost of living has grown to such exorbitant heights under this government. We must do all we can to increase participation in higher education, not make it harder to access.

It's already hard enough for a student from a low-SES or disadvantaged background to access higher education. For many students in Longman, this is a genuine barrier. If you're already struggling to get by—maybe you've suffered a pay cut through the government's cuts to penalty rates or maybe you're already working two jobs to help support your family—your capacity to go to university is already severely limited. I'd like to further pick up on that limitation when it comes to women. The National President of the National Union of Students, Mark Pace, stated to the inquiry of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee into the bill:

We know from the National Tertiary Education Union's submission to this Senate inquiry that 60 per cent of all Australians with outstanding HELP debt are women and that two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the new proposed repayment thresholds will also be women …

There's already enough day-to-day stress. Adding yet another financial burden would certainly take its toll. Let's be very clear: the government made no significant case in this Senate inquiry for a change to HELP beyond some budget savings.

As I mentioned, the University of the Sunshine Coast have just started up their Caboolture campus in my electorate of Longman, and they're doing their part to ensure that disadvantaged students have a pathway into tertiary education. Earlier this month I facilitated conversations between staff at the USC and a number of our special assistance schools in the area. We discussed how we could get our disadvantaged students interested in tertiary education—how to open up a pathway and help get them there. What was pretty clear at that roundtable was that the changes proposed by the government will have a devastating effect on getting disadvantaged students to engage in tertiary studies. Experts have warned time and time again that if Australia does not boost participation in post-secondary education there is a strong chance that we will be left behind by the rest of the world. It is estimated that about 10,000 people could miss out on a university place again next year because of the Turnbull government's cuts. This will affect people in the regions, particularly in areas like Narangba and Caboolture. It will hit students in these areas the hardest. These areas are already lagging behind the wealthier, inner-city urban areas when it comes to participation in higher education. Now, with all the cuts the Liberals have forced upon TAFE and the vocational education sector, it's not like there are many opportunities left to turn to if you're a student in my electorate.

But what makes it even worse is that the reason that the Turnbull government is pursuing these cuts is to give a $65 billion handout to big businesses. I find this truly, truly disgraceful. I also find it disgraceful that Pauline Hanson, who likes to claim she's a friend of battlers, has sold them out once again. After conspiring with her dear friends in the coalition here, Senator Hanson has agreed to throw $65 billion worth of taxpayer money at banks and big businesses. She's agreed to throw that money, while, at the same time, that will force the government to see universities like the University of the Sunshine Coast face $34 million worth of cuts in their aim to educate students, and we'll see $600 million worth of cuts to TAFE. That's what will happen.

When Labor win the next election, we will be putting Australia back on track. What you'll see is a government taking education seriously and investing in the future of this country, right from early childhood education through to tertiary education and TAFE. We'll be bringing Australia back to a position where we don't need to rely on so many 457 visa workers, for example. We'll be able to employ locally.

The Liberals and One Nation seem to think that the answer to a shortage of workers skilled through university or TAFE is to look overseas. Well, it's not. That's simply a bandaid solution. It does nothing to move more Australians into work, and it does even less to prevent this issue continuing into the future.

Senator Hanson's big-business-tax-cut sweetener, as we know, was 1,000 apprenticeship places. That barely scratches the surface. Under this government, we've seen 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships lost. That's right. So what we've got here is a One Nation vote in the Senate that will cost this nation $65 billion worth of tax cuts for banks and big businesses in return for less than one per cent of the number of apprenticeships that have been lost under this government. That's what it will cost.

But I can tell you that Labor's commitment to reversing the government's cuts to TAFE and training will take a huge step forward, as will the 20,000 fast-tracked apprenticeships for people facing redundancies or whose jobs have been lost, and our revolutionary national inquiry into postsecondary education will bring it all together. Within our first 100 days of government, we will examine every aspect of the vocational and higher education systems, and we'll make sure that they have the resources and systems in place to best assist Australia's economy and society. Investing in education always pays off. Whether we're talking about early childhood education or schools or we're talking about TAFE, vocational education or our universities, it always pays off. By any other name, investing in education means investing in people. It's investing in Australians.

What we know are cruel changes that the government want to pass show that they're too busy throwing money at big business to look ahead. I'd like to invite the government—any government member they like—to come out to my electorate. Come to Caboolture and visit some of those special assistance schools with me. Come and talk to those young students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the ones who are looking for a pathway, those who, even before turning 18, are struggling to get by and have struggled to get by.

I visit them quite regularly because, whether it's Horizons College or Alta-1 or YJET, they're doing some really great work. So I visit them quite often. They're inspiring young minds to believe in themselves, to give themselves some aspiration in life to do better for themselves and their families, not just to accept hardship that's been dished out to them but to strive for something more. That's why we're having these conversations with the University of the Sunshine Coast: to give them that pathway. We want them to look at tertiary institutions—like, as I said, the University of the Sunshine Coast or maybe, if they want to head into Brisbane, QUT or UQ—and just know that that's not out of reach for them. So I invite any government member to come and talk to these students at any of those schools. Ask them about the impact of these changes and what effect not having that pathway would have on them. Ask them if watering down our world-class student loans makes it easier for them to get into university. I openly give this offer, because I'll tell you what those opposite will hear if they come out. They'll hear students unanimously saying changes to HELP are anything but helpful to them. We're not just talking about school leavers. I'd like to extend that invitation. Come and speak to some of the students that are in their 30s and 40s and for whatever reason didn't get the opportunity or didn't take that pathway and now want to. Come and talk to them about how the government's changes to HELP will affect those people who want to create a better future for their families. The other thing those opposite will hear is about cutting funds to TAFE. They'll hear just how those TAFE funding cuts are affecting students and children that might want to head down that pathway.

Those opposite need to stop looking up at big business. Instead, we need them to look forward—and look forward to our students and to investing in their education. If they do that, they'll see that investing in people is the fastest way for our country to go forward into our future. Thank you.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 because it is a blatant attack on Australian students. This bill stands to undermine the fairness of our nation's student loan scheme. Once again, my colleagues and I stand in this House railing against the Turnbull government's unfair and inequitable policies, which rip funding away from the most vulnerable to pave the path for the big end of town.

This legislation stands against everything we know to be vital to encourage post-secondary education. It throws up yet another roadblock for the socioeconomically disadvantaged. It is a disincentive to the lifelong learning all progressive Australians know will be necessary to build the agile, smart workforce needed to futureproof our nation's industries and economy and to keep pace on the global stage—something the Prime Minister repeats over and over again as he ties our students' hands behind their backs. As it stands, the bill sets a new minimum repayment threshold of $45,000, which is just $9,000 above the minimum wage. It introduces a new combined loan limit, capping the amount students can borrow to cover their tuition fees. In these two points alone, there are two clear disincentives to post-secondary study. Those coming into the workforce on entry-level wages are often at a stage in life where they're trying to plan for a family or save for a home, and they are going to be slugged with extra financial imposts they can ill afford. Placing a limit on the amount students can borrow across their lifetime will really greatly hinder their ability to adopt the long-term theoretical, academic and practical skill development we know will be vital as technology changes what we do and, more importantly, how we live.

In typical fashion, this bill is all about saving the Turnbull government money, and a lot of it. The changes to programs including VET student loans, HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP will save the government $345.8 million in fiscal balance across four years. Changes to the Student Financial Supplement Scheme will claw the government back an additional $32.3 million in cash balance across four years. Of course, those two amounts alone will very neatly cover the Turnbull government's $65 billion tax breaks for big business. But what's the real cost to our country?

I am a proud alumnus of the University of Newcastle. I was born in the regional town of Heddon Greta, and I'm fortunate I came through my tertiary years at a time when education was truly accessible for all Australians. I started in 1989, the first year of HECS. I was happy to contribute to pay my bit, but now things aren't so rosy. Australian students in the year 2018 already make the sixth-highest contribution to their university fees in the OECD.

I know many families in my electorate—and there is profound socioeconomic disadvantage in some of these areas—where an erosion of the existing student supports will mean post-secondary education becomes nothing more than a pipedream. And, being first in family to go to university, I understand just how powerful that can be. These are areas where unemployment rates outstrip the national average, where youth joblessness is at crisis point, where people struggle to pay their electricity bills and where public transport is non-existent or so intermittent it might as well be useless. We know beyond doubt that higher debt is a massive disincentive for lower socioeconomic and disadvantaged students considering further education. They don't want that millstone around their neck.

We also know that, in this time of global economic transition, we need to invest in people. We need to build lifelong learners who embrace change and accept that growth and development are the only guarantee of future success. Why then are we making it harder for people to get post-secondary qualifications? Why are we making it more expensive to be smarter? It is just crazy economics. If we can for a moment take a break away from the Turnbull government's budget-centric view of managing our nation, there are many, many ways we could take a holistic approach towards encouraging post-secondary education.

Earlier this month, I met with Professor Caroline McMillen, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, and Leah Anderson, from the Tomaree Business Chamber, who also happens to be the Port Stephens Woman of the Year. We were discussing the barriers to post-secondary education faced by young people in Port Stephens. You may not have heard of Port Stephens, Deputy Speaker, but I imagine you have heard of Nelson Bay, which is the heart of this blue-water wonderland. It's an idyllic place for a beach getaway, but if you're a young person it can feel like the end of the earth. There is literally one road in and the same road out. There's only public transport via bus. The services are infrequent and the trip to Newcastle is long. Connectivity is a massive disincentive for students, jobseekers and even employees. There is a steady bleed of established professionals out of the area. It's blatantly obvious, then, that offering young people transport so that they can access training, education and even employment would make a massive difference to their lives, their futures and our economy.

As Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, I have sat in on a great many hearings across our country, hearing from people in our regional and rural communities about the issues they face. Whilst each area is diverse and boasts its unique set of opportunities and challenges, many could be cut and pasted from one town to the other. The big issues include connectivity, whether it be physical connection through public transport or internet connection through our failed NBN. I note the shadow minister sits at the table. She has worked so tirelessly for people across the nation who are just screaming out for decent connectivity. Educational opportunities are also going begging, as is quality health care. These are the things that people want in regional and remote parts of Australia. We must get these fundamentals right from day dot if we're going to level the playing field and ensure more young Australians get on a pathway to success earlier in their lives, especially if we'd like them to take up places in regional and rural Australia. Australia must do everything it can to support its young people, and the Turnbull government must really end this war that they seem to be waging on our youth, making it so hard. Young people are the very future of this nation, at every level and in every way. We must facilitate, encourage and enable, not throw up roadblocks and disincentives at every turn.

Universities Australia and the National Union of Students found that in 2012 two-thirds of Australian students lived below the Henderson poverty line and one in five students regularly skip meals. How can the Turnbull government, with any conscience, now lower the student loan repayment threshold? In many instances, these young people have worked in casual, low-paid positions to fund their education. Then, when they finally graduate and embark on their new career, they are immediately slugged with loan repayments. It just isn't fair. It wasn't fair when the government proposed an income threshold of $42,000, and it is not fair under the $45,000 threshold that this bill prescribes. This short-sighted approach from a government that trumpets its economic nous really is quite ludicrous.

Experts warn Australia risks being left behind if it doesn't boost participation in post-secondary education. Instead of accepting this truth and stepping up to re-examine and re-invigorate our current model in favour of something that truly reflects the current landscape, this government continues to cut and cut and cut. We need to build, build and build something new, something that is built to meet the needs of this era, something that is built to meet the needs of the future, something that spans the whole of the post-secondary sector. It needs to be dynamic, it needs to be responsive to a changing system and it needs to happen quickly. The systems in place are not well equipped for lifetime learning, and this bill's cap on loans further restricts that potential. It is yet another example of the Turnbull government's myopic focus on the budget. This government is more concerned about the numbers on a page year to year than the long-term economic prosperity of our nation and its people.

I have a long-held passion for encouraging industries in my electorate to diversify and adapt to economic and technological change. I've been inspired and educated by many in the lower Hunter who work every day towards these goals. I'm proud to be part of the Hunter Youth Transition Advisory Group, and I commend to you an organisation called Youth Express, which facilitates young people's transition from education to employment and builds bridges between students and industry. Similarly, Alesco Senior College, which has campuses in two towns in my electorate—Raymond Terrace and Nelson Bay—is doing great things for young people in my area. Alesco is passionate about filling voids, not reinventing the wheel. It creates a place for young people who, for a variety of reasons, have opted out before completing their secondary education. Alesco gives them another chance, another pathway, another choice.

The University of Newcastle has three fantastic enabling programs. There is one geared towards Indigenous students; one called Open Foundation, which builds a bridge to university for those who did not achieve a TER; and one called Newstep. These are exceptional programs that change lives and in turn change our economic and social fabric. The University of Newcastle is also actively exploring innovation hubs in collaboration with local industry. There is a highly successful hub at Williamtown, which benefits from synergies with the defence and aerospace industries. I know other businesses are keen to explore the potential for similar hubs in the Hunter. These are all great examples of ways that we can create educational opportunities for our young people and encourage post-secondary study, all while working with industry and really capturing true innovation.

The government could be encouraging these wonderful initiatives. It could be funding our schools and giving them the resources to allow them to more actively engage with our local government and business chamber representatives to learn where our economy is headed. Educators could learn where the new jobs are likely to be and create educational opportunities based on these scenarios. Instead, the Turnbull government has cut school funding by $17 billion. The government could be exploring initiatives such as satellite campuses for our tertiary institutions. Instead, people such as Professor Caroline McMillen are dealing with the fallout of the federal government's $2.2 billion in budget cuts. What of vocational education and training? What of it, indeed. Under this government, we have seen nearly $3 billion cut. That translates into 140,000 apprenticeships and trainees lost since the Liberals took the reins. That is 140,000 opportunities for people to better their skills and their lives.

I will vote against this government's proposed changes to Australia's student loan scheme. I stand with Labor. Under a Labor government real and meaningful reforms were delivered to students pursuing higher education. Labor believes a fair and accessible higher education scheme must include income contingent loans, and that is why when in 1989 we introduced HECS as one of many reforms, it was broadly welcomed. People knew it was a fair system. We lifted Australia's investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013.

In more recent times Labor's equity and participation measures, including demand driven funding and HECS-HELP, transformed our tertiary education system. History proved Labor's measures worked: 190,000 more Australians were able to go to university. Many were the first in their families, as I was, to achieve that level of education. Universities Australia research shows marked improvement in the participation rates of students from underrepresented or disadvantaged groups. Between 2008 and 2016 the number of domestic undergraduate students with a disability rose by 106.5 per cent, Indigenous student numbers went up by almost 90 per cent, the number of students of low socioeconomic status increased by 55.3 per cent, and the number of students from regional and remote areas went up by 48.3 per cent. The world is changing quickly, and our policies must keep pace with those changes. We must look to the future and invest in our people if we are to help our young grow into smart, agile, lifelong learners who will innovate and adapt to survive this changing technological landscape. Without this investment right now, Australia will be left behind.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. At its core these amendments ensure the sustainability of our student loan system, recognised as one of the most generous in the world. The bill introduces a new set of repayment thresholds for student loans, changes indexation arrangements for repayment thresholds, amends the order of repayment of some student loan debts and introduces a combined lifetime loan limit for taxpayer funded student loans. I support these amendments because I understand the importance of a tertiary education and want to ensure future generations have the same opportunity I had. Like the previous speaker, I was the first in my family, and one of only a handful at my high school, to go to university. It was a privilege to receive my university education with no up-front cost. My student loan was funded by people like my brothers, who work in the construction industry, and my family members, who work hard in their small business and who didn't go to university but paid taxes to give me the opportunity to borrow from them, the taxpayer, through the government to better myself and get the education. The privilege of receiving that student loan came with a responsibility for me to repay it.

Unfortunately, under the current system some students will never accept the responsibility of repaying their taxpayer funded student loans. They are happy to accept the student loan provided to them by the hardworking Australian taxpayers but have not repaid it. As of 30 June 2017 only $35.9 billion out of the total debt of $55.4 billion will likely be repaid. I absolutely support these amendments, which I believe will ultimately reduce the debt load. However, I believe that for the long-term sustainability of the system we will need to go further. I was pleasantly surprised by the contribution from the Labor member for Bruce, who last year spoke about the importance of debt recovery from the states. To be very clear, this would not be a death tax. As the member for Bruce said, it is simply:

… requiring HELP debts to be repaid, just like tax or social security debts …

I agree that there is a strong policy case to look at the option of recouping student debts from certain estates. I believe those who enter into student loan agreements do so freely. There needs to be an understanding that these loans are from the Australian taxpayer and must be repaid. It would be my absolute pleasure to work with the member for Bruce on further measures in a very bipartisan way.

It remains our intent to ensure Australians who have not gone to university are not unfairly bearing the costs of those who have not repaid their loans. In the same way, those who have had the opportunity to attend university and have diligently paid off their loans should not be made to bear the cost. We must continue to work on this issue. It is all about fairness. The reality is that taxpayer funded student loan repayments have not kept pace with lending growth. Since 2009 funding for Commonwealth supported places has grown at twice the rate of the economy, and from 2011 to 2017 the level of new debt not expected to be repaid increased from 16 per cent to 25 per cent. It is a serious concern that, according to the 2016 Australian National Audit Office estimates, on its current trajectory, by 2024-25 outstanding HELP debts will total $192.5 billion and almost 30 per cent—$55 billion—will not be repaid. Imagine the differences that $55 billion would make if invested in our education system or other government services.

We need to take action now the ensure that our higher education system is sustainable. Announced in MYEFO, these policy measures will replace the previous legislative proposals from the 2017-18 budget. I supported the previous reforms and I was disappointed they were voted down in the Senate.

We all have skin in this game of education, whether it be as a former, current or future student, a parent, a taxpayer, an educator, as administrators or, ultimately, as employers in business or service providers in every corner of Australia. The new amendments propose that from 1 July 2018 there be a lower minimum repayment threshold of $45,000 at a one per cent repayment rate. There will be smaller incremental rises in thresholds and repayment rates up to a top threshold of $131,989, at which 10 per cent of income is repayable. The minimum repayment threshold is $10,000 less than the current threshold of $55,000.

This repayment threshold will then be indexed according to the consumer price index rather than the average weekly earnings. This change is consistent with recommendations from both the National Commission of Audit in 2014 and the Grattan Institute. This change in indexation is important to ensure that those who have dropped out of the repayment streams as the thresholds rise faster than their income growth are brought back in and are repaying their student loans sooner. This will ensure repayment requirements are adjusted in line with the cost of living.

Other key changes come in the form of student thresholds for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, which will be brought into line with the HELP repayment thresholds from 1 July 2019. This is to improve rates of repayment by replacing the three-tier threshold approach applied to Student Financial Supplement Scheme repayments with a new HELP threshold. This change ensures the HELP debt takes priority over other student loan debts.

Finally, there will be an introduction of new combined loan limits on how much students can borrow under taxpayer funded student loans to cover their tuition fees. The combined limit is $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and vet science courses and $104,440 for other students. These limits would be sufficient to cover the study of even the most expensive courses for almost nine years as a Commonwealth supported, taxpayer supported student. The loan limit is not new, but it will now apply to HECS-HELP as well as students accessing the FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP and VET student loans.

But these amendments are all about fairness. Income contingent loans, the basis of our taxpayer funded student loan system, were introduced as an answer to maintaining access and equity as well as providing less of a burden on the taxpayer. From inception, the repayment threshold was never set according to an optimum economic model or theory. It was purely driven by a sense of fairness. I'm proud that this government is making changes to ensure that there is real fairness in student loans. It is not fair to take a loan from the taxpayer to further yourself, to better yourself, and then not pay that loan back to the taxpayer, because taxpayers are people like my brother and my family members, who work hard in small business, who have never been to university, who have worked hard and paid their taxes to give me that opportunity. If I was to take from them a loan in order to get an education but then not to pay that back, that would be robbing future societies and generations of the opportunity that I've had.

It is not fair that everyone who's paid off a taxpayer funded student loan in full, like I have, should shoulder the burden of those students who have chosen not to. The failure of some students to pay their loans makes our education more expensive for everyone. Taking a student loan from hardworking taxpayers and not repaying it is taking a free ride. But let's not forget that students currently only pay an average of 42 per cent of the cost of their degree. The rest is already subsidised by the taxpayer.

When we're talking about student loans, we're not talking about students borrowing the total cost of their entire education. As I said, 42 per cent of their degree, on average, is funded through student loans—the rest by the hardworking taxpayers in Australia. Research from the Grattan Institute indicates that the split for average contributions would move to 64 per cent government and 36 per cent student if we take into account debt that would probably not be repaid, and this is unsustainable.

I congratulate Minister Birmingham on these new amendments. Unfortunately, those opposite and a select group of education institutions have chosen to cloud and misrepresent this critical debate. Labor's Treasury spokesman called the measures an attack on one of the sources of Australia's long-term prosperity. Well, the shadow Treasurer is right about one thing: education is a source of Australia's long-term prosperity. This government's approach to student loan repayments is consistent with intergenerational equity. It is consistent with ensuring university education will be sustainable in the long term. This is a responsible suite of reforms and is in stark contrast to the brash approach from the Labor Party, who, when they were last in government, announced $6 billion worth of cuts to the higher education support sector.

We cannot afford to be complacent and risk jeopardising opportunities for future generations of students, who will also want to access student loans that remove all up-front fees from higher education. The time to change is now, and the opposition's position on this legislation only puts the entire system in jeopardy. I would like all Australian kids to have the opportunity I had, the opportunity to go to university at no up-front cost. But if we don't have a sustainable system, we won't have that opportunity in the future.

We need to ensure that our system can respond to the impact of the tremendous expansion in student numbers. Over the last quarter of a century, private education student numbers grew at more than three times the rate of the population as a whole. This growth has imposed significant costs on taxpayers. The astounding thirst for education has been enabled by the demand driven system in recent years.

It has also been driven by the reality that a post-school qualification remains one of the best investments an individual can make. University graduates enjoy consistently higher employment and incomes than those who only complete high school. Our higher education system is exceedingly successful and has an excellent reputation, both here and overseas. Tertiary education now spans a competitive market, where providers are more numerous, more diverse and more commercially oriented than they ever were before. Education is one of our most successful exports and is a significant source of income for our universities. In 2016 education export income reached its highest level ever at $21.8 billion.

This legislation lays out achievable reforms that can safeguard the position of the education sector for the future. We cannot underestimate the importance of a sustainable student loan scheme. It brings certainty to the sector, which has been unanimous about the need for change and has been left waiting long enough. The Australian taxpayer student loan scheme remains one of the most successful public policy innovations ever, ensuring a vibrant education export industry, support for student career aspirations and a skilled workforce for our industry.

Where this legislation does have a financial impact on students, we will implement changes in a way that is gradual, fair and appropriate. These reforms ensure our high-quality tertiary education system can grow while meeting the global challenges it will increasingly face. It guarantees that students will continue to have access to higher education, irrespective of their background or financial means. These amendments, in line with the broader government plans, will deliver $1.2 billion in savings over the next two years.

In the lead-up to last year's budget the Prime Minister said:

… we call on the other parties … to support us in bringing the budget back into balance. It is a responsibility that weighs heavily on the shoulders of every single member of the house and—

in particular—

… the Senate …

This government has made substantial progress, with MYEFO showing this year's federal deficit has improved by $5.8 billion compared to forecasts in the May budget. Education savings are an essential part of this broader budget strategy.

Frankly, we're all in this together. Taxpayers, whose support means that no-one must pay up-front course fees, will get a better deal knowing that the Turnbull government is looking after them and making sure their investment is repaid. Our taxpayer funded student loan scheme was not designed to facilitate a lifelong limitless cash pool for students who choose not to pay back their student loans.

Taxpayer generosity should not be taken for granted. The measures in this bill were designed with fairness and sustainability at their core. Commonwealth financial assistance through taxpayer funded student loans still means that no student will need to pay one cent up-front for their higher education. But students cannot take this assistance for granted. Taxpayer funded student loans must be repaid to ensure that the system is sustainable and is available for future generations.

These amendments are about fairness. These amendments are about someone entering into a loan. These are amendments about making sure that people who enter into a loan repay that loan. To think that there is opposition to a situation where you're asking someone to pay back a loan that they've entered into means that my mind boggles. This is about fairness; it's about fairness for the taxpayer that funds these loans and it's also about ensuring that more and more students can have the opportunity that I've had in receiving an education with no up-front fees. I hope that more students can have the same opportunity that I've had as well. Thank you.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loans Sustainability) Bill 2018. I oppose the bill, as it attacks student and it undermines the fairness of Australia's world-class student loan scheme. As we have heard, the bill makes a number of changes to Australia's income contingent loan scheme, the Higher Education Loan Program—HELP—and makes technical changes to the Student Financial Supplement Scheme. This is the first point on which I will focus.

This bill sets new repayment thresholds for HELP from 1 July 2018, starting with a new minimum repayment of $45,000 and with a one per cent repayment rate. There are a further 17 thresholds and repayment rates, up to a top threshold of $131,989, at which 10 per cent of payment would apply. It aligns the indexation of HELP repayment thresholds to CPI instead of to average weekly earnings and introduces a new combined loan limit on how much students can borrow under HELP to cover tuition fees from 1 January 2019. The combined limit would be $104,440, or $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry or vet science.

The government has previously tried to make changes to the HELP repayment threshold, attempting to lower the HELP repayment rate to $42,000 a year. Labor argued that this was too low. The bill did not make it through the Senate and was subsequently withdrawn. The proposal for a lifetime borrowing limit is a new proposal from the government and has significant implications for students. While the borrowing limit has been introduced in the VET student loan system—a proposal that Labor took to the last election—there has yet to be a limit for all loan schemes in the system.

Traditionally, Commonwealth supported places, or HECS places, did not have a borrowing limit for students. Students taking other courses that are not subsidised, like full-fee postgraduate coursework places, could take out a loan for the fees through the FEE-HELP scheme. Full fees were set by universities and higher education providers and have not been regulated, which has led to some students taking on significant debt. While there is some merit to sending a price signal through a lifetime borrowing limit, the proposal in this bill may have a range of unintended consequences and therefore must not be supported.

Labor referred this bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, and the committee tabled its report on 16 March. I support the position of the Labor senators in their dissenting report. This bill would have unintended and negative consequences on students, particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and therefore must not be supported.

Income contingent loans have been a part of higher education since Labor introduced HECS in 1989. More recently, Labor's demand-driven funding, in conjunction with the HECS-HELP scheme and other equity and participation measures, has transformed higher education in Australia. As Universities Australia has shown, there has been a significant boost in university enrolments from underrepresented and disadvantaged students. This is such a critical point: universities are now open, more than ever before, to students from those underrepresented and disadvantaged backgrounds. It is important that we spend some time looking at those numbers.

From 2008 to 2016 the following growth occurred: the number of domestic undergraduate students grew from 24,311 to 50,206, a staggering 106.5 per cent. The proportion of students with a disability participating rose from 4.3 per cent to 6.4 per cent. The number of Indigenous students grew from 7,038 to 13,320, an increase of 89.3 per cent. The number of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds grew from 90,467 to 140,462, an increase of 55.3 per cent. The number of students from remote and regional areas, such as mine, grew from 110,000 to 163,292, an increase of 48.3 per cent. In total, the number of undergraduate students from all these backgrounds—students with a disability, Indigenous students, and students from remote areas—grew 39.6 per cent.

What a remarkable success story that we have nearly 40 per cent more students from these groups going to university. Why are they doing that? Because there are pathways available, because higher education is seen as valuable and it's accessible because barriers are being removed. We know that high student debt is a genuine barrier to study for students from low-SES and disadvantaged backgrounds, so we must remove barriers, not put them up again. In my electorate of Dobell, on the Central Coast, we have the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle, which is playing a vital role in removing these barriers. I want to quote—I know she's been quoted already this evening—the Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Newcastle, Professor Caroline McMillen, who said to a parliamentary committee hearing earlier this month:

As our mission, we are committed to equity and excellence. We have some 37,000 students, 27 per cent from low socioeconomic backgrounds, which reflects our demographics in the regions we serve, and around 1,000 are Indigenous, which is the largest number of any Australian university.

She further said:

… this university since its foundation has served the demographics of the region by ensuring we do not trade equity for excellence.

'We do not trade equity for excellence' are important words, and that is an important mission. In higher education, excellence is vital, equity is vital and access is necessary. Yet this government wants to increase student debt and make it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to get a foot in the door.

At the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, health is a big area of study. The university partners with the Central Coast local health district, where I used to work, and the PHN. Health and social services, my area of training and background, is one of the largest employers in our region on the Central Coast. Importantly, it is also one of the growth areas for future work. With higher education comes jobs—local jobs, quality jobs.

At the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, enabling programs such as Open Foundation and Newstep are trusted pathways for students to get started, pathways to further study. Almost one in four commencing students at our campus starts their education through these enabling programs. They are the pathway for so many, for nurses like Michelle, who was recognised as Wyong hospital nurse of the year last year. I have spoken about Michelle before. She would not be a nurse without enabling education. She would not be serving our community at Wyong hospital without access to higher education. I've also spoken about Sam, who is now a speech pathologist and whose sister is training to be a teacher. Sam said she really noticed the impact on her sons of seeing her study. They could see their mother was studying at university, and they could see that they might be able to study at university too.

Today I'd like to speak about my friend Renee, a graduate of the Central Coast campus Open Foundation course, and now a neonatal intensive care nurse. These are Renee's own words:

The fact that there is an opportunity like Open Foundation has given me the confidence to do something I never knew I could do. I never thought I was smart enough when I was at school to commence university. Never once did I ever think that I would complete a bachelor degree. I ended up completing a bachelor of nursing with distinction. Now I work within one of the elite hospitals and it's my privilege to work with vulnerable families in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Labor understands the benefits of education to families. We understand that it can transform lives. Dr Joyleen Christensen, who I went to primary school with, is a program convener for enabling education at the same campus. Joy speaks about the impact of higher education on students who are the first ever in their family to go to university. She said:

These students have so many obstacles already. The reason many of them are involved is to improve the financial situation for them and for their families. They are taking time away from work. They are taking time away from their families and money away from their families to find out whether they can do this. They have incredible potential. This program is life changing for them, their families and our community. It transforms lives.

It's transformed the lives of Michelle and Renee, and the contribution they make through their nursing is invaluable to our community.

The Dean of the Central Coast campus, Dr Brok Glenn, told me earlier today that in 2018 more than half of commencing students, 55 per cent, are the first in their family to go to university. It is an outstanding achievement. This, he said, is about enabling programs, working with high schools and actually getting students and their parents onto the campus so they can see for themselves what is possible. On the Central Coast, only half of students have the opportunity to finish high school, and fewer than half of the working-age population, 45 per cent, have qualifications post-school. Access to higher education is making a difference.

The effect on women of the changes to HELP repayment thresholds must also be considered, as women will be disproportionately affected by these changes. Sixty per cent of Australians with outstanding HELP debt are women, and two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the proposed new repayment threshold will be women. This bill should be rejected on that premise alone.

Labor believes that the time for an inquiry into Australia's post-secondary education system has come. We must have a scheme that is fit for purpose, that intersects with our tax and social security systems and that treats all students equitably. We must have a system that suits the needs of a changing post-secondary education system; that suits the needs of lifetime learners.

While Labor is not opposed to sending a price signal through a loan cap, this bill would have unintended consequences. Under the current FEE-HELP scheme there are a range of courses which have fees in excess of $100,000. Labor fully supports a system that allows Australians to defer fees for postgraduate and further study. These days many students will choose both vocational and higher education qualifications. The proposal for a one-off borrowing limit is clearly inadequate for lifelong learning needs. Labor is concerned about reckless fee setting, and a price signal needs to be accompanied by further reforms. We must not have a system that forces students to take out commercial loans to pay for the gap between fees set by universities and the loan borrowing amount. This bill does nothing to discourage reckless high-fee setting. Student debt is a major concern for students, for their families and for all of Australia. The contribution Australian students make to the cost of their university education is already the sixth-highest in the OECD, and two-thirds of Australian students in 2012 were found to live below the Henderson poverty line, with one in five regularly skipping meals.

This government often talks about choice, but choice is a privilege. We need to make pathways to higher education easier, not harder. Labor is determined to end the war on young people in this country that's being waged by this government. We must not put barriers in their way, and the barriers to higher education are ones we have started to break down. This government continues to cut services and to try to charge students more. It is not the way to equity and it is not the way to excellence. Students at the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle cannot afford cuts to education. They cannot afford to pay more.

As I said at the outset, I oppose this bill as an attack on students and an attack on the fairness of our world-class student loan system. Labor will not support any legislation that puts education out of the reach of the most vulnerable people in our community, people who are starting out in life, people who are starting over in life and people who have never had a start in life.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I rise to join with my Labor colleagues on this side of the House in our complete opposition to this bill. We have a series of grave concerns with the Turnbull government's Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. Firstly, it's an unfair bill that actively undermines Australia's world-class education system. It would penalise women, disadvantaged and vulnerable Australians, and hurt regional communities and economies like mine in Newcastle. It's yet another example of this government's relentless war on young Australians. It's telling that only two government members were willing to stand up today and back this bill. When government members can't even bring themselves to support their own legislation, you know something is wrong.

The bill proposes a number of changes to the Australian income contingent student loan scheme, HELP, formerly known as HECS. It sets a new, lower threshold of just $45,000 at which students must start repaying their student debt. It also introduces a lifetime limit of $104,440 on how much students can borrow for their tuition fees. This bill represents a terrible betrayal of young Australians, as it will make it harder for them to gain higher education. It will be the final nail in the coffin for some with university aspirations. From the beginning Labor had concerns about the impacts of this legislation, particularly for low-income earners, disadvantaged students and, as I mentioned before, women. We were concerned about the impacts it would have on young people in regional areas and the communities they live in, so we sent it to a Senate inquiry for consideration. Regrettably, the inquiry did little to allay our concerns.

The first measure proposed in the bill is to lower the repayment threshold to $45,000. This is the second attempt by this government, after failing to reduce the threshold to $42,000 last time around. Labor supports HECS-HELP. There is no argument from us on that front. We believe in the principle that Australians should contribute towards the cost of their education, from which they and all of us benefit, but we agree with those many people who made submissions to the Senate inquiry that $45,000 is simply too low. As the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations pointed out in its submission to the inquiry, $45,000 is only slightly more than half the average wage; it is in fact only $9,000 more than the minimum wage, as the Australian Council of Trade Unions rightly stated.

On this income, take-home pay is $37,928 a year, a little over $700 a week, after tax and Medicare levies are subtracted. Once you cover the basic costs of living, including—let's not forget—the skyrocketing rents many of these students are paying, transport, food, insurance and ever-increasing power bills, there is precious little left. For many, every spare dollar is funnelled into scraping together a deposit for a home, which could easily top $100,000 in many parts of the country. That is in no small part due to the Turnbull government's absolutely dogged refusal to do anything about the outrageous tax concessions provided to support property investors over and above what we offer to first home buyers. Incredibly, many young people are trying to do all of this with the extra financial burden of raising a young family at the same time. You can see no clearer example of pressure on our young people.

Yet, in another stunning display of just how out of touch it is with Australians on low incomes, the Turnbull government has decided it is completely fair and reasonable to start taking even more money from these people—utterly unbelievable!

It's no wonder that young Australians are furious with the Turnbull government. They have, of course, every right to be, especially given that a large number of government members went through university at a time of free education, bought their houses with the help of government subsidies and now get to rake in the tax benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions at the federal budget's expense.

Labor doesn't believe that we should make students start repaying their debt at the same time when they're trying to start their careers and start families and when they're earning, often, the very lowest rates in their respective professions. Labor also has grave concerns about the impacts of reducing the HELP repayment thresholds on disadvantaged Australians and discouraging them from ever undertaking higher education in the first place. This is particularly relevant for many communities in and around the Newcastle and Hunter region, because those areas are characterised by very significant disadvantage and, indeed, lower levels of education attainment. I'm extremely proud of the equity record of my local university, the University of Newcastle, where 27 per cent of students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Many are the first in their family to go to university. But these are exactly the kinds of people who are going to be hurt by this bill, as they are more likely to decide against higher education rather than put themselves in a precarious financial situation.

In a submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, the University of Newcastle raised concerns that these cohorts are much more likely to be sensitive to price—I couldn't agree more—and that they are disproportionately likely to decide against taking on higher education if the repayment threshold were lowered. The submission also made the important point that, for some students, repayments could kick in before they even have completed their studies. This would only serve to further intensify the financial pressures potentially affecting completion rates and graduate outcomes. This will be a great shame for our universities and a huge loss for our region. When you add these measures to the estimated $69 million that the government is ripping out of the University of Newcastle through the MYEFO cuts, there's going to be a lot of pain ahead for our community.

I'm also very concerned about the disproportionate impacts this lowering of the HECS repayment threshold will have on women. As the President of the National Union of Students, Mr Mark Pace, stated:

We know from the National Tertiary Education Union's submission to this Senate inquiry that 60 per cent of all Australians with outstanding HELP debt are women and that two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the new proposed repayment thresholds will also be women …

I agree with Mr Pace that this is yet another reason for rejecting this bill.

I'd now like to turn to the proposed cap in the bill which would put a lifetime limit of $104,440 on the value of higher education that can be supported through the loan system. For students doing medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, that cap would be $150,000. The new HELP limit would apply to HECS-HELP loans, FEE-HELP loans, VET FEE-HELP loans and VET student loans. Again, this is a measure Labor cannot support. As many people giving evidence to the Senate inquiry pointed out, many prospective students will find that there simply isn't the scope to take on further studies or to expand their expertise into new areas. Others pointed out that the cap is likely to hurt people who haven't taken a traditional pathway to study and many have taken extra courses to achieve their academic goals. The proposal for a lifetime cap also stands in stark contrast to the unavoidable reality that education is becoming a lifelong process, something that you don't bid farewell to in your early 20s. In fact, continuous upskilling will be increasingly important for people who want to remain competitive in a highly dynamic jobs market. Again, this proposed measure will have a disproportionate impact on regional communities like mine. As the University of Newcastle points out in its submission, this limit will hurt our region's economic transformation by preventing some people from engaging in critical retraining and reskilling, especially in the high-cost fields like STEM and health, which may require specialist postgraduate qualifications.

This bill provides yet more evidence that the only ideas this government has shown for higher education are to levy cuts and to force students to pay more. Just look at its destructive plan for university deregulation, which would have led to $100,000 degrees and lifelong debt sentences for students. Or perhaps we could consider the bill that preceded this one, which included $2.8 billion worth of cuts. Of course, the Senate refused to pass this. But, in a shameless display of its true 'born to rule' character, the government completely disregarded the will of the parliament and snuck $2.2 billion worth of cuts through the back door in the midyear budget update.

In contrast, Labor has a fantastic legacy of which I am very proud. When we were last in government, we increased funding for universities from $8 billion to $14 billion each year and introduced a demand driven funding system. This saw an additional 190,000 students get a place at university, many of whom were the very first in their family to ever set foot on a university campus. Investing in education is one of the best means we have to drive productivity and economic growth, especially by encouraging people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university, and we know that these reforms work.

As Universities Australia presented in its submission to the inquiry on this bill, there was a 106.5 per cent boost to people with disability undertaking undergraduate study. In the same time frame, there were 89.3 per cent more Indigenous students, 55 per cent more low socioeconomic status students and 48.3 per cent more regional and remote students. It is unquestionably a positive thing, not just for the individuals that improve their education levels and their life opportunities but for the entire country, because investment in education has flow-on effects for the whole society. This is backed up by recent figures from the OECD, which showed the Australian public, not individuals, benefit most from higher education. In fact, this OECD work shows that the public rate of return from tertiary education in Australia is twice the rate of return to the individual, despite the fact that individuals shoulder more of the cost.

The Turnbull government wants you to believe that the current HECS arrangements aren't sustainable. They want you to think that we need to rein in the amount of education that people can undertake and make them start repaying their student loans sooner. I'll tell you what's not sustainable: giving people who earn over $180,000 a year a tax cut while you're hiking up taxes for people on $30,000—that's not sustainable. Refusing to act on the billions of dollars of cash handouts that are going to Australian shareholders who don't pay any tax—that is not sustainable. And doing absolutely nothing to rein in excessive tax concessions for property investors—that is not sustainable. But I'll tell you what's really not sustainable: hiking the national debt to more than half a trillion dollars and then hatching a diabolical plan to shovel a further $65 billion out the door in corporate tax cuts, because that's what this bill is really all about. It's not about a crisis in the HECS or HELP scheme; it's about a government desperate to pay up on its promise to big business. This is a shameful bill before this parliament. I stand strong and proud with Labor in our opposition.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak on this bill, I must begin by reiterating my support for Australia's higher education sector. For the sector to thrive, it must be sustainable. There is a delicate balance to be struck and I believe that the government's previous reform package, which failed to pass the Senate, did not get the balance right. I believe this bill comes a lot closer, although there are amendments that NXT will be seeking before we give our wholehearted support.

This bill presents two major changes to the current system: firstly, a reduction in the HELP repayment threshold to $45,000, and, secondly, a cap on the loan amount a student can access in their lifetime. The idea of a cap on the amount of money a student can borrow from the Commonwealth is one I agree with in principle. In fact, I first raised this idea with Minister Birmingham last year. I believe that Australia's Higher Education Loan Program is world leading and something this country can be proud of. It allows students from all backgrounds to access university education without having the burden of up-front cost that students in many other countries face.

However, as with any Commonwealth loan, it should not be a free-for-all. A university education gives a proven benefit to Australian society, but it is not in the nation's interests for the HELP scheme to be open slather with mounting debts, some of which will never be repaid. A cap sends an important message to students that the government will not support elongated study where it results in excessive loan amounts that are unlikely to be repaid. A student should understand that. Just like any other loan or debt, student loans must be repaid. Being a professional student, collecting endless degrees and not moving into a job really isn't viable for our nation.

However, a lifetime cap is also not the answer. Increasingly, it's becoming clear that lifelong learning will become a regular feature of the Australian way of life. This government has, indeed, foreshadowed this. I again make reference to the Prime Minister's first statement as the leader of our country, where he stressed that he wanted Australia to be innovative and agile. Clearly, the ability to learn new things and to upskill is a fundamental part of being an innovative nation. For that reason, I struggle to understand why the government has proposed a lifetime cap on student learning.

We should not be asking Australian students to be put in a position where they can graduate, work and pay off their HELP loans and yet be prevented from accessing Commonwealth support for future study. We know that today's graduates are likely to change jobs 17 times in their lifetime, and will most likely change career sectors completely. So, for this reason, I'm calling on the government to amend this bill to ensure that we can place a cap on student outstanding debt but that we can also ensure that if a person does pay off that debt, if they get below their cap, they can continue to study in another area at another time in their life. I note that this recommendation was put forward by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment and, indeed, government members of the committee supported that the cap would be replenishable. I understand the government will be moving amendments to change this aspect of the bill, and I look forward to those amendments being moved.

This bill also seeks to reduce the payment threshold for HELP loans to $45,000. I spoke on this issue during the debate of last year's higher education reform package, where I and my NXT colleagues rejected a proposal to lower the threshold to $42,000. I said then that I was willing to consider alternative thresholds, and that is the position that I maintain and NXT maintains. Australia's HELP system is one of the most generous in the world, significantly more so than the New Zealand system, which has a repayment threshold of $18,000, and the UK system, which has a repayment threshold of approximately A$36,000. I recognise that there is a growing amount of outstanding student debt, and the government does not expect this to be repaid. For this reason, NXT is willing to consider the proposed change to the thresholds if the government can commit to changing the lifetime cap to being a replenishable cap. I believe that a significant benefit of this measure over the government's previous proposal is ensuring that the repayment rate does not lift above one per cent until a graduate is earning over $51,000 per year. We believe this is a reasonable balance.

I take this opportunity again to reiterate my previous calls for a comprehensive review into the post-secondary education sector. I called for such a review last October, and I am pleased to see that this has become part of the policy for the Australian Labor Party. This review must involve the federal and state governments. It must involve universities and the vocational education sector, including, of course, apprenticeships. We need to examine how we prepare the next generation for the world of work and ensure the pillars are in place for young people to successfully transition to sustainable employment.

Australia's higher education sector is one of the best in the world, but it needs to be supported. The government's recent cuts to universities during MYEFO were a cruel blow to the sector, and it is a sector that has faced so many cuts in recent years from both sides of the House. I believe this bill should be amended and that it will contribute to a stronger higher education sector. So for this reason I support the bill in this House, pending those amendments by government, as I referred to. Thank you.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. From the outset, I make it clear that Labor will be opposing this bill, and I also note the cacophony of voices opposite—all those rallying to support this piece of legislation! I just looked at the speaking list, and I noticed that of all those opposite they have only two members willing to come along and speak in support of the legislation.

This is an unfair piece of legislation and one that attacks students. It undermines the fairness and accessibility of Australia's higher education system. The bill is another example of the government's relentless attack on our universities, which are, no doubt, integral to the future of our nation. The bill also gives effect to a policy measure announced in the government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This is very, very short sighted. It is a package of $2.2 billion of cuts for universities—measures that represent the government's fourth attempt since coming into office to cut universities and make students pay more. Nevertheless, we heard the Turnbull government—and the Minister for Education and Training, in particular—boasting that these cuts will put our higher education system on a more sustainable and responsible path for the future.

This is the same style of rhetoric that we heard when the government tried to introduce their original package of cuts in the 2017 budget. That was $3.8 billion of cuts to universities and an increase in student fees. Those measures were not passed by the Senate and they were not passed for a very, very good reason: they were bad policy. It seems nothing has changed. These were the biggest cuts to the sector proposed since the Howard government's horror 1996 budget. These cuts were accompanied by a number of poorly designed policies and thought bubbles, and that continues today. None of the ideas that the government have proposed were really about reform that would produce or promote enhancement of the sector, and the same can be said about those legislative measures proposed by the bill we are debating today.

Real reform actually requires vision for the future, rather than a government solely driven to cut and diminish the significant role that universities play and, to that extent, that students who attend universities play in our future. This is solely about cost-cutting, and there's no doubt there's a reason that underpins that. Of course, you can't expect those opposite to change their spots and to take a different view of higher education. After all, they are the same bunch that came into this place intent on taking $17 billion from our schools, $637 million from our TAFE colleges and now $2.2 billion from our universities. The targets of the cuts are our higher education institutions—institutions which are, I submit, absolutely vital for our nation's future. But the justifications of these cuts and whether they're issues about pension or a whole raft of other things all fall back to that signature policy of this government: handing out $65 billion of tax cuts to millionaires and big business—effectively, the tax cuts to the top end of town. That justifies what these measures are all about.

Far be it from me to give the government advice, but I will chance my hand on this occasion. If you can't afford it, simply don't do it, but never, ever do it at the expense of future generations. That's precisely what is occurring here today. The unfairness of these cuts is plain and clear. This is a government that keeps proving that it can't be trusted when it comes to the most important investment in our nation's history. An investment in education is an investment in our future. It's an investment in the nation's future. Arguably, it's probably the most important investment decision governments can make, because a lot turns on this. While the measures in this bill are significantly narrower than the scope of the bill in 2017, the point I want to make is that it has the same underlying objectives.

For the purpose of discussion, I'll be focusing my time on talking about the proposed changes in the HELP scheme as opposed to some of the other, technical amendments that are also incorporated in this bill. The income-contingent loan has been a keystone or foundation of the architecture of Australia's fair and accessible higher education system. We on this side of the House understand the role that income-contingent HELP loans play. After all, it was a Labor government that introduced the concept in HECS in 1989. Universities Australia, I think, actually highlighted the integral role played by the HELP scheme when they noted that the scheme underwrote the growth of mass higher education in Australia, and it continues to support the expansion of opportunity. I think that's pretty right.

In conjunction with Labor's demand-driven funding, the HELP scheme has seen historic growth in higher education participation over decades. The transformation of higher education in this country has very much been a key aspect that's flowed from this scheme. As Margaret Gardner, Chair of Universities Australia, demonstrates, there's been a significant boost in the participation of underrepresented and disadvantaged students.

To put that in some perspective, I'd like to share with the House some statistics released by Universities Australia. Universities in Australia now educate 55 per cent more Australians from the poorest one-fifth of households, 48 per cent more students from regional and remote communities, 89 per cent more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and 105 per cent more students with a disability. I think they're outcomes that we should all be particularly proud of. Obviously those opposite have probably hung their heads in shame about this, because they're not participating in this debate—or only two of those opposite are. But this is something where we've shown we can actually transform higher education in this country and make it more accessible. As I say, that's something the House should be proud of, not condemning.

Labor opposes the government's move to lower the HELP repayment threshold to $42,000, because we recognise that it is unfair. As a matter of fact, we actually think the current proposal of a threshold of $45,000 is also unfair. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions indicated, the proposed threshold of $45,000 is only $9,000 more than the minimum wage today.

Illustrating the ramifications of the proposed payment threshold on individual earnings of $45,000 per annum, the ACTU observed that this would leave an individual with a take-home pay of $37,928 once income tax and the Medicare levy is deducted. We believe that the current repayment threshold strikes the appropriate balance. We cannot expect students to repay more than their current debts at the same time as starting a career, setting up and saving for a house—particularly in Sydney and Melbourne and probably Brisbane—and, in many instances, starting a family.

We know that higher education debt is a genuine barrier to low socioeconomic and disadvantaged students. Equity practitioners in higher education encapsulate the heart of this problem, saying that this measure would disproportionately affect people of low socioeconomic backgrounds, people with disabilities, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This measure will no doubt have an impact on the community I happen to represent. It's a community I'm certainly very proud of. It's very colourful; it's very vibrant—much like the community of my colleague the member for Werriwa. But our communities are not rich communities.

The average household income in my community is just a tad over $60,000. We're not a rich community. As a matter of fact, my community's made up heavily of migrants and current refugees. So changing the income rate for all HELP thresholds from average weekly earnings to CPI is also a measure that will be hard-felt by many individuals in low socioeconomic backgrounds, certainly in communities like mine and, no doubt, those communities in regional Australia purportedly being represented by some of those opposite.

As the Southern Cross Postgraduate Association has noted, it will place an additional hardship on low socioeconomic HELP debtholders at a time that combines with a stagnant wage growth and a rising cost of living. The proposed lifetime borrowing limit also has an impact of eroding the underlying objectives of universal access enshrined in the HELP scheme and the importance of lifelong learning, including the ability of workers to upskill. This will prove critical, given the considerable uncertainty of a future workforce in this country. We are all looking to the future and what that might hold, what the future industries might be, and workers will be undergoing upskilling and training. But this will be putting university education beyond the grasp of many in that situation.

At a time when we have significant economic transition we should be investing in our people, not making it harder for them to get a university qualification. Australian students already make the sixth-highest contribution to their university fees in the OECD. As Catriona Jackson, the deputy chief of Universities Australia, has emphasised, when contemplating change to the magnitude of this, there should be a first principle in the legislator's mind: do no harm. This government, quite frankly, has done the exact opposite when it comes to education and, in this case, higher education.

The changes to the HELP scheme are simply budget driven, and it's all about supporting the government's $65 billion tax cut to the big end of town. These measures are not fair, they're not good for universities and they're not good for students. On that basis, they cannot be good for the future prosperity of this nation. In the words of Margaret Gardner, I call on the government not to slam the door of opportunity shut, once more, to Australia's bright minds. Our nation cannot afford it, societally or economically. We must restore our nation's investment in Australian students and, in doing so, our investment in Australia's future.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is it with conservative governments and access to opportunity and education for all—no matter what your postcode, no matter your gender, how much your parents earn, your race and your religion is? It took the Whitlam government to open the doors of opportunity for tertiary education. Prior to that, my mother and my father were bright, young Australians—bright, young Victorians. My mother grew up in a Housing Commission house in Preston in Victoria, just down the road from an abattoir. My father was sent off to do a trade, to become an electrician at the ripe old age of 15 because his parents couldn't afford for him to go to university. My mother was dragged kicking and screaming from high school—she also had to leave school at 15. She would have loved to have matriculated, as she calls it, but she was denied that opportunity, thanks to the conservative government that was running this nation for so long and that denied opportunity for young Australians from working class backgrounds and from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It is the tradition that conservatives deny opportunity to those who are less well-off, to those who are doing it tough. My mother and my father are testimony to that. It wasn't until the Whitlam government and the opportunities that he opened through tertiary education—through free education for so many Australians—that I and my sisters, so many other Canberrans and so many other Australians were the first in their families to be educated.

What did that mean? For me it meant an awful lot. My father left me, my sisters and my mum with $30 in the bank in the seventies, when I was 11. There was no child support agency then, so things were pretty rough. I've spoken about this many times in this chamber, about the fact that we used to eat out every second or third night at family or friends' houses because mum couldn't afford to put food on the table every night of the week. On the nights of the week that we actually did eat at home mum invariably didn't eat, because she was on a seventies diet. The reality was that she couldn't afford to feed herself and her three daughters.

So I come from what I call a working class matriarchy. My great-grandmother was a cleaner in the Western District in Victoria. She left school at 11, denied choice and denied opportunity. She brought up 13 children on her own. She was denied choice and opportunity because she left school at 11. My grandmother left school at 13, and was also a cleaner. She worked three cleaning jobs in hospitals and theatres in Victoria. She brought up seven kids on her own in a Housing Commission house in Preston. Her abiding fear was that the state was going to take her children away. The reason she had that fear was not that she was a bad mother—she most certainly wasn't; she worked three jobs to put food on the table—but that she was poor.

When my dad left my mother and my sisters we were facing the same sort of cycle of disadvantage that had dogged three generations of the working class matriarchy of my family. But, thanks to the power of education—thanks to the transformative power of education—I broke that cycle, my middle sister broke that cycle and my little sister broke that cycle. Here I am, thanks to the transformative power of education, because it is a game changer. It is a silver bullet. I broke that cycle of disadvantage—three generations of disadvantage—and now I have the great honour of representing my community here in parliament. Thanks to the opportunity of education, my middle sister is now Australia's first female Master of Wine, and a scientist and a winemaker in her own right. My little sister is a neurologist, a world expert in dementia and stroke.

What was the game changer? What was the reason for this whole cycle of cleaning and cleaning, denial of opportunity and choice, poverty and disadvantage? The timidity with which you lead your life, where you don't think particular parts of the world are the right place for you, was because of lack of education. As a result of access to education, my sisters and I have been able to live bold lives determined by the choices and opportunities we sought. Education is the silver bullet, the game changer, and the opportunities, choices and game-changing abilities it provides are constantly denied by those opposite, through barriers such as this legislation, to all students, particularly disadvantaged Australians of low socioeconomic backgrounds and people in regional and remote Australia.

The government, as my colleagues have said, is proposing a new minimum repayment income of $45,000 for compulsory repayment of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP. This change is absolutely outrageous. We've heard from the member for Fowler—I commend him on that speech—that Australia has the sixth-highest rate of student debt in the OECD, yet the government is making it even more onerous for students through these changes. This government is busy giving out $65 billion of tax cuts to the top end of town, yet is continuing to target students in universities right throughout the country. We're not just talking about the University of Sydney, the University of Canberra or the University of Melbourne. Shame on those opposite who represent regional and remote communities for talking in support of this bill! You are denying the young in your communities the opportunity to have a big life.

This government has already cut $28 million over the next three years from the Australian National University in my electorate. Last year the government introduced a plan to make students repay their HELP debts on incomes as low as $42,000; they're currently looking at making it $45,000. Labor opposed that change then and opposes this change now. University graduates face a housing affordability nightmare, a spike in the price of utilities, a second-rate NBN, cuts to penalty rates—the list goes on. Now the government wants students to start paying back their fees at an unreasonably low income. It is unfair: $44,999 sole income is not a lot of money. It's $865 per week. The average rental price for a house in my electorate of Canberra is $540 per week. Factor this in, and university graduates are left with just $325 each week to pay for utilities, transport, mobile phone bills and groceries. This amendment would add student fees to that already long list of expenses. And, if a sole income earner had any dependants, it would force them close to the poverty line. Can you imagine trying to pay back the debt and deal with those utility costs, particularly rent here? The average rent here in the electorate of Canberra is $540. If you've got dependants, it's mighty tough. The government is asking people to pay back their student loans before they even consider what they'll be able to feed their family.

Students in my electorate are already struggling with the prospect of paying back these debts. This amendment will change the future of students who have planned their life after university. Students will feel forced to take a job they may not have studied for because the salary's bigger, just so they can pay back that loan sooner than expected. I've heard of students who, as I said, are doing it tough—rent, utilities, and just trying to get food on the table. We all know that textbooks are expensive. They're always a huge hit for parents doing it tough at secondary schools and they're a huge hit for students doing it tough at the tertiary level, because we are looking at hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars for textbooks.

I've heard about the concerns amongst Canberra's students about this proposal. They are very, very concerned about it. Some of them are wondering whether they'll continue to study. We've got a student who says she feels betrayed by the government, particularly if this amendment's passed. She labels it 'a new level of pressure'. These students are already under significant pressure and here they are faced with a new level of pressure by this conservative government—another cut in education. It's just constant.

The 2014 budget was probably the piece de resistance when it came to the tone, values and principles of this conservative government opposite. The government haven't learnt from the 2014 budget. Nothing has been learnt from the 2014 budget. It's just constant attacks particularly on those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly on those doing it tough, particularly on those from regional and remote Australia, and particularly on the disadvantaged.

Not only is education about opportunity but it's about fairness. The same opportunity should be offered to every Australian, no matter where they live or what their income. I've spoken about my story and how it unleashed so much opportunity and choice for me and my sisters. I am blessed to have participated in a quality public education and am blessed to have participated in free education as a result of a Whitlam government—a government that realised the opportunities for all Australians in innovation, in creating a modern society, in creating an inquisitive society, in creating a curious society. It was a government that realised the wonder that is offered up as a result of education.

Then we've got conservative governments. We started with Menzies and then Fraser, and now we've got this Abbott-Turnbull government, a government that has never, ever had one plan for education. It's had multiple plans, and they were all about cuts—at the secondary level, at the tertiary level, at the vocational level. Since this government took office, $17 billion has been cut from our schools, nearly $3 billion has been cut from vocational education, and Australia has lost 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. My electorate of Canberra has seen a 30 per cent decline in apprentice and trainee graduates since this government's been in power. And, with universities, we've seen cuts after cuts—$2.2 billion worth of cuts nationally; $28 million worth of cuts from here in Canberra under this government. It was Labor that opened the door of universities to 190,000 more Australians, many of whom were the first in their family to be educated. This government just slams it shut in their faces. (Time expired)

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor does not support this bill and nor do I. I believe that a university education should not be denied to anybody. My parents would dearly have loved to go to university, but they came from families where it was financially not possible. My parents went without so that my siblings and I could have a good, quality education, and that included a university education. I am privileged and honoured to be here representing my electorate in this parliament, and that is as a result of my hard work and the university education that I had. I have two brothers, one who is principal of a boys college and one who is executive principal of a large secondary college, and I have a sister who is a family law barrister, all because our parents worked hard to ensure that we had the opportunity they were denied—that is, a university education.

This then begs the question: what is wrong with the entitled members sitting opposite me on the government benches, given that a large number of these Turnbull government members have happily risen to the top of their careers and entered this parliament on the back of Labor policy? Many government ministers and backbenchers have benefited from Labor's free higher education, yet when they come to power in government they simply slam the door shut in the faces of others.

There are a number of Turnbull government ministers who attended university between 1974 and 1988, when students did not pay fees. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other frontbench figures, such as our former Attorney-General, George Brandis, and the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, are among those who attended university when education was free. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott received a free university education. Foreign Minister Bishop, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, Treasurer Scott Morrison, and the Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, attended university for one year when education was free. The Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, the former Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, and the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Michaelia Cash, also attended university for at least one year when their education was free. In total, seven Turnbull government ministers were at university when students were not charged fees, while the other eight would have had at least one year of free university education. It is an absolute disgrace and a blatant demonstration of double standards that these Turnbull government elected representatives have benefited from a Labor policy—that is, a free university education—but they in turn feel justified in making it harder for anyone else wanting to attend university.

Labor has always been a party of high aspirations for all of our citizens. Labor has always said that it should never be your financial status that decides whether or not you can attend university. Whether you are a young kid from Kelso or from inner Sydney, Labor does not discriminate based on your postcode. No matter who you are, Labor believes that you have the human right to access education in order to better yourself and increase your contribution to society.

Labor is very aware of the strong links between education, quality employment and prospering economies. The skills of the future will be taught in our universities, and particularly in regional universities. Yet this government is hell-bent on punishing students from disadvantaged backgrounds by denying them the opportunity to attend university and to build a competitive Australia, because they most likely will not be able to afford to attend university. That is why Labor opposes this bill, and that is why I once again say I am proud to stand with Labor and fight these unfair cuts. The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 is an unfair piece of legislation that attacks students and undermines the fairness of our world-class student loan system. The MYEFO package of $2.2 billion cuts is the government's fourth attempt since coming to office to cut university funding and make students pay more.

In all of Australia there is only one degree that is internationally ranked, and I am proud to say that it is at James Cook University, in my electorate of Herbert. ANU, University of Queensland, Monash—none of them can lay claim to having an internationally ranked No. 1 degree, but James Cook University in Townsville, North Queensland, can. Yet this university will be severely punished by this unfair cut. James Cook University holds the prestigious honour of being awarded the No. 1 status for a marine science degree, yet this government is cutting $36 million to James Cook University. James Cook University is a genuine regional university that was built by the blood, sweat and tears of local business people because our community dared to dream that our young people, whose families could not afford to send them south to study, could study at home.

Then there is my university, Central Queensland University, where the Turnbull government is cutting $38 million. These are universities that are embedded in regional Queensland communities. These are universities that strive for excellence to deliver across vast distances and provide quality education for all regional, rural and remote Queenslanders. Clearly the Turnbull government is totally unaware and out of touch with regional Australia and, in particular, Queensland. This government does not understand that the participation rate in universities in regional communities is almost half of what it is in metropolitan universities. Linking funding to population growth is absolutely unfair and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the regional challenges.

In the last couple of weeks, I attended graduation ceremonies of both JCU and CQU, with both delivering outstanding results. It was really exciting at both ceremonies to witness young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students receiving their degree awards. It was great to see international students coming to our great city to study at these quality universities. This is particularly the case at JCU in the marine science area.

It is unfair and it's a complete rip-off to students. At last year's budget, the Turnbull government tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. Now the government is proposing a new rate of $45,000. It's still far too low. Why is this government changing the threshold when new graduates are really struggling? New graduates need time to get their feet on the ground, to establish themselves in their chosen career and not be forced into a state of anxiety as to whether they can afford to immediately start to pay their HELP debt, pay rent and survive. It is not fair that new graduates will have to choose between paying their HELP debt or saving to buy a house. It is also not fair to make graduates choose between starting a family or paying their HELP debt. There are a large number of graduates who are barely surviving whilst trying to make ends meet on a wage of $45,000 a year. In my community, rental prices are high, cost of living is expensive and energy prices are through the roof under this government, so students and graduates are already doing it tough. This government's decision to lower the income threshold to $45,000 for graduates to start to pay their HECS debt is just another burden for them to carry. It is unfair and it does not reflect a fair go for all. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

In my last meeting with James Cook University Vice Chancellor Sandra Harding, we discussed how we want more people enrolled in higher education across North Queensland because higher education leads to greater employment choices and opportunities. Across North Queensland, we have some of the highest rates of unemployment in the country, and that is particularly the case for youth unemployment. A university education is the beacon of hope for employment. A university education is the vehicle that will deliver the industries and jobs of the future. University education builds a community's capacity to grow its economy. But the Turnbull government is hell-bent on strangling North Queenslanders' hopes for future employment based on a quality university education. These added burdens on students and graduates will not entice people to enrol at university. Placing additional barriers and making it harder for students to pay back their debts will simply deter students from enrolling at university, and that is the very last thing we need in regional Queensland. In regional Queensland we need to create an environment that increases participation and does not make it harder.

Experts have warned Australia that if we do not boost participation in post-secondary education we risk being left behind by the rest of the world. But this back-to-the-future government probably wants that. This is 1920s style thinking from the government. If you want a country to get back on track, then you must invest in its people. In a time of significant economic transition, we should be investing in our people, not making it harder for them to get a university qualification.

Labor has always been a party for the people. Labor is the party for the many and not just the few people who have healthy credit cards and a strong social status. Labor does put people first. But it's pretty clear that the Turnbull government have only ever had one plan for higher education, and that plan is to cut funding and make students pay more. Of course, that always affects those disadvantaged in our community. It is critically important in regional Queensland, and particularly in my electorate of Herbert, that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people have the opportunity, once they finish high school, to access a university education. Financial status is not an indicator of capability, but it is an indicator of ability to participate. Australian students already make the sixth-highest contribution to their university fees in the OECD. But the Liberals can't help themselves. They have consistently tried to make students pay more. Why? That is the question. It would appear, at the moment, it's all about paying for their $65 billion tax cut for wealthy corporations. We've seen it in schools, with a $17 billion cut. We've seen it in the vocational education and training sector, with nearly $3 billion cut and more than 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships lost since the Liberals came to office. In my electorate alone, that is 1,591 apprenticeships. Again, we see it in universities with a $2.2 billion cut.

Labor delivers real reform to higher education in this country. When Labor was last in government, it lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Labor opened the door of universities to 190,000 more Australians, many of whom were the first in their family to go to university. Coming from that situation myself, I completely understand what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to attend university when you know how desperately your parents would have loved to have had that opportunity. The Liberals, through their latest round of cuts, are slamming that door firmly shut for many people in our community. The Turnbull government will never be a government for the people. They are a government for the top end of town.

Investment in people starts with education. However, this government have completely missed this fact, as they are completely out of touch with people. I don't think we can emphasise enough how absolutely important it is that we invest in the people of this country, that we invest in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, and that we also invest in the people who are leaving the defence forces, people who need to reskill or get skills to transition into new employment. University is the ticket out of poverty and disadvantage. I urge this government not to make these severe cuts to university funding.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight, in my comments regarding the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 I particularly want to focus on its impact on rural and regional Australia. Today, in this place, I introduced a private member's bill which spoke of the importance of positive discrimination in favour of, just as my colleague has just expressed, rural and regional Australia, and that one size does not fit all. So I want to take my opportunity tonight to further that argument. I want to take the opportunity to ask the government to seriously consider a regional strategy that actually takes holistic thinking and looks at the national good and at how we, as a nation, can educate ourselves, have the workforce that we need and have the economic growth that we need, as a direct result of good education.

I just can't enforce enough in tonight's debate, as I know many of my colleagues have, the fundamental importance of education—tonight we are talking about post-school higher education—as one of the pillars of a developed nation. What I'm so sad to see in the discussion we've had from the government is the lack of a vision, the lack of a strategic approach, in how education is going to come together to be the driving force that we need. In the five years that I've been in this parliament, higher education and the government approach to it has been one of the significant disappointments with the lack of vision, the lack of a way forward and often the lack of partnership in our ability to actually move forward.

I wanted to talk a little bit tonight about my electorate of Indi, why this topic is just so important and why I think that the changes are going to have a negative impact on my community. I quote from Higher education information navigation: an exploration of parent information needs in the Hume region, presented by Regional Development Australia and RDV. It says on page 6:

It is of concern, therefore, that the Hume Region has some of the lowest educational outcomes in Victoria. For example, the region shows lower retention rates for Years 7-12 than the average for non-metropolitan regions. The region also has an estimated 22% of young people leaving school through years 10-12, in comparison to metropolitan Melbourne where only 15% of this cohort leaves school.

The percentage of people aged between 25-34 years in the Hume Region in 2006 with a Bachelor degree or higher was 17.35%—

Let me read that again:

The percentage of people aged between 25-34 years in the Hume Region in 2006 with a Bachelor degree or higher was 17.35% compared to the Victorian rate of 30.4%. Hence, the region has just over half the Victorian average of people aged under 34 years with a university degree.

They're shocking statistics, and I live in a really well connected part of Australia. We are getting better internet. We've got trains that sometimes work. We've got roads that work. Yet we've got those appalling statistics for young people accessing tertiary education.

So what happens? The young people leave. It's our biggest export. The consequences for a nation that doesn't pay attention to this are really serious. Obviously you have bigger cities, but not having a young, educated, well-trained cohort and not having universities in our regional centres to drive economic growth are just the most short-sighted policies we could possibly have.

So I'm beseeching the advisers tonight. I'm beseeching the minister to actually seriously do something about this, to do something about a region. If you can't solve the problems for the nation—and I get that it's complicated—surely for regional Australia we can begin work on a strategy and we can actually do something for the regions where I live and where those appalling statistics are in existence. Not wanting to be totally negative, my office has been working with the Parliamentary Budget Office to come up with solutions for how there might be some positive things we could do to make it easier and better for the regions. I've sent them across to the minister's office with some of the costings the Parliamentary Budget Office did around changing the HELP repayment-free period and amended it for rural regions. I've got all the details but, in summary, they came back with an expected fiscal balance impact of minus $9.7 million over the 2017-18 budget forward estimate if we just changed the payment-free period. This is such a small impact compared with the government's expected saving of over $3.8 billion.

So I say to the colleagues in the House: at what cost do we keep going with this track of making higher education harder and harder to get and we as a nation not accepting the responsibility I believe we have not only to give people equity but to actually provide education, which provides the driving force for our regions and will enable the whole of regional Australia to take its place in the nation in the years ahead? By this legislation, by not paying attention to the impact on the regions, we're really working against the ability of our regions to do that.

I say to my colleagues here tonight: you can make some great friends listening to what I've got to say, because it's not just me who thinks this. Clearly I'm on the back bench. I'm an independent member of parliament, but the Rural Universities Network put out a press release that says:

The Regional Universities Network (RUN) strongly endorses Cathy McGowan MP's motion on regional universities before the House of Representatives, and the need for a National Regional Higher Education Strategy.

That's the RUN universities. La Trobe University's John Dewar supports strong local campuses because we need them for regional development.

The thing I really want to bring to the House tonight is a letter from what I thought was a most surprising ally—and please forgive me for making that assumption—the Group of Eight. I have a letter today from the Group of Eight and I'd like to read it into Hansard as part of my speech. It is signed by the Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive of the Group of Eight, which represents the universities in our cities:

Dear Ms McGowan,

As Chief Executive of Australia's leading research universities, the Group of Eight (Go8), I'm writing to you to offer my support for your Private Member's Bill, the National Regional Higher Education Strategy.

There often appears to be the view that the Go8's teaching and research is confined to the major cities. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Go8 remains committed to ensuring not only equitable access for students to higher quality education, but also long-term sustainability and economic growth for the regions—

as should the government be, let me say. The letter goes on to detail the Go8's contribution to regional Australia:

that's our great export—

They tell me they invest in outreach to regional communities, which of course they do, and it's important. But the point is: imagine the situation we've got today. Here I am on the back bench, independent and a strong advocate for the regions and I've got the Go8 onside, we've got the rural universities onside and I'm beseeching the government to please do something to make sure that the unintended consequences—and I say that kindly—are not going to be felt in the long term by the nation because at this particular time we fail to pay attention to the impact of this legislation before the House tonight on rural Australia. I don't know how to say it other than the consequences are going to be enormous for us. We can't say we didn't know because the debates in this House tonight were so strongly put forward by my colleague from Herbert talking about the impact on rural and regional communities.

I really want to say to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to the advisers in the House tonight, to my colleagues on the government side and to the members of the National Party, in particular: stand up for your principles and your values, and stand up for rural and regional Australia. And to members of parliament from the Liberal Party who represent our regional electorates, I say: stand up for rural and regional Australia. Just don't let this go through tonight. It's poor law. It's poor law and it will have incredibly bad consequences for us.

What is so distressing and so disappointing is this sense that one size fits everybody when clearly with university education we need to differentiate. We need to make the case that those in the regions need special treatment. Government has done it in some areas—there's a limited loading there, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to actually address the imbalance of those statistics that I put up earlier. Seventeen per cent of my young people are going on to higher education—it's an appalling figure. It's something we really should be ashamed about. Certainly, it's something that I absolutely want to see changed. Part of the reason why I became a member of parliament was to do something very specifically about accessing higher education in the regions.

I say to the minister: it's time for a vision, and, if you can't have a vision for the whole of Australia, could you please have a vision for regional Australia? Could you please really consider the call from the Go8 and the call from the RUN universities and work together on a strategy that, over a period of time, will deliver equality. Sure, equality is important, but then it will deliver us a trained workforce. We are doing all this international work to bring foreigners to the country because we can't, in the regions, get enough of our own labour force, yet we do nothing positively to make sure that our young people are trained in the jobs that we've got. We've got so many jobs that we could have people working in in the country. It just seems to me quite ludicrous that we're not addressing the labour shortage in this most obvious way by training people in the regions, which seems so sensible.

The third area, to me, is so obvious. I'm on a committee at the moment, with many government members and opposition people, looking at regional development and decentralisation. It's a very productive committee to be on. We are working together to say, 'How do we grow the regions? How do we use decentralisation as a tool of government?' Universities have to be one of the most cost-effective ways—cost-effective investment of government money—for growing our regions. So much money goes from the Commonwealth coffers into the regions. It's such a good opportunity for us; with such a small increase—or appreciation of the impact—we could have the most amazing multiplier effect.

It's a call from the heart to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to my colleagues on the government side. Really, if you can't support us on the move here, could you please pay attention to a regional strategy and work with the parties so we can make sure that in the longer term, when we look back on this particular parliament, we can say: 'That was the year the government got the regions. The government got the role of education in supporting the regions and helping the regions be the answer that they can be to so many of the problems this nation is facing'?

I bring my comments to a close with a real call-out to the advisers in the box tonight and to the minister: reconsider your decisions around a regional strategy for rural and regional Australia.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by reiterating all the things that have been said on this side of the house, in relation to this. Labor does not support this bill. This legislation is completely unfair and attacks students and undermines the fairness of our world-class student loan system. As I have said in this place many times before, one of the things that led me here was a comment made by my Liberal predecessor, Jackie Kelly, when she famously decreed that Western Sydney did not need a university; we were pram city. The people I get to represent—people like me, back then, as a 20-year-old—didn't deserve to have a university in their electorate, because they were capable of producing babies and nothing more.

That's the difference between us and them, really. Outraged as I was at the time, my only ability, or the only thing available to me at that time, was to write a cranky letter to the editor of my local newspaper about my disgust. I'm glad Jackie Kelly's comments weren't heeded. But now, a few years later—just a few; I was 20 then and am only a few years older than that now—I get to stand in this place and defend the thing I came here for originally.

I'm really glad that her comments weren't heeded. Instead, we have Western Sydney University right in my backyard. It's a university whose alumni I belong to, in fact, as does my mum, the first in our family to go to university. Through uncapping places, Labor opened the door of university to 190,000 Australians—many more who were the first in their family to go to university. This resulted in huge increases in the number of students going to university in Western Sydney, a place that is the jewel in the crown and a place where everybody comes to launch their campaigns. We've had former Prime Minister Tony Abbott coming into the electorate and spruiking all things great about Western Sydney—well, fund my university.

Labor delivers real reform to higher education in this country. When we were last in government we lifted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion—almost double—in 2013. But that growth will come to an absolute standstill because Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, has effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of university places, taking us back to the bad old days of John Howard when your family's income and bank balance determined whether you could go to university or not.

This MYEFO package of $2.2 billion worth of cuts is the government's fourth attempt, since coming to office, to cut universities and make students pay more. These cuts do real damage to our universities. At last year's budget they tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. Now they're proposing a new rate of $45,000. It's still too low when facing the crippling costs of higher living and no wages growth, not to mention penalty rate cuts. That is too low for people to afford to live and pay back their debt.

We believe the current repayment rate is about right. We don't want to make students repay their debts when they are starting a career, saving for a house or starting a family. But what do we see from this coalition government? We see $2.2 billion in cuts to universities, and Western Sydney University is the second-worst affected by these cuts. Sixty per cent of the students who attend the University of Western Sydney—or Western Sydney U, as it's now called—are the first in their families. That is a staggering figure: 60 per cent are the first in their immediate extended families to be able to go to university. That is an extraordinary number. Families in Western Sydney want their kids to have a great education.

That extends to me. When we talk about City Deals and 30-minute cities, closing down the University of Western Sydney by defunding it and these cuts by stealth are not helpful. They will not create the 30-minute city this government constantly rattles on about. The people of Western Sydney and Lindsay in particular are being let down by this government. My community faces fewer employment opportunities in traditional jobs like manufacturing. Families in Lindsay need to be prepared for the jobs of the future. They want a learning pathway for their kids to give them a better job and a better life. Education will make a difference to the lives of people in my community. We need our kids to stay in school and go on to TAFE or university. I'm not even going to start on the VET sector tonight; I don't think we have enough time on the clock to talk about the cuts and lack of apprentices we now have.

The Turnbull government should properly fund universities and not attack students through these measures. I was privileged to attend O-week at the University of Western Sydney and talk to students excited about their future, their opportunities and the jobs they'll get when they have finished their degrees. They talked about their anxieties about HECS repayments when they're done. These students, most of whom have casual jobs and don't get support from their families, because their families are struggling to get by, don't need to be slugged any further by this government. These are not the wealthiest students going to university; they are from hardworking families, some from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds.

It is pretty clear the government only ever had one plan for higher education—that is, for cuts and to make students pay more. To make matters worse, the New South Wales Liberals, who are spending $2.7 billion on demolishing and rebuilding two Sydney stadiums, are deaf to this problem as well. The Turnbull government is effectively slamming the door to educational opportunity in the faces of Western Sydney kids. Enrolments in university under Labor increased by 60 per cent in the seat of Lindsay. The University of Western Sydney will be the hardest hit, as I said before, with $93 million worth of cuts to funding. That is the greatest cut to any New South Wales university and the second highest to any university in this country. In 2016, the latest year with available data, about 25,000 women were enrolled at the University of Western Sydney out of a total of 44,000. Just over half the students were women. Instead of being supported, students are getting locked out. We are already facing an uphill battle, with the level of tertiary qualified people in my electorate sitting well below the state and country averages. We need to lift that, so we need more investment out there.

The Liberals' funding cuts also mean that the University of Western Sydney's critical programs that reach out to people in communities and ensure a pathway or option to get into university for everyone who wants one, and industry and government partnered programs, are all at risk, as is the Launch Pad, a great initiative built under Labor during the time of David Bradbury, a fantastic former Labor member for Lindsay. We built this Launch Pad, which is now serving as a tech hub. We have heaps of start-ups in there building 3D printers that were formerly being built in people's garages and are now being exported all around the country. This funding cut threatens that exact site, the place where we are training young people for the jobs of the future.

These programs are focusing on addressing the pronounced equity gap in education in my area. We know student debt is a genuine barrier to study for anyone in a low-SES or disadvantaged background. We should be doing all we can to increase participation in higher education, not making it harder. Why do we put challenges and hurdles in the way of our young people? Why don't we roll out the red carpet and give them every opportunity? They'll be here long after I'm gone. They'll be here making things and adding to our GDP well and truly after all of us have finished. Why are we making it harder? It is not good enough that these students are being left behind by this government. It is an especially cruel blow to the hardworking year 12 graduates who are now denied a place at university. Kids who studied last year and thought, 'Yes, I will get into university,' were denied a place because of the funding caps. Kids are starting their year 12 careers now, looking to go to university, and there is just so much uncertainty for them. They can have goals and aspirations but, because of this government, may have the door closed smack-bang in their face.

It is incredibly galling to see Malcolm Turnbull ripping funding away from students to pay for tax cuts for multinationals and millionaires. I think that's what leaves the foul taste in the mouths of so many people on this side. It's that we can seem to find $65 billion in the Treasury coffers to give to the big four banks, for example, who have already announced that they're going to slash 6,000 jobs, in the face and on the backs of those university students. How does he justify making it easier for big business to pay less tax but harder for kids who are 17, 18 and 19 to go to university? These are kids who just want to get ahead, who just want a decent job and who just want to be productive members of our communities.

Learning is a lifelong journey. I learnt that when I was studying to be a teacher back at university in 1999. It is a journey that starts well and truly before we are born and continues right up until the day we die. We need to make sure that our universities are there for everyone when they want to attend. The coalition government wants to slam the door on that lifelong journey.

We know that the disadvantage some families in my seat of Lindsay are facing prevents them from being able to go to university. In times of significant economic transition we should be investing in our people, not making it harder. The people in my community need a decent, well-funded university that supports their desire for a better life. People in Lindsay are calling out for courses at the Western Sydney University city campus, right in the middle of Penrith, to make it more accessible to go to university.

As Tanya Plibersek has said, Labor understands that a strong university sector needs certainty and stability. You can't do anything without a stable policy. This undermines all of the planning that universities are able to do.

Taking away the 9,500 university places that are estimated to be unfunded in the coming 12 months, this government is again being cruel and out of touch—I don't think that they ever had the touch to be honest. They are denying opportunities to a better future and it's an absolute rip-off in the faces of those young people. But they can't help themselves. They have consistently tried to make students pay more, and why? All to pay and fund their $65 billion tax cut to big business, on the backs of hardworking students, who just want to get ahead. They say that it'll trickle down, but we're yet to see any evidence of that, and I can't find an economist who tells them that it's going to trickle down and rain on their heads.

No wonder the people of my community, and of Lindsay, feel incredibly let down by the Turnbull government, and the Abbott government before them. We deserve better. We deserve better than people who think that we're only capable of producing babies. We deserve better than people who think that all that we can get is an airport out there that's all the effects of a 24-hour airport. Where we have planes flying overhead 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Where we don't get investment in our people.

We've seen funding cut after funding cut to education. In the VET sector we've got 140,000 fewer apprentices than in times past. We're seeing this absolute demolishing of the funding for the Western Sydney University. Once again, Labor will not support this cruel, out-of-touch policy, and I ask those opposite to reconsider their support for this $65 billion tax cut on the back of university students.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've often spoken in this place about the government's priorities and how they impact on everyday Australians. Have you ever wondered where students and universities sit on the scale of those opposite? You need to look no further than this bill that we have before the House today.

I want to acknowledge the member for Griffith, who has moved a second reading amendment to this bill, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, and place on record my thanks to her for moving this amendment, which is that the House declines to give the bill a second reading, because it attacks students and would undermine the fairness of Australia's world-class student loan scheme. I know the member for Griffith, alongside our deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, had been listening and consulting with the student sector, as we all have as representatives in this place. In one way or another we all represent higher education students in our combined electorates across this country.

The bill attacks students. It simply attacks students and undermines our world-class loan scheme, which has been a proven success for decades. I want to place on record how proud I am that Australia's higher education system is world leading. It supports more than one million students, both international and domestic, and our universities, as we've heard, directly employ 120,000 people and support another 40,000 jobs. Our higher education system must be protected. But, just like with everything else, it seems this government is hell-bent on tearing it down. And this MYEFO package with $2.2 billion worth of cuts will be the fourth attempt of the government's. I say again: it is their fourth attempt, since coming to office, to cut universities and make students pay more. It's not just the second or third time; this is the fourth attempt they've had at going after Australia's higher education students with a cheap tax grab.

The government, as we know, are relentless when it comes to attacks on students. In last year's budget, they tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. Now they're proposing a new rate of $45,000. How generous! The government want to increase the threshold and want to be congratulated for it. They simply either don't understand the ramifications that this bill will have on Australians trying to earn a living who have a uni or TAFE debt or they're deliberately targeting those who can least afford to pay it. Either way, in my books, it's a shameful act.

But this seems to be the common theme within the Turnbull government. Pensioners, jobseekers, young families, you name it—if you're a working Australian doing it tough, then you're in the government's sights. Whereas if you're one of the big banks you're in line for a tax cut. The hypocrisy is astounding. In this bill the government has raised the threshold from the previous attempt of $42,000 to $45,000, but the truth is it's still too low. $45,000 is barely more than the minimum wage, and would mean Australians with a HELP debt on low incomes would be required to make repayments. This change would also have a greater impact on women, particularly those who have returned to the work force part-time after taking parental leave. For example, Australians with a HELP debt earning $51,000, most of whom are likely to be women, will have less disposable income that someone earning, say, $32,000. How is that fair?

What the government doesn't like to talk about is that the lower repayment threshold for HELP debt will also apply to TAFE and vocational students who take out VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans. This means some of the hardest working but most modestly paid people in the country will be affected. That means people with a diploma or advanced diploma qualifications, like early childhood educators, enrolled nurses and technicians, will be caught up in this. We know that this week thousands of early childhood educators will be walking off their jobs as part of the Big Steps Campaign. They are highly qualified professionals, yet are paid one-third less than those teaching and caring for children just a few years older. Despite the incredibly important work they do, many early childhood educators are paid as low as $20 per hour, half the average national wage. Making matters worse is that 97 per cent of educators are female, which only further widens the gender pay gap in Australia. Because of these measures and their inadequate pay they will be paying their HELP debts well into their forties. These are the people who will bear the brunt of this government's awful piece of legislation we have before the House today—not big bankers, not executives and not those with mansions down by the harbour side. No, it will be childcare workers, teachers and nurses. It will be those who can least afford it. Once again, that doesn't seem to faze this government.

Australia's future economy will require a high-skilled workforce, and this bill does nothing to support it. In fact, the government is going out of its way and making deal after deal with One Nation, to prove that point. Just last week we saw One Nation, the so-called party of the battlers, do a deal to deliver $65 billion in tax cuts for the big end of town, in exchange for 1,000 apprenticeships. That is nothing more than a pathetic con job. It is selling out young Australians in particular. We know that since this government came to power Australia has lost over 140,000 apprenticeships—a decline of over 35 per cent.

Locally, the apprentices in my electorate of Oxley have been hit harder. Our community has seen the loss of almost1,500 apprenticeships, which is equivalent to a 43 per cent decrease, and the signs are that this will only continue to get worse. The 2017 budget cut a further $637 million from TAFE training and apprenticeships, and the government's proposed Skilling Australians Fund, which is supposed to deliver 300,000 apprenticeships, has been widely panned as unworkable. It seems the only thing the government is interested in is lining the pockets of the big banks and, as we know, foreign investors, while Australia's apprentices and students are left behind.

I wonder whether those opposite are actually aware of where Australia currently sits in the OECD as far as public investment in universities is concerned. Are we near the top? Not even close. About mid-range? Nah. Australia has the second lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD, and this government only wants to make it worse. In contrast, our students already pay the sixth highest fees in the OECD. So we're towards the bottom, or the second lowest level, for investment in universities but our students are paying the sixth highest fees in the OECD. And we know that the fee hikes in this bill will only make that record worse.

I'm proud to represent the people of Oxley, in the south-west of Brisbane, in this place; however, for some of them things can be tough when it comes to going to university or TAFE. We know that high student debt is a genuine barrier to study for low-SES and disadvantaged students, so why would this government possibly want to make it harder for young people who are trying to pull themselves out of the cycle of disadvantage by furthering themselves at university or TAFE, and harder for parents who are trying to support their kids? We should be doing all we can to increase participation in higher education, not putting up extra barriers to further education and training, yet that is what this government is doing to young people in this country.

Picture this, Mr Deputy Speaker: four years from now, as a 22-year-old, you have recently graduated with a degree in engineering and you can't wait to take the skills and knowledge you learned at university and apply them to the real world. The past four years of university have been tough. Since moving out of home you have had to fork out the expensive rent that comes with living near enough to the closest capital city university. You've been working casually more than 20 hours per week—maybe in a cafe, maybe late at night—to support your study. But it's been made tougher since the government cut penalty rates. Sundays used to bring that little bit of extra cash to help with the groceries, increasing electricity costs or just getting to and from university on public transport, but getting your pay cut, as a young person, hasn't helped with this.

Nonetheless, you've graduated from university and you're ready to take on the world. However, you quickly learn that the job market is pretty tough out there and finding employment in your field isn't easy. The youth unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 24 is still double the national average. You're desperately keen to get your foot in the door, so you take an admin role at a leading engineering firm until something opens up for you. The starting pay is just 48 grand but it's better than nothing. You soon learn that, because of the government cutting the threshold for HELP repayments, your take-home pay is now even less.

On top of hoping to land an entry-level engineering job, you also hope to save a home deposit. But, as the government has done nothing about negative gearing, house prices have continued to rise. The average modest home on the outskirts of a capital city will now set you back $500,000. With tight budgeting you're able to save $50 per week. The bank will require a 20 per cent deposit, meaning you have to save $100,000. At your current rate, this will take 2,000 weeks to save, or the next 38 years of your life.

It's pretty sobering, but that is the story facing thousands of young people right across the country. It is the story I hear when I'm out doing mobile offices at Orion shopping centre or Jindalee Village or the Forest Lake village near my own home. Parents say, 'Milton, I'm worried my kids can't get a long-term job but I'm more worried that they'll never be able to have the great Australian dream.' What we're seeing today very clearly, in clear language, is: we're going to hit students with higher fees, we're going to give them higher bills and we're going to make them pay them off sooner.

Among my Labor colleagues on this side of the chamber I note the member for Macquarie, the member for Brand and the member for Chifley have been, in particular, outspoken advocates in the area of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds getting ahead. That is a key reason I'm in this place—to make sure that the kids who have the brains, the abilities and the talent can reach their full potential. It should be government helping them to do that. Instead, we've got a government with a lousy set of rules and bills before this parliament today that are simply not going to achieve that.

It's why Labor has recently announced a national inquiry into post-secondary education, a once-in-a-generation national inquiry that will look at every aspect of the vocational, educational and higher training systems to ensure they can best respond to the needs of Australia's economy and society. It's about making sure that Australians have access to the best post-secondary opportunities in the world. We all want our kids to get the education and the skills they need to thrive. We need to make sure Australians have the opportunities of lifelong learning. It makes good economic sense. We are competing against a fast sector across the South-East Asian market. If Australia is to be a wealthy, highly educated nation, we must boost participation in quality post-secondary education. It's pretty clear that other countries in our region are not doing what this parliament is doing tonight. They are investing in education and skills. Experts have warned that if we rest on our laurels Australia risks being left behind.

We on this side of the chamber know that we delivered real reform to our universities. We invested in universities. We lifted funding from $8 billion to $14 billion in 2013. We opened the doors to our universities to an additional 190,000 Australians, many the first in their family to attend university. Why did we lift participation in universities? Because it's good for the individual, but it's better for the economy. We know that a qualification, be it from TAFE or uni, can set you up for life. We know that many jobs of the future will require a post-school qualification. Yet tonight we are making a decision which is going to make it harder for kids to get ahead. The minister at the table may think it's funny. He may think what I'm saying is not serious, but the reality is that with this bill tonight we will make it harder for kids in his electorate and kids in my electorate to get post-secondary education.

We know the reason the government is keen on this. There's only one reason this government exists. Let's be clear: it's to make sure that those at the very top who rely on government support—the multinational companies and the millionaires—are looked after. And at what expense? The expense tonight, on this day of parliament and in this moment in time, is to slug the university students of today and tomorrow to pay for that. Well, I say I'm not going to support it. Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, say that our side of politics will not support it. We believe in a better way—more importantly, we believe in a fairer way. Tonight I call on the government to abandon what I call a reckless policy that threatens the viability and future of students attending higher education, and to stand with working Australians and middle-class Australians—the people whom we are sent to represent in this chamber—to protect the right of every Australian to better themselves through university, further education, or TAFE.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be a lot said about allowing access to education, and the impacts that the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 will have. I'm very pleased to be able to speak against this bill, because that is the key. As the member for Oxley has outlined, it's the disincentive that it creates and not just the cost that it forces still-young people to bear while they're trying to move from university and transition into a working life.

I want to tell you the story of Ellie. Ellie struggled to get through year 11 for a whole lot of family reasons. She was a bright student, but it wasn't always a place where she could concentrate. However, she made it through year 11 and she made it through year 12. In fact, she did so well that she was offered a place at university. She was to be the first person in her family to go to university. That seemed like a fantastic thing to start with—the idea that you get to university and this whole life would open up for you. At the time, she looked at what the costs of surviving university would be, but not the debt she would accrue and pay back—that conversation came later, and that whole process in itself was pretty daunting. But Ellie was lucky that she had people around her who said, 'You know what? This is worth it. This is an investment in yourself that is worth it.' And that was in spite of other voices saying to her: 'Why do you want to go to university? You're going to do an arts degree. That won't get you anything. Why don't you go and do hairdressing?' Well, Ellie wasn't terribly gifted at hairdressing, so that wasn't an option. But what appealed to her was the unknown of a degree at university.

So, in spite of different voices having different influences on her, she did accept her place at university. She went to the University of New South Wales and she began her arts degree. As luck would have it, Ellie thrived in that environment, but that doesn't mean it wasn't hard. Anyone who has taken a child through their first year of university knows the challenge of those first assignments: the tears, the late nights, the computers not necessarily doing what they ought to do and the struggle—not just the struggle of the practical but the struggle of the mind when you're struggling to deal with stuff you don't understand—but the very process of being at university and working through it is where you get the benefit.

Ellie got through this process. She got through her first lot of exams. She got through her next lot of exams. She got midway through second year, and suddenly the debt that she was carrying started to weigh on her. She started questioning herself: 'Can I actually repay this debt? I'm doing an arts degree. Will I ever get a job that will allow me to pay back all this money I owe?'—and by then it was already more money than she could ever imagine paying back. Again there were good people around her to encourage her, to keep her going, to say: 'You know what? This is the hard bit. You're halfway there. Keep going.' She managed to get through, but always there were other voices saying to her: 'You don't need to do this. You don't need to be worrying about this. You could go and get a job.' Fortunately, Ellie stuck with it throughout it all. There were lots of tears. She finished her final year, she did really well, she got offed a place to do honours and she did honours—the first in her family to have a degree and the first in her family to have an honours degree.

When I think about this legislation, I think about the one extra straw that it would have taken to dissuade someone like Ellie from going down a path that is hard. If anyone sits here and thinks, 'Oh, what a bludge, going to uni,' you have obviously forgotten what it was like going to university or you sailed through it differently from most of us, because it is hard. You are struggling with things that are making your brain explode. When I see legislation like this I think, 'Is this really what we want to do to young people? How much hope and possibility do we want to take away from them? How much debt do we want them laden with?' That's one aspect of it. And then, as they move from one phase of their life to their next, how much do we want to make it hard for them?

Clearly the government has decided it wants to make it a bit harder than it already is—in fact, significantly harder than it already is. I think the Prime Minister and this government think that, for students who are transitioning into the work environment, it won't really matter to them. I talked to some young graduates about their budget. I asked them what it would look like to repay on $42,000 a year instead of starting to repay their debt on an income of $45,000 a year. Here are the sorts of things that they told me.

For a budget for someone who's just graduated from a university in Sydney and has a job nearby, let's assume that the weekly take-home pay of someone who is earning, say, $45,000 is $736. That's the weekly breakdown. So let's do a weekly budget. Let's assume this person is trying to avoid the two-hour commute each way from the Blue Mountains or the Hawkesbury, which my electorate covers, but is happy to do a bit of commute into the city, so they rent in Strathfield. The average rent for a three-bedroom house is $680, and they pay a third of that. That leaves them with $510. Let's take away the cost of their mobile phone, their train tickets to get to work each day and about $150 a week for food: they now have $300 a week left. Then you've got the house-running costs, such as the cost of home internet, because, of course, we all work in a mobile world, and the chances of their job being nine to five, clock-on clock-off are pretty remote. Like all of us, they will be working late from home. Hopefully they will be able to download the odd Netflix here and there, but I haven't got that in the budget so I'm not sure that's going to be a viable option unless they can share someone's Netflix account. They've got their home internet, their water and their electricity, and those average at about, let's say, $200 a month—about $50 a week—and that's very conservative. Now they have $250 a week left, and that's if you somehow manage not to get a shock electricity bill for summer or winter. But that's only $250 left after the basic costs come out.

Now that doesn't include putting in for your fair share of cleaning products in the house, nor does it include medical, dental or optical expenses. It doesn't address occasional costs like renewing a licence, maybe paying a fine, replacing a broken phone or computer, getting a haircut, or even joining a local sporting team or the gym. If you have a car, that's at least $50 a week in petrol and whatever the weekly breakdown of rego and insurance is. I haven't mentioned home contents insurance; of course, young people find that really stretches their budget. What if the washing machine carks it? What if you get a hole in your shoes in the rain? What if you're using a dodgy washing machine and it rips one of your tops and you need to replace it? There is no room in this budget for buying new clothes. You sure as hell can't afford to go out to dinner to celebrate a friend's birthday. You probably can't afford to buy your mum much of a birthday present or a Christmas present, and you certainly can't have a pet. You might be able to afford one of these things: maybe you can allow yourself a haircut one week; the next week you might get petrol; you might go to the doctor the next. There really isn't even room for two of those things to happen in the same week.

I don't actually think that you've got the opportunity to think about having children, buying a dog or buying your first home. There really isn't room in that budget. That is what we are saying; that's how you should live. What about a deposit for a property? Well, to get a deposit for a $600,000 property in the situation that I've just outlined, that person would have to not spend a cent outside of the bare necessities budget—certainly no children and no medical expenses or one-off expenses, like replacing a fridge. They could not buy one item of clothing, eat out, buy friends or family gifts, or even get a haircut. If you saved every one of those cents for five years, you might get yourself a bit of a deposit for your home. Of course, in that time the costs will have gone up and so you'll need even more.

So this is what this government thinks is a suitable position for people to be in when they start paying back their HECS debt. This government wants to stick its hands into the pockets of people and take a chunk of the $250 that's left over. Not only do I fear that this will leave young people short of enough money to live properly, to eat properly and to look after their health properly, but the feedback I get is that it will absolutely reduce the number of people who even consider going to university in the first place, and that would be a tragedy. It's a tragedy for our economy, because our future depends on people, young and old, wanting to educate themselves.

We know that accumulating a student debt is a genuine barrier to study for people from particularly poor and disadvantaged backgrounds. We already know that. It isn't an unknown; it's not a possibility. It is a fact. We also know that investing in education gives more back to society in the long term than it costs us in the short term. Let's picture Australia in 20, 30, or 40 years from now, and ask ourselves the question: do we want people who are doctors, nurses, journalists, teachers, engineers, planners, scientists, health professionals—anybody who requires a university degree—only to be coming from wealthy and privileged families? Do we only want one type of person who can afford to do those courses? We're already seeing an imbalance in professions like veterinary science and medicine. This sort of legislation is going to exacerbate that. I would have thought we'd want a mix of people. We want industries to be filled with people of different colours, different abilities and different genders—people from rural and regional Australia, Indigenous Australians, and people who know what it's like to go to school with a pair of shoes that has a hole in them.

Debate interrupted.