Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise for not being here at the start of the committee stage of the debate. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, the Democrats want to indicate in this committee stage our opposition to the schedule of the bill relating to increasing the amount that can be accessed through FEE-HELP. The Democrats oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 5 (line 2) to page 6 (line 25), TO BE OPPOSED.

I outlined the reasons for this in reasonable detail in my second reading contribution, so I will not go into them at great length again here. I accept that there are arguments both ways on this particular approach. It is a reality that the fees that students have to pay are going higher and higher. Therefore there is very good reason to increase the amount that is available to assist them through FEE-HELP even if it means assisting them by putting them into even greater debt. The counterargument is that increasing the amount available through FEE-HELP facilitates the ability to charge higher fees by making people more likely to be able to afford them even if that is in the immediate term with the consequence of a larger long-term debt.

The Democrats’ concern is that, by increasing the amount that can be accessed through FEE-HELP, in a way you are partly facilitating the continuing increase in the overall amount charged through fees. But I accept that it is an argument that has valid positions on both sides of the approach that could be taken. I also very much agree with Senator Wong that the key action that is needed is to take an approach that directly addresses the problem, which is the extremely high fees that students have to pay.

We had that very clear-cut commitment by the Prime Minister that we would not see $100,000 degrees in this country. Not only do we now see them: we see degrees whose cost is much higher than that. This is completely inequitable. It is against our national interest as well as being unfair for many individuals who are less able than others to afford to pay such exorbitant fees. It reinforces the reasons why the Democrats have consistently and continually argued against fees and charges being imposed on people wanting to access higher education. We believe that education should be an investment rather than a cost. Clearly, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, we have an approach where we have had a dramatic under-investment in education, in higher education and in other areas of skills and knowledge development. We as a nation are all now paying the price for that. That is the real core of the debate.

The Democrats’ opposition to the schedule really goes to one of the ways in which we deal with the symptoms of the problem. Our concern is that by increasing the amount that can be accessed—the debt that people can go into—through FEE-HELP, which is a curious name, we are facilitating or enabling the continual increase in fees. The counterargument is that the fees will continue to go up anyway and that, if this is the only way that people can afford to undertake study, it should be made available to them. The real solution that is needed—but that unfortunately this government is not addressing—is the solution to the core problem of the outrageously high fees that Australian students have to pay.