Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) and (2) on sheet 8411:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 11 (line 11), to be opposed.

These amendments effectively oppose schedule 1 of the bill. There is a second set of amendments—that's (2). The second set is reliant on amendment (1). If we can deal with amendment (2) first, I'd appreciate that.

These amendments effectively scrap the changes to the repayment threshold as outlined by the government. It is the government's intention to make life harder and harder for university students, particularly once they graduate. The Universities Australia 2017 Survey of University Student Finances conducted by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, released today, suggests that one in seven university students are being forced to go without food because of living below the poverty line and that one in three students have expenses that outweigh their income. Students are already living day-to-day trying to struggle through their university education. This government is focusing entirely on what students are costing the budget rather than doing anything about the daily budgets and struggles of students to cover the basics like food, rent and textbooks—not to mention public transport costs to get from home to work, if they work part time, and then, of course, to university.

The reason schedule 1, which amendment (2) moves to scrap, should not proceed is because it is fundamentally unfair. The Greens amendment strips out the repayment table from the bill itself which changes the thresholds and rates of indexation at which students repay their debt. The amendment opposes the changes in the bill to reduce the minimum repayment threshold from $51,957 to $45,880 and to adjust all the thresholds accordingly. Of course, we oppose the increase to the maximum repayment rate of 10 per cent and we oppose making students pay back their debt sooner, once their income hits that threshold.

We are extremely concerned that, at a time when we have high unemployment—particularly youth unemployment—and low wages growth, this is a double whammy for young people right across the country. We're opposed to the changes as outlined by the government to the thresholds and repayment rates because we do not believe that the problem facing Australia today is being solved by forcing young people to have to carry this burden themselves, making them pay back their education debt sooner and at a higher rate, particularly when we know that students are struggling every day to cover living expenses when they are studying and when they are very soon to graduate. Requiring former students to begin repaying their debt when their income ticks a shade over the minimum wage is effectively a $400-a-year tax increase on some of the lowest income Australians. Only last session there was a vote in this place to give high-income earners a massive tax cut. In exchange for that, because the government doesn't have as much money in its coffers as a result of those income tax cuts, we are now seeing university students having to carry the burden. While politicians might be getting $11,000 in their back pocket in a tax cut, we're forcing young Australians to pay an extra $400 effectively in a tax increase. It is simply unfair.

Young people are living on budgets without any fat to trim. They are living pay cheque to pay cheque, week to week, from hand to mouth. The Liberal government—Minister Birmingham and his colleagues—doesn't seem to care about the real impact that these changes are going to have on some of the country's lowest paid workers. The Liberal Party are determined to slash the weekly budgets of former students so that they can crow to the world that the federal budget is looking good. Of course, the government continues to not just hand out billions of dollars in tax cuts to wealthy Australians but also flog the dead horse of wanting to give tax cuts to the big banks and corporate Australia. All the while, workers in this country are struggling on stagnant wage growth—and for what? Why is the government doing this? What problem are they actually solving?

The architect of the HECS system, Bruce Chapman, said that the value of the stock of outstanding debt is in fact not an issue. This is how the system was designed. We don't have to worry about this. In his words, 'There is no crisis in this system.' This is one of those clever tactics of the Liberal government. Create a crisis, invent a solution and think that everybody is going to pat you on the back and say, 'Job well done.' If this government wasn't spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and giving the big banks a handout then perhaps we'd have the money to fund education properly in this country. Every other developed, smart, democratic country in the world is looking at their education system at a time when the nature of work is changing so quickly and when unemployment is on the rise. Other countries' governments—whether it is the UK, France, New Zealand or even, dare I say, the United States—are looking and saying, 'How can we be supporting education better?' Retraining and ensuring that young people in particular can get the education they need for the new look of the workforce are what the government should be investing in, not making it harder and harder for the next generation of workers. There is no crisis in the education system except for the fact that young people are struggling to pay their day-to-day costs while they're getting an education.

There is, of course, a crisis when it comes to wages. Wage growth remains sluggish and stubborn, and the cost of living is rising every day. The wages of everyday Australians are getting worse and worse in comparison. We will never solve a crisis in wages by taking more money from low-income Australians, and that is what this bill does. Make no mistake: this is an attack not just on young people but on low-income Australians right across the country.

The government says that, 'This increase means graduates will only lose $8 a week.' I've heard the minister say this himself, and it just shows how out of touch this government has become. It may not sound like much to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Education and Training, but for low-income Australians who are struggling week-to-week to pay the bills, to put food on the table and to pay for their public transport costs, $8 a week is a hell of a lot. In Adelaide, if you're to go to university, it's $5.50 to catch public transport from the outer suburbs into town. A wages cut of $8 a week will make a big impact on those young people being able to get to university or, indeed, to their new job if and when they graduate. It's more money going from the grocery budget to the federal budget. It's more money that isn't going to be spent by these people on bills and household costs. It's not 'just $8 a week' to someone who is struggling to make ends meet, and there are a hell of a lot of these struggling Australians right across the country. In my home state of South Australia, where youth unemployment is through the roof, these young people cannot cop another whack. It's a $400 a year increase in taxes, effectively, and $8 a week less in their pocket.

This is a government who thinks that this is all okay because they themselves are doing all right, their mates in big business are doing all right and the banks are doing all right. Here in this place, the Senate voted in the last session to give politicians an $11,000 tax cut, so we're doing all right. But young Australians are not. We should be investing in students who invest in themselves. Instead, we're shaking them down for their loose change. How about we shake down the big banks for some of their loose change? How about we shake down some of corporate Australia for their loose change? How about we force them to actually pay the taxes they owe the taxpayer? How about we do that rather than forcing young Australians in this country to cover the bills of this government's outlandish tax cuts and handouts to the rich in this country? That's what the amendment does, and I look forward to receiving support for it from various parties in the Senate.