Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1936:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 38 (line 15), to be opposed.

I have moved this amendment to effectively separate the Startup Year provisions from the rest of the bill. As I've indicated, the opposition supports other measures in the bill—being, the provision in relation to the increase to the Australian Research Council and the classification of Avondale University—and of course the amendments we just passed.

I profoundly disagree with the minister's characterisation of the Startup Year provisions in this bill. The Startup Year provisions, as I discussed earlier in this debate, present a very high risk to students. This scheme is meant to start in a couple of weeks. It is such a mess that the guidelines have only just been tabled. The universities are very concerned that they weren't able to consult on the guidelines which underpin how this scheme will operate. The principal concern the opposition has is that it subjects students to such high risk—a full-fee-paying course and a debt of up to $23,600, which will go up each and every year because it's indexed. This will expose students to enormous risk.

What is so nonsensical about this situation is that this is a solution in terms of a problem. We are strongly supportive of accelerator and incubator courses. We have led the way and championed the need for student entrepreneurs to be supported. There are, as I mentioned earlier, more than 100 accelerator courses available through universities around this country. But while the universities have mooted their support in the Senate inquiry, after being scathing in the earlier consultation, and while this looks and sounds like a good idea in principle, the fact of the matter is that the government is asking students to pay through the nose for courses they can currently do for nothing.

These are courses that are delivering. I mentioned earlier visiting the UTS Startup Hub, as one example. The UTS Startup Hub has more than 800 students enrolled. Last year alone they created, through businesses developed through the Startup Hub, some 570 jobs. These accelerator and incubator courses are available all across the country and the universities are doing a great job. Regrettably, the government has not made out the case to impose this very significant debt. These are not even Commonwealth supported places; these are full fee-paying courses. The government has not made out the case as to why it would impose such a significant debt on students for doing courses that they can currently do for free. The value proposition is not there and the benefits are just not discernible.

While I appreciate that the universities would love more HECS revenue, the universities have not been able to explain what courses would be offered, because they don't know. That's why we've also put forward a number of amendments to protect students. I'm deeply concerned about this when looking at the huge acceleration in HECS debt and at how Labor's cost-of-living crisis has driven up indexation to the highest indexation rate in more than 30 years: 7.1 per cent. That means an average increase in an Australian student loan of some $1,700 in a year. The government has not made the case as to why it would support student entrepreneurs by slamming them with this horrendous additional debt. That's why we're seeking to split the bill; to support the other measures in the bill and to oppose the startup provisions.