|
representatives vote 2020-10-19#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-10-23 10:04:47
|
Title
Bills — Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020; Consideration of Senate Message- Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 - Consideration of Senate Message - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Kevin Hogan</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be agreed to.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-10-19.36.1) to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for speeding things along and voting on the question immediately without further debate.
<p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>Year 12s have had the year from hell this year and, right now, one in three young people is looking for a job or looking for more hours of work. It is the very worst time to be making it harder to get an education. We should be wrapping our arms around these year 12 kids and making it easier for them to go to TAFE or to university when they finish school.</p><p>Those opposite are waging a bizarre ideological war on the humanities departments of universities around Australia, and it's so ironic—richly ironic—because you could make up an arts faculty from across their front bench. In fact, the Minister for Education himself has three arts degrees. He has spent more time in university humanities faculties than Noam Chomsky. And what about the Treasurer? The Treasurer has got two arts degrees himself. He's got a Master of Public Administration from Harvard and a Master of International Relations from Oxford. You can picture him there, can't you, in the black academic gowns, sitting there with a don at Oxford, explaining why it's such a waste of time to get a humanities degree. The Minister for Health has got two arts degrees.</p><p>This Liberal Party arts faculty runs deep. The Attorney-General has a Bachelor of Arts with honours. The Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts has an arts degree. The Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business has a Bachelor of Arts. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has a Bachelor of Arts. The Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure has a Bachelor of Arts. And that's even before you get to the back bench. We've got the member for Mitchell—the only people who have spent more time on university campuses are the international socialists selling their newspapers. The member for Mitchell is a student politician from way back. He spent years at university getting his two arts degrees.</p><p>Do these people think that their arts degrees are worthless? No. But they want to deny other people's kids an arts degree. What they want is for university to be a small, exclusive club. They're allowed in and their kids are allowed in, but other kids aren't. Other people's kids aren't allowed in. Can you imagine? What are they planning? They're planning arts degrees—arts/law degrees—for $14½ thousand a year. Do you people know what you are voting for when you vote for degrees that cost $14½ thousand a year? A degree like mine, a four-year degree, would have cost $58,000. As someone who graduated in the 1990s going into a recession at a very hard time, I can tell you what my parents would have advised me if I'd gone home to them and said, 'I'm going to take on a $58,000 degree, and I'm not sure that I'll get a job at the end of it when you look at the labour market,' they would have said: 'Save your money. Save for a deposit for a house. It's a tough world out there.' These are the decisions that working-class families are making right now. Do we want to take on an American-sized university debt?</p><p>Given the employment market that those people opposite are delivering right now, we know that youth unemployment, high as it is now, will be persistently and stubbornly high for years to come.</p><p>Year 12 kids sitting their exams—some of them today or later this week—are thinking about the fact that the degree that they set their heart on years ago is now going to cost them more than $40,000 and, in many cases, more than $50,000. That is the choice of those opposite. What they are voting for today—make no mistake—is $40,000, $50,000 and almost $60,000 degrees because those opposite don't see the value of an education for ordinary Australian children.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>One of the great divides in Australian politics is attitude towards education. We see education as being about creating opportunity; those opposite see it as entrenching privilege. That's what we're voting on here today, because it isn't rich kids who'll be discouraged from going to university. It's not my son or the sons or daughters of other politicians. They can afford to go to university. It is those young people out there today who might be the first in their family to finish school and who are thinking about whether they will take up that opportunity—not whether they're smart enough, because they've got the marks to get into university, but whether they will go or not. For a working-class young person out there in the suburbs and the regional cities, a $58,000 debt at the end of that process is a real penalty to them.</p><p>The member for Bradfield, who I was on Sydney uni SRC with—he had the same personality then as he has now—used to speak in those days about the importance of access to education, but he doesn't anymore. All the children who get the opportunity—and good luck to them—to go to those GPS schools will be okay. It's the kids in the local high school or the local systemic Catholic school who will be disadvantaged and discouraged from going to university.</p><p>We on this side of the House support university education. We support TAFE. We support schools. And—guess what, folks?—we support early childhood education too. That's why that was at the centre of the budget reply just a week ago. We understand that, with education, you can begin at the beginning. What those opposite have done in ignoring child care and entrenching privilege in university is a double whammy at both ends of the spectrum. They've said, 'We're not going to give you the best start in life and we'll keep you down later on in life as well.'</p> <p class="speaker">Jim Chalmers</p><p>'Know your place.'</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>They've said, 'Know your place,' as the shadow Treasurer says. That's their view of the world. They think they've made it and there's no need to allow access to anyone else. We think it should be on the basis of how smart you are. We already know that the truth is that, if you're from a background whereby you get to go to what they regard as the best schools, you have the best tutors and you have all of those advantages in life over a kid from a disadvantaged background who hopes for something better.</p><p>Those opposite speak about aspiration, but in everything that they do they try to keep people in their place, to keep those chains of class attached to people, keeping them down, rather than giving them the opportunity to be raised up. The fact is that on the motion before the parliament now, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, have they advocated strongly here? Have you heard them? There's been not a single word in support of crunching this change through. Everyone's just kept quiet, because that's what they want. When the Prime Minister spoke about appealing to the 'quiet Australians', what he was really saying was, 'Everyone else should shut up and know their place.' That's what he said. And this legislation is about entrenching privilege and opposing the possibility that people might actually get access to a higher education based upon how smart they are, not based upon the accident of birth. This is consistent with the approach that they have to education all the way through, from early childhood through to schools, the $3 billion that's been cut from TAFE, the 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees from when they were elected and, now, the ongoing attack on universities.</p><p>The fact is that an education doesn't just benefit individuals; it benefits the entire society and our national economy, and we should be competing on the basis of how smart we are in the Asian century, not trying to compete, as they want, on the basis of the lowering of wages and conditions.</p> <p class="speaker">Patrick Gorman</p><p>This is a knowledge tax on the students at Edith Cowan University, it is a knowledge tax of the students at Curtin University, it is a knowledge tax on the students at the University of Western Australia and it is a knowledge tax on the students at Murdoch University, let alone the University of Notre Dame. You tell us you've got these really bright people. You get vice-chancellors to come and serve in this parliament. You've got people who've got one, two, three or four arts degrees. And what do you do for those students? You increase their fees by 113 per cent. It is outrageous.</p><p>Not only are you content with reducing at the end of this year the income support for students and the income support for parents who might be working hard to study and get ahead for their family; you instead have gone and whacked a huge tax on students. You have left universities behind this year. You have 100 per cent ignored them. They said they needed JobKeeper, and you said, 'La, la, la—cannot hear it.' They said they needed support for research, and you said, 'Sure, sometime later.' And, in their soft, gentle, diplomatic way, the universities said, 'We need you to not pass this legislation,' and instead what happened? You're trying to whack it through. I sat in here when you whacked it through this parliament. You sent it up to the Senate.</p><p>I've got to say I'm disappointed in some of the South Australian members of parliament, who have enabled this legislation to go through in the Senate. There is no longer any difference between Centre Alliance and the Liberal Party when it comes to university policy. There is no difference when it comes to whether they actually stand up for students or just use them to fix this government's bottom line.</p><p>I think about Edith Cowan University in my electorate. Edith Cowan is a fabulous university. I note that I have in this chamber right now the first graduate of Edith Cowan University to serve in this place: the fabulous member for Cowan. She is from Edith Cowan and she represents Cowan. She is Cowan through—</p> <p class="speaker">David Gillespie</p><p>The minister?</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Hogan</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the question be put.</p>
|