Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I think I should start with something that we can all agree on in this place and agree with the member for Corangamite—that education is an investment. I think all members on both sides of this chamber value education. I think members on the crossbench, in the Labor Party and among the Liberals and Nationals all regard helping young people achieve their full potential as something that we should aspire to in this place, whether that is through a university degree, through TAFE or through pursuing a trade. Helping young people achieve their full potential is something that this parliament should always be aspiring to achieve.

I have noticed over a period of time that those opposite seek to assert some sort of moral authority when it comes to education debates in the chamber. But, when it comes to this bill, trying to seek some moral authority is somewhat misplaced and unjustified. For those on this side to raise concerns about the bill which passed today through the House of Reps is more of a reality check than anything else. There is an electoral reality which comes with this bill which deserves to be called out and has been call out publicly. How did we get to this point? I'll tell you how we got to this point. In October 2024, Newspoll had the coalition leading for the first time since 2022. The issues that were important at the time were cost-of-living pressures and allegations of moral cowardice over the attacks on Israel. They were the issues that led to the Newspoll result in October 2024, according to the commentary at the time. In November 2024, on Newspoll, the coalition's primary support had reached 40 per cent for the first time since 2022. The Prime Minister's lead as preferred prime minister was down to just four points, and his net approval rating was minus 15. So, if you're wondering how we got to the point where the Labor Party made this announcement in November 2024, this is exactly how we got to that point.

Last November, you had to tie a chop around the Prime Minister's neck to get Toto to play with him. He was unloved by the Australian people, and his Newspoll numbers were tanking. This was a break-glass decision by the strategists in the Labor Party to try and buy back the votes in the seats where they were needed the most. And it worked. I'm not begrudging for a second the electoral result. We all enter politics trying to achieve a majority, and this worked. As a vote-buying scheme, pork-barrelling on an industrial scale, it worked. The Labor brains trust, the Minister for Education and, I assume, the Prime Minister himself deserve to be acknowledged for that. But that doesn't change the fact that the proposal is deeply flawed.

Economists themselves have described this measure as exceptionally bad policy which favours the rich, doesn't help with the current cost of living and does nothing to encourage higher education. Economist Chris Richardson also said it's a reverse Robin Hood in that it is basically stealing from the poor to pay the rich. Andrew Norton from Monash University said:

… it is a very expensive and poorly targeted program which delivers huge benefits to those with high debt, while delivering nothing to those starting next year and those who finished earlier …

It is inherently unfair. The measure is not means tested. It punishes people who have done what they can to repay their debts. In effect, 27 million Australians will be paying for the debts of three million Australians. As I said, this policy did resonate with young people because they were experiencing the heat of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, where the price of everything was going up, and they felt locked out and let down by Labor on the issue of housing as well. The cost of education was obviously a major concern, and it will remain one unless the government gets serious about systemic reform. So, when it comes to those opposite coming in here and claiming some sort of moral high ground on education with this policy, just for a second, consider the electoral reality of what we're talking about. This was an industrial-scale vote-buying scheme. It was tertiary-level pork-barrelling, and the proof of that is when you look at the electoral map and understand the disproportionate benefit that accrues in certain seats compared to others.

The chutzpah of my good friend the education minister when he comes to the despatch box and extols this as some sort of great education policy is something I admire. I give credit where it's due. Electoral success was required in the inner city, where the Labor Party was particularly under attack from the Greens, where members, including the member opposite, were fighting off a strong challenge. They needed to find a way to buy back the votes of young people.

What we've seen since the election is the city-country divide and the fault lines that exist. If you want to understand it, it's because regional Australians have been left behind by a government that makes no apologies when it comes to buying the votes of metropolitan people with things like the HECS debt reduction. These are the figures from the Parliamentary Library. In my electorate of Gippsland, 12,777 people will benefit, but it helps 28,009 students in the Prime Minister's seat of Grayndler and 25,901 people in the education minister's seat of Blaxland. That's double the number of beneficiaries in two ministers' seats compared to the seat of Gippsland.

The data from the Parliamentary Library indicates the average number of people who stood to benefit by the scheme in seats that were held by the Nationals in rural and regional Australia in the lead-up to the election was 13,384. However, in the seats held by the Greens in the city, which were the key targets for the Labor Party going into this election, the average number of people who stood to benefit was 32,288. There are two and a half times the number of beneficiaries in those inner city seats. So if you wonder why country people are calling bulldust on this proposal, you would perhaps understand it when you see the disproportional benefit that flows to the inner metropolitan areas.

This was industrial-scale, tertiary-level vote buying, with working class people picking up the tab for students who will earn more over their lifetime as a result of their university education. We know—study after study has shown us—that the lifetime earnings of people with a university degree are on average at least $1 million more than those of people without the benefit of a taxpayer subsidised university education. Just imagine if just some of that $16 billion went to address the barriers which exist for rural and regional students seeking to access a university degree. Yes, the cost of living is a real issue for those students. Moving away from home and finding accommodation—these are real issues that they face. That is why the people in my electorate of Gippsland have much lower participation rates in tertiary education, unless you believe the kids in my electorate are stupider than the metropolitan kids.

We participate in university at a much lower rate than the metropolitan kids because of barriers to entry to university in the first place. The costs of moving away from home are enormous. The legislation that went through the House today did nothing to address that barrier, nothing to address the disadvantage, because the Labor Party could not care less about people in rural, regional and remote areas because they don't represent them. It's a simple electoral maths of the policy which is before the House today and which won the support of the inner metropolitan areas at the last election. Just imagine if some of that $16 billion had gone to addressing disadvantage in rural and regional areas, rather than retiring the debt of some of most advantaged and privileged people in the nation. This is a short-term fix for a long-term issue. As I've indicated, the challenge remains for communities like mine to reduce the barriers for young people to go to university, and it won't be addressed by a $16 billion sugar hit paid for by lower income people to students who had the benefit of a taxpayer subsidised tertiary education.

Labor needs to be honest with the Australian people about what will happen the next time the Prime Minister's Newspoll numbers tank, because it will happen again. There will be no honeymoon this time. There will be no honeymoon whatsoever for a government which has lost its way in so many areas. When the Newspoll numbers drop again, will we have the 'break glass' option of the Prime Minister? Will he wave around his Medicare card this time, making false claims? Or will it be back to the well of student debt, seeking to buy more votes in those metropolitan areas? If this is the case, the government must be transparent about it. We want real reform in education to benefit all Australians, not industrial-scale, tertiary-level vote buying, which is an embarrassment to the Labor Party and to the people who pretend to assert some sort of moral authority over those on this side of the house when it comes to education in this nation.

The House transcript was published up to 21:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

See this speech in context