Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm very aware of the change in indexation, because I just spoke about it. Of course, late last year, in a mad scramble, the government did change indexation. It was pegged to CPI, and it's now the lower of the wage price index and the consumer price index. I don't appreciate being belittled, when it's clear that I understood the change in indexation. Of course, the only reason there was a benefit of some $3 billion delivered to Australian students was that wages were going backwards. That's the only circumstance where wages are lower than CPI. That says a lot about the Albanese government's mismanagement of the economy over the last term of this parliament.

So, Minister, I first want to ask you the question: would you confirm—and, so as not to mislead the Senate, make it very clear—that, currently, HECS indexation is uncapped, isn't it? That's the case, Minister. HECS indexation is uncapped; there is no fixed maximum ceiling. So, under your government's scheme, we could see a situation where there are high wages, a high wage price index and a high consumer price index, and Australian students and debtors will pay the price.

And let's not forget the changes to the repayment schedule. It's estimated that, for someone earning $70,000 and paying the minimum amount, that repayment will take in excess of 50 years. You're saddling so many young Australians—primarily women, because women are more likely to work part time than men—with the risk of having this debt around their neck for 50 years, the best part of a lifetime.

This is why—and, of course, this is something that the shadow minister has also very ably argued—the student debt discount is a short-term sugar hit. So I ask you, Minister, to be transparent in the Senate and please confirm that the HECS indexation methodology that currently applies is uncapped, as that's why this amendment that I'm bringing forward is so important.

Secondly, you've raised the prac payments. The university sector, on the whole, has rejected the prac payments, because the government was asking the university sector to basically operate as Services Australia and delve into the private information of students in circumstances where universities don't have that capacity. Universities are not Centrelink.

But to your point about prac payments: you say you care about young Australians, because the intention of the change in the policy that was announced at the last election—and, yes, I agree, it was announced very late in the piece, and I've raised concerns about that—was to ensure that students right across the board could benefit from prac payments, not just those doing nursing, midwifery, social work and teaching. So I would ask you why, Minister, if you're going to celebrate this prac payment scheme, the government has failed to include other students in the prac payment scheme. That was our proposal. We wanted to broaden the prac payment scheme so that every student would benefit, because—believe it or not—there are veterinary students out there doing the most incredible job in remote and regional Australia, where there are acute shortages, and they get nothing from this government. They are trying to make ends meet too. This is just an indication that the government doesn't care about students who do veterinary science. And what about those who study allied health? Why don't they matter, Minister?

I would say to you that every young Australian going to university or to TAFE—every young Australian embarking on tertiary studies—matters, so what the government has done with its prac payment scheme is to pick winners and losers. Medical students have also raised concerns. So I would ask you why those students were excluded from the prac payment scheme as well.