Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note that this is not my first speech. Today we have a chance to deliver relief—real tangible relief—to over three million Australians by supporting the government's proposal to reduce student debt by 20 per cent. Yet we are being told by some in this chamber and outside it that this move is not good for Australians. I ask you: which Australians are you talking about? For the Australians that I know—the students struggling in two casual jobs to pay rent, the young families trying to save for a house while paying back debt for degrees they finished years ago and the regional kids who left everything behind just to have a shot at uni—this 20 per cent reduction will change their lives. It will mean breathing room—a chance to build, to plan and to contribute more fully to the economy, not five or 10 years from now but now, through lower repayments.

Let's be honest: for too long we've told young people that education is a public good while treating their debt like a private burden. Indexation has quietly outpaced wage growth. Their debts have compounded while the previous coalition government allowed wages to stagnate. Students then accrued thousands in interest before they even reached the repayment threshold. The HECS system was morphing from a safety net into a slow anchor, dragging down the very people we rely on to power our future.

In Labor's last term, we changed the way HECS is indexed to fix the issue of unfair debt growth, and now, when this government proposes immediate financial assistance—wiping 20 per cent off that burden—some dare to say it's not fair. What's not fair is a 22-year-old graduate owing huge and increasing debt for a degree that society demands but refuses to value in dollars. What's not fair is that student debt has grown faster than the housing market and faster than real wages and we've just told young people to keep quiet and keep paying. What's not fair is the fact that people are deferring life milestones—starting families, buying homes and launching small businesses—not out of choice but because their debt holds them back. We are not talking about luxuries here; we are talking about dignity, about fairness and about the right to pursue an education without being trapped by it for many years to come.

This is not just a policy fix; it is a signal that the government sees them, hears them and values their contribution. It's also economically smart. Reducing student debt gives young Australians more spending power, more capacity to invest in their future and more confidence in their financial footing. This isn't just a social good; it's economic stimulus. Let's not forget that, when we invest in young Australians, we are investing in nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists and social workers. These are not future hypotheticals; these are the very people holding up our society today, and we owe them more than silence.

So, no, I will not just sit here while some pretend that student debt relief is a handout. It is a correction, and it is about restoring faith in government education policy. By backdating the cut in debt to 1 June, we are fulfilling our campaign promise—a promise we made to Australians and promise they voted for. To disregard the wishes of Australians is undemocratic. It is an insult to our political system and the core of Australian values. To those who claim this is not good for Australians I say this: young Australians are not a side issue. They are not a future issue. They are Australians now. This policy—this 20 per cent reduction in HECS debt—is something we are doing for their future and for ours. Support this measure and give these Australians a fair go. Let this chamber send a clear message today that we don't just talk about opportunity, we deliver it, that when young Australians speak, we listen, and that their future is worth fighting for, because it's our future too.

My question for the minister is: what will the proposed changes mean for students and young Australians right across the country, and why has the government taken this approach?