If it’s been a ragged week for Prime Minister Tony Abbott; it’s certainly been a pretty sh*tty day.
An attempt to hit the reset button yesterday has apparently failed, as our PM kicked off his morning being torn to shreds by our favourite feminist/Today host Karl Stefanovik.
Alas, the worst wasn’t over for poor Tones with the Senate this afternoon rejecting the Federal Government’s push to deregulate universities – a move which would have allowed them to set their own fees. Labor and the Greens had warned that this new law would see the introduction of $100,000 degrees and create a university sector based on wealth and not merit.
Oh no – voted down! Say it isn’t so! (Read: WOOHOO!)
Education Minister Christopher Pyne, probably not having a great day.
Despite pleas from the Government and the promise of several last minute amendments, the Bill was voted down 33 to 31, according to ABC news.
The Palmer United Party (PUP) refused to support the reforms, as did newly independent senator Jacqui Lambie and always independent senator Nick Xenophon. Before voting PUP senator Glenn Lazarus said that “no amount of “texting, chocolates and red roses from Christopher Pyne” were going to woo him to vote in favour of the bill he’d previously touted as “bad to the core”.
The Greens and Labor have welcomed the defeat of the changes, but the Government – and you have to admire their perseverance to make education unaffordable, here – have not been deterred, vowing to introduce new legislation into the Lower House.
“It is disappointing that Labor and the Greens voted to shut down Senate debate on the Government’s higher education package before amendments could be considered,” Mr Pyne said in a statement.
“However the Government will not be deterred and will move to introduce a new higher education reform package into the House of Representatives.
“It will be passed and sent to the Senate early next year. Great reform takes time.”
Better luck next time Mr Pyne.
Top Comments
Thank goodness. I'm 30 years old, currently studying a Masters degree at a sandstone uni to retrain as a teacher, as after many years of working in PR I realised that teaching is my passion and something that I am very good at. So I've given up a well-paying profession (that I already have a degree for) to retrain in an essential profession which pays generally poorly, but which I am passionate about. I would not have been able to do this without the HECS system and a subsidised degree system. As it is, I've had to move home with my parents (who rent) in order to manage and am living off Austudy (approx $200/wk). It's not a lot of fun, but it'll be worth it in the end. But if my degree was to go significantly up in cost, I don't think I would have chosen to study again.
Thank you Senate, for ensuring that education is not only for the rich.
it seems many mama mia readers do not understand the proposed legislation. You do not pay up front for your degree you start paying back once you have a job and are earning over a certain amount. If you are unemployed, or have a job which pays less than the threshold you do not have to pay anything back. I had Hecs fees for my masters degree and I paid it off once I was earning over certain amount. its no big degree. Some people just want everything for nothing
Perfectly understand it. Still disagree with it. Please see many above commenters, (including myself) for points as to why it's not good policy, nor beneficial for Australia in the long term.
I don't think anyone is saying they want 'everything for nothing.' I think we can all agree that there is a huge difference between paying off a $30K HECS debt (the average four year degree costs between $18-30k apparently) and a $100,000K debt. That's years and years of extra repayments that will be deducting money from a persons wage and could seriously delay a persons availity to buy a home or have children. What's more, increasing the cost of degrees so drastically could prevent students from pursuing tertiary education. Why get a degree in nursing that costs $100k when your earning potential in that occiupation is half that? Education should be accessible to all, and the current system allows this.
I'm curious guest, are you able to provide a ball park figure of the total cost of your masters degree?
Emma,
That's the problem. The $100k figure has been bandied about but isn't based on any real evidence or facts. It's been used to scare people.
It's most likely that fees will increase by 20-30% rather than the 200-300% you're talking about.
If fees genuinely went up to $100k for something like nursing them there would be a massive nursing shortage which would then lead to a massive increase in wages for nurses due to demand for their services.. The costs of education aren't independent of the rest of the economy. The prices will be set by demand for the courses and economic benefit and salaries that are gained from those courses.