STATEMENTS

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (21:07): I couldn't agree with the member for Calwell more. It doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter, what your is postcode is—you should be able to get ahead in this country. I know the member for Calwell is a new member.

I congratulate him on taking over from Maria Vamvakinou—she was a great member and a great friend of mine—and I wish him all the very best for the future. But, just a memo: it's not going to be the Australian Labor Party that builds this nation; it's going to be people with their hands, with their skill and with their heart. It's going to be brickies, tradies, sparkies—those sorts of people are going to build our nation.

I appreciate the government has a mandate—call it that if you will; a desire, call it that if you should—to build 1.2 million homes. Well, you're not going to do that without people who largely wouldn't have gone to university. Now, I appreciate there'll be architects and all sorts of town planners who obviously have needed to go to university to get those degrees to be able to help build those homes, but largely it's going to be people who never went near a university, other than to perhaps do some tradie work around said tertiary institutions, who are going to build this nation.

And I wish them every success. I am a little bit disappointed that we've got a situation in the House of Representatives where we're making statements—not second-reading speeches, but 10-minute statements—on an important bill, because we should have given people the opportunity to speak on the legislation for 15 minutes. But the bird has flown the coop, the legislation is out of the House, and we're now making statements so that members can load this up to their social media and say to their electorates: 'Look at us, aren't we good.

We backed this bill in; we brought this bill forward.' As the member for Gippsland quite correctly pointed out earlier, this particular piece of policy was brought in because the polls were going south. It looked like the coalition—heaven forbid—might have snagged the election, and Labor needed to do something to appeal to young voters. It has appealed to young voters.

I appreciate that. In the old boundaries for the Riverina, 14,823 individuals will benefit. The average debt for them is $23,337.

The outstanding debt is more than $345 million. Why wouldn't those people be supporting this? I get that.

I didn't go to university. I didn't. My late brother and my three sisters didn't either, but my three children did.

One did teaching, one did accountancy, and the other one did policing. They have taken advantage of this great nation of ours to be able to get those tertiary qualifications at Charles Sturt University and to be able to fulfil their dreams in the occupations they chose. That is good.

Obviously, cutting their fees, and all those fees for young people besides, is going to help them get ahead. I appreciate that. I understand that, but it is also buying votes.

Let's be brutally honest: it is buying votes. I'm really worried at the moment. We've got a situation where Charles Sturt University, which my three children attended, have a $35 million deficit.

They're now looking at where they can make savings. The difficulty for them will be where they slash services and people to find that $35 million debt that they find themselves in. Now, obviously, people are going to lose their jobs, and that's a huge hit for a regional university with campuses in Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bathurst, Albury-Wodonga and elsewhere.

I've spoken at length to Professor Renee Lyon, who is the vice-chancellor, about what can be done and what should be done. I've written to the Minister for Education about this situation. I have not yet received a reply, but he's a reasonable minister, and I know he will reply in due course.

It is a situation that is diabolical. When in government, the coalition ramped up our regional university spending, and you've heard from regional members in this place in these statements—I won't stay on this bill, because the bill is gone. I listened to the member for New England's contribution; I listened to the member for Gippsland's.

The situation is that young people in the regions find it disproportionately disadvantageous, inasmuch as getting a tertiary degree, because there is the tyranny of distance. There aren't the university course offerings in country areas that students enjoy in city areas. That is why, as a coalition government, we put an additional $800 million into regional universities.

We set up the CUCs. I think that's a great system, whereby towns, all too often, imported their best and brightest. Those young students who would otherwise have possibly stayed were forced to go to capital cities, to the sandstone universities, to get the courses that they wanted.

I congratulate Duncan Taylor for the work that he's done with the CUCs. Sadly, I know we also need to look at getting more international students. I appreciate that a cap has been put on them, but they are often the ones to pay for regional universities to make ends meet.

The situation with this particular bill is going to benefit a lot of young people, but, again, where does the buck stop? It is taxpayers who are having to now find a considerable amount of money. It's $16 billion of taxpayers' money going to help young people, largely benefitting inner-city electorates, in particular those electorates that were previously held by the Greens, which are now held by Labor.

I always maintain that the worst Labor members are always going to be better than your best Greens member, but that's just a little aside. This is disproportionately helping city people at the expense of country people, once again. The situation is that $16 billion has to come from somewhere, but where does it come from?

It's borrowed from overseas. It's got to be paid back. The other thing is that you will find a university student—somebody with a tertiary degree—will, on average, over the course of their lifetime, out earn somebody who does not have said university degree.

Many people perhaps disagree with this statement, but a university is the best loan you'll ever get. It is. With HELP, a compulsory repayment must be made when you earn more than the compulsory repayment threshold.

In the 2025-26 income year, the threshold is $56,156. That advice from the ATO says that you won't have to start paying back your university debt until you're earning $56,156. A lot of tradies aren't earning that sort of money.

I appreciate that they also need support, and whilst I appreciate the previous speaker, the Labor member for Calwell, mentioned the free TAFE, TAFE is not free. It's not. There are situations in that particular policy area where you will get a lot of people who will tell you that free TAFE is a misnomer.

We ought to be doing just as much, if not more, for those people who choose not to go and get a university degree—those sparkies, those tradies, those brickies and all of those I mentioned. I remember the former prime minister Tony Abbott had a great tools-for-tradies policy that really benefited young people who didn't necessarily go to university. I know the instant asset write-off, when we extended it into the situation where it was unlimited—albeit as a COVID-19 bonus or supplement—did enable young people who were starting up their own business, who were perhaps doing a lot of the subbing work for building homes, were buying utes which they were then using as an instant asset write-off.

That's all gone under Labor. That's all gone. They can come in here with their moral indignation and they can come in here with their prepared notes that they've got from the Labor dirt unit and they can read them out, but the situation does remain: we should be doing more for our tradies.

If Labor want to build 1.2 million homes—and I wish the government well in that endeavour and that exercise—they're going to have to help our tradies, who put the tin on the roofs, who put the tiles down, who lay the bricks. They're the ones who are going to need the support. They're the ones you've left behind.

The Prime Minister talks about not leaving anyone behind—well, unfortunately, in that regard I think you have.