Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Abbot's budget: Total disaster... but at least we get F35s :/

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 14, 2014 8:25:13 AM

Quote:
University degrees will cost up to three times as much under a deregulated fee system, leaving graduates with $120,000-plus debts, according to the architect of the HECS student loan scheme.

Bruce Chapman, regarded as one of Australia's leading education economists, also warned that increasing the interest rate for student debts would hit poor graduates and women the hardest.

The federal government announced in the budget on Tuesday that universities will be able to set their own course fees from 2016 and real interest will be applied to student debts for the first time.
'Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly.': Bruce Chapman.

'Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly.': Bruce Chapman. Photo: Glenn Hunt

''Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly,'' Professor Chapman, director of policy impact at the Australian National University, said.

''I expect most universities will increase tuition fees to international student fee levels, which are currently about three times higher. The Group of Eight universities will do that pretty quickly.

''Past changes to HECS didn't deter students from entering university, but now that there will be a real rate of interest on the debt we are in uncharted waters.''

Professor Chapman said it was plausible the cost of a bachelor of medical science would rise from $24,000 to $120,000 – the fee for international students at the University of Sydney.

''The idea fees will go down anywhere is frankly fantasy land,'' he said.

Professor Chapman said the government's plan for students to pay interest on loans up to 6 per cent - depending on the government bond rate - was unfair. Students who drop out of university and start out in low-paying jobs would be the hardest hit, he said. So would women who delay paying back their debts when they take time off work after having children.

Interest on student debt has been pegged to inflation – now 2.9 per cent – since the introduction of HECS.

A $40,000 debt unpaid for 10 years would grow to $58,933 at an interest rate of 4.4 per cent.

Universities Australia chief executive Belinda Robinson said: ''We will definitely see a major shake-up of the sector with some universities charging substantially higher degrees for some courses.''

Ms Robinson said she was concerned dramatic increases in fees could deter students from entering university, throwing the viability of some universities into doubt.

Fee deregulation has split the university sector, with sandstone universities strongly in favour while many technical and suburban universities are opposed to the policy.

University of Western Sydney vice-chancellor Barney Glover said he was concerned fee deregulation would hurt the economic development of western Sydney.

''UWS is particularly concerned that this will place additional financial burdens on students, and it will be important to determine if this acts as a deterrent to university study,'' he said.

''This could have further implications for national productivity and regional development at a time when Australia and western Sydney face considerable economic and labour market challenges.''

Chairman of the Group of Eight universities Ian Young said the government's other major higher education initiative – the extension of Commonwealth support to TAFEs and private colleges – will place downward pressure on fees.

''If universities want to charge a premium, they will have to convince students there is a real benefit to what they offer,'' he said. "This will keep us on our toes and force us to innovate."

The requirement for universities to spend 20 per cent of extra fee revenue on scholarships for low-income students addresses equity concerns, he said.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne said increased fees are justified by the higher salaries university graduates earn.

''The prices might go up or they might go down through competition,'' he told Sky News on Wednesday.

''People might be surprised how much effect competition has on reducing prices. Let's see how the market reacts from 2016 onwards.''

University of NSW acting vice-chancellor Iain Martin said fee deregulation was essential and the alternative would have led to an ''inevitable decline in the international reputation of our universities''.

Grattan Institute higher education program director Andrew Norton said fees will increase but claims of $30,000 annual fees becoming the norm were overblown.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/graduates-coul...
Score
0
May 14, 2014 12:49:17 PM

How did this guy get elected? Do the majority of people in Australia support his decisions? I think i read somewhere that he was trying to undo all of your green energy initiatives as well?
Score
0
May 14, 2014 4:50:44 PM

johnsonma said:
How did this guy get elected? Do the majority of people in Australia support his decisions? I think i read somewhere that he was trying to undo all of your green energy initiatives as well?
He was popular among the people of Australia more than his past prime minister JG. Give him a chance.
Score
0
May 14, 2014 10:49:16 PM

johnsonma said:
How did this guy get elected? Do the majority of people in Australia support his decisions? I think i read somewhere that he was trying to undo all of your green energy initiatives as well?


He lied. It's politics 101.
Score
0
May 16, 2014 8:50:25 AM

I pay $60 a month for 1mb download speed. I wonder whats going to happen when I get put on the slow lane after the FCC destroys the internet.
Score
0
May 16, 2014 6:40:22 PM

Quote:
As Joe Hockey was delivering his budget speech on Tuesday night, Taylor Clarke-Pepper was settling down to dinner: two-minute noodles and a glass of cordial.

The struggling, unemployed 20-year-old ate the frugal meal on her lap, alone at home, while the Treasurer unveiled a fiscal blueprint that, if implemented, will radically reshape the social safety net, and could leave her destitute.

''I was just completely shocked,'' says Clarke-Pepper, who describes her small one-bedroom apartment in Wollongong as ''dirty, stained carpets, barely any furniture, and a half-dingo next door who scares me''.
Illustration: Matt Golding

Illustration: Matt Golding

News had filtered through to her via social media that those under 30 on unemployment benefits could be denied any payment for up to six months.

''It's horrible. It's so hard even now. At the end of every fortnight, you have no money left. So many times, I've had to go to charity and friends to help me out with food and bills.''

The impact was no less keenly felt among sole parents. Facebook pages lit up with despairing and disturbing messages.
Wollongong's Taylor Clarke-Pepper, 20, says employment is scarce.

Wollongong's Taylor Clarke-Pepper, 20, says employment is scarce. Photo: Kirk Gilmour

''So with this budget, I'm screwed!'' said a post on one forum. ''I've considered taking my life over everyday struggles now, let alone when these changes happen … Anyway my point is, do I try and save for a big all weather tent NOW!! Or give up and take my kids with me!!''

The fear among Australia's most vulnerable is palpable and no one feels the blowtorch of the budget more than the young, unemployed or sole parents. But almost all Australians, one way or another, will feel a hit in the hip pocket.

Millions of households will lose thousands of dollars a year as welfare benefits are slashed, new payments are introduced for a GP visit, university fees are increased and taxes are lifted.

New markers for society have been laid down. A child is no longer deserving of government support after they turn six; but families are expected to support their unemployed children until they are 30. You will be expected to work until 70. A household income of $100,000 is the new well-off, the level at which a family loses benefits.

The belt-tightening, says Hockey, is in the national interest. Spending has been unsustainable, the bedrock of the economy threatened by the fiscal mess created by the former government. ''The age of entitlement is over. It has to be replaced, not with the age of austerity, but with an age of opportunity,'' he said during his budget speech.

Economic modelling of the changes, however, suggests there is another moniker for the era ahead - the age of inequality.

''What's so striking about how the budget affects people is that so much of the impact is felt by low and middle-income people, particularly families with kids,'' says Ben Phillips from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM).

''The heavy lifting to claw back the surplus is being done by the people in the most precarious position.''

While those families in the bottom quintile (or 20 per cent) of income earners see an average 5 per cent reduction in disposable incomes, those in the top quintile barely register a decline, down just 0.3 per cent.

Phillips, one of the country's leading modellers, did the analysis at the request of Labor but says his conclusions were reached independently. He says single-income families with two kids and earning between $50,000 and $100,000 could lose more than $6000 a year, once all the changes - and the abolition of the schoolkids bonus - are factored in.

Sole parents working part-time or on benefits, stand to lose more than $3000 per year. For a young unemployed person who loses the Newstart allowance for six months, the forgone benefits are more than $7000. During that time, they will have no income and will have to rely on the charity of others.

Asked how he would cope in such circumstances, Hockey told ABC radio: ''I would expect to be in a job, that would be the starting point.''

For Taylor Clarke-Pepper, who lives in a region with one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country, finding a job is not so simple. Nor is relying on family to pick up the slack.

She was ''kicked out of home at 17'' and already has an insight into life with no income looking for a job.

''There was a problem dealing with Centrelink [when I lost my job], so I didn't get the dole for three months. I'd just got a credit card so I put everything on that. Rent, food and public transport. I would apply for 30 jobs a week and I'd be lucky to get one reply back by email saying no.

''It was devastating. It was extremely difficult. There's 17 per cent unemployment for youth here. You just find yourself becoming very depressed.''

In three months, she racked up a debt of $4000. ''Six months like that, with no income, would be truly horrendous. I couldn't imagine how I could live through that again.''

There are a raft of people exempted from the denial of benefits, including the long-term unemployed, disabled and carers of children and others.

Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews points out that the six months embargo on payments will be reduced by one month for every year a person has been employed before they became unemployed.

But there are anomalies. A 28-year-old parent, the sole breadwinner, who becomes unemployed would not qualify for an exemption, as his or her partner would be considered the carer of their children.

According to research by Australian Council of Social Service, about 100,000 young unemployed will be affected by the change.

Another hit on the young jobless is to move the unemployed under 25 on to the lower youth allowance, a fall in income of $46 a week to $207.20 for a single over 18.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott wants to do no less than ''change the culture and mindset of young people''. Certainly, this is a budget that aims to change the country.

For Hockey, it's ''about the sort of country that we want to be in the years and decades ahead. It's about the value we impart.'' Those values, he says, are enterprise, hard work, self-reliance and equality of opportunity.

But Toni Wren, a social policy analyst, says the idea of ''equality of opportunity'' is a furphy. Even as the stick is being applied to spur the young into employment, the programs that help them transition into employment are being slashed. All up, 10 skills and training programs will be slashed for a $1 billion saving over the budget estimates.

''When you take the two together, removing income support and closing great employment and skills programs, it's pretty shocking what they are doing,'' she says.

Wren is also bemused about the axing of these programs, many of which have 90 per cent success rates in getting clients work, while the government maintains a school chaplain program that costs $245 million over the forward estimates.

For sole parents, the picture is hardly less bleak. Where once they got a family payment for kids up to the age of 16, that has been cut to those under six. Changes to indexation will further trim the benefit in future years.

Kerry Arch, a single mother of two teenage boys, 13 and 16, reckons she will lose more than $3000 a year, or 10 per cent of her income. ''I don't understand why, as single parents, we are getting punished all the time,'' she says, pointing out that sole parents were moved from the parenting payment to the lower NewStart allowance last year.

The change affected 84,000 sole parents, who lost up to $120 per week. ''Single mothers are more likely to work than [those with their partner's] money. We want to work.''

Indeed, the NATSEM analysis shows that as people move up from low incomes towards middle incomes, they lose out under the welfare changes, seeing a larger part of their family benefits reduced. ''The mantra has been learn or earn, but as you earn more, you lose more in many cases,'' says Phillips.

The Prime Minister explained the measure was to spur more female participation in the workforce, but the structure of the welfare changes acts as a disincentive.

Arch angrily notes that Abbott's paid parental scheme remains government policy, paying half of the mother's income for six months, capped at a $50,000 payout but available to any mother earning $100,000 and above who leaves employment to have a baby.

''Why do the rich need to be paid to have babies?'' says Arch, who runs an online self-help group and information service for sole parents. ''People are talking about suicide and taking their child with them. I'm telling them it's not happening until 2015 and it's not a done deal.''

Labor, the Greens and Clive Palmer have all condemned the changes to family payment and youth unemployment benefits, among others, making them very difficult to get through Parliament, even when the new Senate convenes in July.

Whatever the fate of the budget, it is an attempt to fundamentally recast the social welfare system.

It pushes the burden of surviving through difficult times back on to individuals and, especially, families at a time when those under 35 living with their parents continues to rise as young people grapple with astronomical housing prices and rents in many cities.

Families have always been the bedrock of social cohesion, argues Graeme Hugo, a geographer from the University of Adelaide, but relying on them too much can be fraught. ''The family isn't available equally to everybody, and families have different resources,'' says Hugo.

He notes that older people, facing lower indexation of pensions and the rise of the retirement age, are now increasingly fending for themselves as divorce rates have their impact and smaller numbers of children leave them less options for support.

''Those starting to retire now have less children than those a generation ago, and often they are simply not able to help because they live somewhere else.'' Professor Hugo supports the rise in the retirement age, noting life expectancy for a male over 50, for example, had increased by an astonishing nine years since 1970.

And the government will pay employers up to $10,000 for hiring someone over 50, but the program is notable as an oasis of spending amid the slash and burn of other employment and skills programs.

At the core of the revamp, is that Australia's budget position is unsustainable and if action isn't taken now, it will be worse. Welfare spending, notes Hockey, is 35 per cent of the budget and couldn't be exempt.

All Australians needed to contribute to the ask of fiscal repair. ''We are asking them to contribute because if we contribute now, we will build great things for our nation,'' said Hockey.

The government also argues that the total tax take is down in the budget and the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes - still to pass Parliament - will benefit all families facing cost of living pressures

But, in terms of household incomes, the removal of the two taxes has very little impact, argues NATSEM's Ben Phillips.

''The positive impact of removing the carbon tax is dwarfed by the changes that hit low-income people in particular,'' he says.

While the government talks of sharing the burden, the deficit repair levy on people earning more than $180,000 will be abolished after three years. ''The wealthiest 40 per cent are largely unaffected and by 2017 and 2018 they are ahead,'' says Phillips.

It is a very different story for those less well-off, who will see the financial impost on them grow rapidly from 2016 and beyond. Louise Williams, who runs the single mothers' Facebook forum where the suicidal message was posted, said they are not uncommon.

''We get lots of them. We don't always put them up because we don't want them to be a trigger but we always give them support and put them in touch with someone who can help them. We bring food or point them towards mental health counsellors, all sorts of things.

''We got so many people this week who are at breaking point, on the brink of crisis. We tell them they are not alone.''


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/r...

T.T

Is this what it's like to live in the US? No welfare, no healthcare and expensive education and a bleak jobs outlook...

:/ 
Score
0
May 17, 2014 6:56:27 AM

Yeah, great! Pay company to hire people over 50 and expect young people to magically have a better chance to get a job. XD

I am starting to think that Abbott and Hockey have a feces filled cranium.

I will not be surprised that many young people will turn to crime. Investing on a good security system is a smart thing to do.
Score
0
May 17, 2014 7:18:48 AM

"Here’s a report from the (who can we trust if we can’t trust the) ABC, on company directors and what they thought of the Abbott Government when it came to power, versus what they think of it now. Back when the dust hadn’t settled, a survey by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) showed that 70-percent of directors surveyed thought Abbott and his crew would have a positive impact on their business. Surveyed 7 months later, a mere 30-percent of directors still believe the Coalition Government is good for business."

http://www.thevine.com.au/life/news/10-things-abbotts-b...

Well, they are obviously short sighted, delusional and rely on faith instead of careful analysis based on reliable statistics. Those CD should really be fired for not seeing this coming. They are influential people and could have stopped this disaster from coming but they didn't because they vote based on their faith on right-wing ideology.

And I just want to say to them now, "I told you so!" and "You dig a grave for yourself and you are dragging everyone with you into it. Well done! [sarcasm]".
Score
0
May 15, 2014 6:40:32 AM

Score
0
May 15, 2014 5:59:05 AM

And well done Senator Conroy for yelling the facts right into the many shameless Liberal MPs' lying face.



I really don't see the point of those fighter jets. They are not build in Australia and will not benefit Australian apart from the fighter pilots who will enjoy their new jets which is likely to serve in the air force without ever being use in a real conflict. But the increase in defense will hurt the budget and the acquisition of such advance weaponry will makes our neighbours worry.

And the federal Liberal Party is playing dirty. They know they can't manage the budget and they need to increase GST. So they relegate the responsibility of education and health to the states, make state governments to deal with funding them. Therefore, the unpopular task of increase GST is the state government's decision, not theirs. They will do anything to stay on the job, even if it means betraying their state government colleagues.
Score
0
May 17, 2014 8:35:54 AM

Chaplains aren't particularly useful - I once had one for suicide counselling.

He told me I shouldn't top myself because "that's not what God would want".

Not particularly relevant to me, being an atheist and all.

Very glad I didn't elaborate on the why part - trying to come to terms with liking women and all.

;) 
Score
0
May 17, 2014 11:35:39 AM

I do have to ask Pyree, how are you still awake at a time like this? O.o
Score
0
May 15, 2014 4:58:31 AM

One term Govt ... but the damage he is doing is incredible.

Aided by the NewsCorp empire (Rupert Murdoch) who owns 70% of all mainstream media, he has perpetuated lies about the state of our economy - it is still at at the same moderate debt level of 11% of GDP ... for the last 10 years remained unchanged - claiming it is bad ... when it isn't. It is still the best performing western nation <fullstop>.

Here are his best / worst efforts to date:

http://sallymcmanus.net/abbotts-wreckage/
Score
0
May 15, 2014 8:08:09 AM

Reynod said:
One term Govt ... but the damage he is doing is incredible.

Aided by the NewsCorp empire (Rupert Murdoch) who owns 70% of all mainstream media, he has perpetuated lies about the state of our economy - it is still at at the same moderate debt level of 11% of GDP ... for the last 10 years remained unchanged - claiming it is bad ... when it isn't. It is still the best performing western nation <fullstop>.

Here are his best / worst efforts to date:

http://sallymcmanus.net/abbotts-wreckage/


They cut the ABC :'( 
Score
0
May 15, 2014 12:17:50 PM

Who needs unbiased news from ABC when you can listen to Alan Jones?
Score
0
May 15, 2014 5:53:26 AM

musical marv said:
johnsonma said:
How did this guy get elected? Do the majority of people in Australia support his decisions? I think i read somewhere that he was trying to undo all of your green energy initiatives as well?
He was popular among the people of Australia more than his past prime minister JG. Give him a chance.

He wasn't voted in. It's just that his biggest competition (The Labor Party and Greens) were voted out of the government. And it's not about the party's policies, but on the politician themselves. Well, when the Murdoch propaganda machine starts to target a politician personally, no politician will be able to remain on the job for long.

P.S. I was in the 1 year plan area where construction was suppose to start from Feb this year and March next year by the latest. You can see why I am so anti mad monk Abbott/LNP ATM.

Score
0
May 15, 2014 8:28:32 PM

My internet suck so much I fell like getting a shovel and kick open the door of the exchange and start digging to replace the old rotten copper with new shiny fiber myself.
Score
0
May 17, 2014 5:22:46 PM

I had a really big dinner that lasted from around 5:30pm to 10pm. It takes time to digest the food.
Score
0
May 17, 2014 10:27:33 AM

So true. If the advice is like "Don't worry. God always loves you. Everything will work out just fine.". As an atheist, it really has no effect at all because 1. I don't believe in God and it does not exist and 2. if God does exists, I think I am worse off since I am an atheist.
Score
0
May 17, 2014 5:51:30 PM

Pyree said:
So true. If the advice is like "Don't worry. God always loves you. Everything will work out just fine.". As an atheist, it really has no effect at all because 1. I don't believe in God and it does not exist and 2. if God does exists, I think I am worse off since I am an atheist.
You are right religion is just a big moneymaker! I am getting to think like you myself.

Score
0
May 19, 2014 6:34:13 AM

As a good atheist I think that If I have to pay tax then so do the religions ... its only fair.

Why should I subsidise their after life insurance policies??

Score
0
May 19, 2014 10:37:05 AM

Reynod said:
As a good atheist I think that If I have to pay tax then so do the religions ... its only fair.

Why should I subsidise their after life insurance policies??


What ? Religious pay tax just like Atheist.
However, I do believe there shouldn't be a NPO tax status.
Score
0
May 19, 2014 11:10:00 AM

He means that the religious organisations don't need to pay tax.
Score
0
May 19, 2014 2:10:57 PM

The Telegraph is like our equivalent of Fox news.
Score
0
May 21, 2014 1:13:08 AM

I'm hoping I can see myself on the news today protesting against the education cuts tehehe
Score
0
May 21, 2014 2:41:21 AM

amdfangirl said:
I'm hoping I can see myself on the news today protesting against the education cuts tehehe

I think this news will make you very happy.

"Tony Abbott's daughter Frances was awarded a $60,000 scholarship for a degree from a design school where a donor to her father sits as chairman on the board of governors."
Score
0
May 22, 2014 4:18:28 AM

Here is the letter from the University of Sydney's Vice Chancellor:

Quote:

Dear all,

I am writing to update you on the University’s response to last week’s federal government budget. As you will be aware, the government has proposed some major changes to higher education funding that will have significant implications for universities.

The planned full deregulation of undergraduate student fees means that government funding for each Commonwealth-supported student will be cut by an average of 20 percent, and universities will be free to decide their own fees for all undergraduate courses. In return, they will have to commit one dollar in every five of the fee increases to a new scholarship fund that will support disadvantaged students. While the current HELP loan scheme will continue to be available to all Commonwealth-supported students, the government has also proposed reducing the income level at which students must start to repay their loans, changing when they must start to make repayments, and adjusting the basis for calculating interest on their loans. The government has also proposed expanding the demand-driven funding system, allowing universities to take in as many students as they like into undergraduate courses.

While the budget papers provided few details about how the government intends these proposals to work in practice, and we can expect robust debate of the proposals in the federal Senate, in their current form they present significant challenges to the University of Sydney. In short, we will receive less federal government funding for our teaching. For example, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences estimate that they could face reduced government revenue of around $10.3 million each year, if fees remain unchanged and we choose not to enrol more students.

The University has not yet determined our final position on these changes, including whether or not to increase student fees generally or in specific courses, but I wanted to share with you my own position and some principles that I intend to guide our decision-making in coming months.

First, the University is committed to providing a world-class education to all of its students. If we are to honour this commitment, we will need to find ways to make up the funding shortfalls that these government proposals will impose upon us. This must include the possibility of greater contributions to the cost of their education from students who can afford to make them.

Second, a University of Sydney education should be attainable for the most promising students, whatever their social or cultural background. While the government’s proposed scholarship regime is a partial response to this imperative, I remain concerned about the impact of any changes on low-income and, indeed, middle-income families. I am also concerned about the disproportionate impact on some of our academic disciplines: for example our initial modelling shows that we would face cuts of more than $5000 per student per year in engineering, environmental sciences, communications, and science courses.

These are some of the considerations we will need to take into account as the policy environment becomes clearer. We will continue to engage with and monitor the legislative process over the coming months and I will keep you informed of the University’s response and any changes we propose to make as a result of the government’s plans.


Yours sincerely

Dr Michael Spence
Vice-Chancellor and Principal
Score
0
May 22, 2014 4:31:37 AM

Bummer ... don't vote Liberal or throw a donkey vote away from Labor next time ... or you will get more of this.

:) 
Score
0
May 22, 2014 4:39:40 AM

I exclusively vote for the Greens.

I kinda wish I knew about Pyne's visit to USYD today so I could be there bashing cops and stuff.

:3
Score
0
May 22, 2014 5:21:29 AM

Two and a half years of destruction to go.

Score
0
May 24, 2014 5:50:51 AM

amdfangirl said:
I exclusively vote for the Greens.

I kinda wish I knew about Pyne's visit to USYD today so I could be there bashing cops and stuff.

:3


Yeah ... donkey vote.

Remember our greens are a bunch of extremists ... they are not exactly Bob Brown moderates anymore ... now they are smelly activists ... and their policies are barren other than save the whales, trees etc. Greens also threw in with the Liberals on votes against education in the past to gain other concessions ... so you voted for a party that does not have your best interests .... other than the colour green.
Score
0
May 24, 2014 2:58:23 PM

Well Rey,

It's time to make my own party.

I will legalise crossbows.

Who's with me?
Score
0
May 24, 2014 7:32:42 PM

Not me ... I am against the civilian population having weapons ... other than sporting clubs where the weapons have to be kept in a safe.
I believe the police and the forces should have weapons but not civilians.
I trust the police and have faith in the democratic process here.

Thi ... I think those mini-crossbows are kinda cute ... hmmm.




Score
0
May 24, 2014 10:32:23 PM

I'd like to see you go onto a murderous rampage with a crossbow.

Anyhow I was out of the country; when did the Greens betray higher education?
Score
0
May 24, 2014 10:36:11 PM

When did the Greens not betray anything for their overarching (only) principle? Just like the old Democrat Party Don Chipp ran they will sell the souls of the poor as a bargaining chip for a tree.
Score
0
May 24, 2014 10:57:39 PM

Well, damn.

Like I said: I want to make my own political true economic left wing party (with a strong emphasis on economic).

I'll dye my hair purple to distance myself from Gillard and Hanson.

Tax the rich! Welfare for the university students! Tax the mines! Benefits for the disadvantaged! Subsidise sashimi!
Score
0
!