Page 2619 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
think it is underestimated. That is, over the long pull I suspect that about $1,200 would be quite inadequate. I think it would more likely be up to $1,500 to $2,000 in no time. I do wonder whether the people who have done the figures there will really find the savings that they are estimating; I suspect not. So I would have gone further on the fees. I would have been realistic about them and put them up more.
There is also a stronger motivation for maintaining enrolment and completing courses when you have these straight up-front fees related to family finances when the fees are paid right then and there. There is an option under the present scheme to pay fees then and there. It is an option that I suspect most students do not take up because they know they can put it off. Straight fees, though, have to be paid in the year to which they apply, and I approve of that.
In both schemes there is the theme: why should the taxpayer pay for the education of those who will be especially benefited by tertiary education? That is a very arguable matter. I do believe that those who are best off in the community should pay straight up-front for the education of their children, and this is to be seen in the straight fee system.
I would want to emphasise that there must be an accompanying scholarship and/or bursary scheme based on parental financial resources. I see that as a good element of the coalition tax package. I would like to see it being much more generous than it is, and certainly much more generous than it is at the moment for more and more levels of society. There is not enough detail in the coalition tax package on that. I wonder whether the level of those merit and/or need scholarships is adequate.
Frankly, whether it is the present Government or any future coalition government, I wonder whether either has really come to terms with the overall level of tertiary training in this country. We are indeed in danger of slipping down that international scale more and more. If you look at Japan, the United States, Canada and Western Germany, for example, you will see the ways in which we are falling behind. I refer to a comment, in another connection, by Mr Stefaniak.
I believe we really have to lift our game. I do not think we should be thinking mainly about cutting tax costs. That is a very tricky issue. But if we do have to cut tax costs then why do we not ask the present Government and a future coalition government to consider cutting down drastically on exorbitant defence expenditure?
The crucial thing is not the odd destroyer or the odd submarine; it is surely our technological and educational training in order to put much more money into raising our educational, technical and technological profile. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .