Federal Budget tonight....

Fuel is the main thing for us. We don't have access to PT due to our location. We already need to spend over $120pw as it is, so any jump is going hurt and there is little we can do to drop usage.

Occasionally we were bulk billed, repeat visits, if two of us went in, then only one paid etc. We can bear it, but I just think back to when we would not have been able to. Upping scripts will hurt, DH has some pretty $$$ meds.

I am just so feeling for others who will be heavily impacted. This was a budget without a soul.

I live in Country Victoria and have always paid for drs. The hospital is also private so if you attend emergency you will get billed also (except if you are admitted to hospital) 2 years ago the clinic finally started bulk billing children under 16.

My other concern with the budget is the requirements placed on the youth to be in study if they don't have a job, whilst imthinkmitnis has merit for the learning country kids will struggle, already many Tafes have been closed, so where are they to do this said courses. They won't be able to afford to move as they won't have any money. One thing to say they have to study, another is to make sure study is available

Around here (SOTR Perth) the only clinics that bulk bill everyone are new clinics - they do it for 2-3 years to build up a patient base and then switch over to full payments. Concession and kids are always bulk billed. And they've tightened right up on appointment use - if you have more than one problem, you need to book and pay for a double appointment, even if they're two small problems. Having to pay $70 has definitely stopped me from going to the doctor on a number of occasions. I don't go to the ER instead, but generally the times I go to the ER, it could've been fixed a week ago by a visit to the GP that I couldn't afford.

The budget's not really going to affect Professor and I, not past the general changes. Although I don't understand the medication cost change, I already pay $60 a month for my meds, I'm hoping it's not going up but it probably is. That doesn't worry the government though, because I'm not eligible for any kind of welfare anyway if I'm not working, so they don't care if I live in the corner of my bedroom like a mushroom :rofl: :(

Nothing in the budget impacts us at all except we have to live in a country that's meaner and treats its most vulnerable with disdain.

Interesting to note that a few vocal liberal-supporting contributors to past electoral threads are very quiet?

The $7 won't just be $7. Many clinics, if they have to handle money anyway, will just flick to fee paying.

Dropping Newstart for under30s is just stupid. I envisage crime rates rising, especially where I live, where youth and drug/alcohol services have been slashed by the states.

I'm okay with the fuel excise, but I'm not sure why it is different/better than a carbon tax? And of course I'm angry that mining is exempt.

:

---

On bulk billing again - I've been astounded at the amount of people I've seen saying similar to ausgirl, that they have to pay when they see a doctor anyway. Every doctor I've been to in my entire life, aside from some private specialists, has bulk billed. Maybe it's a location thing? I've only lived in the suburbs... To me, paying anything is strange.

Swaying back to the topic - perhaps for non-bulk-billed places, the $7 is on top of the usual fee?

---

I pay $75 for the pleasure of seeing my local gp - as do my kids. No bulk-billing - not even for the kids. From my 4yo last appointment I paid $75 and got back $36.30 from Medicare. I'm assuming that now I'll only get $29.30.

Here's hoping that the gp doesn't put up his fees!

:

---

My employer allows us five days of "undocumented" personal or carers leave all year. After that it is deemed unauthorised leave and becomes leave without pay. And can impact job security. I have no choice but to go to the doctor if myself or dd are sick as I need medical/carers certificates. I hate wasting everyone's time when I have flu or gastro, for which I know there is no treatment but rest and fluids (not to mention the risk of infecting others!) but I have no choice! It's not a case of two or more consecutive days require certificates. It's pretty much every absence. Five absences without evidence sounds like a bit of leeway, but when i have a small child and they are ill with gastro, and i KNOW I sit very near someone who is quite immunocompromised, I adhere to doctors quarantine suggestions, so it takes very little for is to have a need to see a doctor for a certificate.

I am reluctant to believe that pharmacists issuing evidence certificates won't be abided. I know doctors certificates are already abused, but I think pharmacists will be further abused....

No comment on the rest of the budget stuff given I have a migraine and haven't read. Just wanted to comments in the certificate situation

---

There will be people who abuse certificates, but I think the percentage is quite small and you have to wonder, whether the costs involved in making people visit the doctors are worth it just to stop the small number of people who may abuse certificates.

In UK only required a certificate for more than 5 days consecutive absence. I always thought it worked quite well. People did give them for less but only if were visiting the doctor anyway.

:

---

I pay $75 for the pleasure of seeing my local gp - as do my kids. No bulk-billing - not even for the kids. From my 4yo last appointment I paid $75 and got back $36.30 from Medicare. I'm assuming that now I'll only get $29.30.

Here's hoping that the gp doesn't put up his fees!

---

Your rebate will drop by $5 and the co payment of $7 will be charged on top of what you already pay, as I said above "those who already pay to see a dr are now $12 worse off"

:

---

There will be people who abuse certificates, but I think the percentage is quite small and you have to wonder, whether the costs involved in making people visit the doctors are worth it just to stop the small number of people who may abuse certificates.

In UK only required a certificate for more than 5 days consecutive absence. I always thought it worked quite well. People did give them for less but only if were visiting the doctor anyway.

---

I think your perception will be colored by where you live and what you've been exposed to. I have lived in an area of high unemployment, high welfare dependence and high alcohol and drug use, and have had conversations with more than one gp about the large number of people refused medical certificates because they turn up asking because they are hung over etc. I wonder how the pharmacists are going to weed out the truth from the abusers? I know I the local chemist warehouse offer the service already. No idea how it works though :)

I went to medico for treatment today, and was told med certificates are slated to change soon anyway. None will be offered unless you have been sick a week - and then you will likely need two visits - one when first ill, one after a week to prove you are still ill. Any other illness, even if you attend the doctor, won't receive a certificate. You'll have to self declare or something. Will be interesting to see how that is accepted by employers!

:

---

Interesting to note that a few vocal liberal-supporting contributors to past electoral threads are very quiet .

---

I've voted differently over the past two elections. Voted for both labour and liberal. I've felt attacked both ways. I know that's my issue but when I voted labour, I felt screwed and when I voted liberal, I felt the same. Quite frankly, they all suck. I'm yet to find anything about this government that I'm comfortable with and there was nothing about the predecessor that made me feel like they were in control. A bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. I mostly just shut up about it all now because I feel that there is pretty much squat either party can do to help this country, they are both determined to stuff us one way or another. I don 't want to vote at all because if I vote for a smaller party, they decide who to give my preference to and the big parties are full of fools.

I hate that this budget is so rough on so many people for the purpose of giving Australia a savings account. They are taking away the opportunity from many families to save by making things harder, and then slapping them further down the track by saying that there is no help along the line. What's the point of additional funding for paid parental leave when jobs are being cut all over the place? People won't be paid for the leave because they won't have a job! How are people supposed to work until 70 when jobs are minimal? Employers are financially encouraged to employ over 50's but how can you when the work isn't there because the population has to tighten their belt buckles and can't afford to hit the shops, hire a trade or invest. So how do jobs get created for these people, and for that matter, anyone else? I don't understand the priorities.

:

---

I've voted differently over the past two elections. Voted for both labour and liberal. I've felt attacked both ways. I know that my issue but when I voted labour, I felt screwed and when I voted liberal, I felt the same. Quite frankly, they all suck. I'm yet to find anything about this government that I'm comfortable with and there was nothing about the predecessor that made me feel like they were in control. A bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. I mostly just shut up about it all now because I feel that there is pretty much squat either party can do to help this country, they are both determined to stuff us one way or another. I don 't want to vote at all because if I vote for a smaller party, they decide who to give my preference to and the big parties are full of fools.

---

This. What's being a Lib or Labor voter got to do with anything Luna Moth? Do you think that a Labor Govt would have given us a better budget? Or just one with more 'free money'? Seems everyone's happy if we get some money but as soon as we don't we cry foul. Either way this country is ****ed and going to hell in a handbasket quicker than you can say 'slashing welfare'. This is the 'chickens are coming home to roost' budget and we're having to pay for the indulgences of a previous Govt. It wouldn't matter a fat rat's arse who was in Govt, at some point we were going to have a budget that came down hard on middle class welfare and all the other areas they can cut spending because at some point our country's debt does have to be repaid. We can't keep trotting out the 'but we're in a better position than all the other countries' because it's still debt and debt has to be paid and one day that debt could come back to bite us on the arse. I don't agree with many of the changes at all and I cannot possibly see what good can come of it except making it even harder for those who are already struggling. I think anyone who voted for the Liberal party at the last election did so in good faith, just like ALP voters did and that all went to **** too. Anyone who thinks that one party could do better than the other is naive because Govts are only there to suit themselves, not us.

I think a Labor government might have come up with something broadly similar, excepting the money would have been moved around in different directions. AND, I think they would have stretched out the timescale to getting back to surplus - which was what many economists have recommended. Austerity will slow the economy, we must go gently gently, not cut hard and fast. People are worried, and worried people stop spending money and stop hiring.

I'm really concerned about the ideological bent here, and feel the emergency language with regards to the budget was about creating an environment in which Abbott's government could go to work: cutting funding to public broadcasters, basically assuming anyone unemployed and under 30 is a bludger, dismantling universal health care, deregulating university fees in conjuncture with cuts to funding, undermining the alternate energy sector, cutting public bodies to save a measly 500m (I don't believe it will be worth the disruption, or job losses - let's hope they're all over 30!)... and the list goes on and on.

I really like the idea below of having something we can assess the budget against - below is a quote from an article called "Defining what is meant by fair in Hockey's budget" - if you want the whole article

:

---

Where did all these piecemeal budget policies come from? What was the guiding principle in terms of fairness? I suggest there wasn’t one. It was driven by motives like “it’s time for all of us to contribute”, as Hockey said in his budget speech.

The actual budget numbers were apparently pulled out of the air since no analytical justification was provided – why $180,000 as the income threshold for the 2% tax? Why a $7 co-payment? Why indexation of parental leave at $100,000? And so on. We have no idea whether these changes, in total, will make household income and wealth more unequal, or less?

Government budgets are a hotchpotch of ad hoc tweaks here and there with no rhyme or reason. We need to fix this. First, governments should set a target for the distribution of household income and wealth using a standard measure such as the Gini coefficient. It is a number between zero and one. The higher the number the more unequal is the distribution – and it can be applied to both income and wealth, at the household or individual level, before and after tax, and so on.

According to the ABS, Australia’s GINI coefficient for household after-tax income is 0.32 which is roughly the OECD average, significantly below the United States but significantly above the Scandinavian countries.

Once we’ve set the fairness target, we need an independent organisation like the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) to do a pre-budget assessment for the government, against our fairness target, of proposed budgetary changes.

Then at least we will be able to make an overall assessment of the fairness of the budget, in the same way as we assess the budget against a range of fiscal targets such as the budget deficit, growth of government spending and government debt.

---

:

---

On bulk billing again - I've been astounded at the amount of people I've seen saying similar to ausgirl, that they have to pay when they see a doctor anyway. Every doctor I've been to in my entire life, aside from some private specialists, has bulk billed. Maybe it's a location thing? I've only lived in the suburbs... To me, paying anything is strange.

Swaying back to the topic - perhaps for non-bulk-billed places, the $7 is on top of the usual fee?

---

When you live rurally you have to pay if you want to be seen. For me that means I will sometimes not go unless it's really necessary - try to save everything up for one appointment! But then they charge a long consult for that! There was a brief period of time when they did bulk bill, but people abused it so he went back to charging. Occasionally depending on his mood, you might get a bulk bill - if it's a follow up consult they usually do.
I can't imagine never having to pay for health care!

I live in the same area as you Teni, well until recently anyway, and we've always paid for our GP visits.

:

---

It wouldn't matter a fat rat's arse who was in Govt, at some point we were going to have a budget that came down hard on middle class welfare and all the other areas they can cut spending because at some point our country's debt does have to be repaid.

---

I just don't see how a robust, well funded education system and universal health care is middle class welfare.
I'm down with reducing things like FTB but cutting spending on health care and education is saving money by not making any investments. If you don't invest for the future the future becomes impoverished.

I've also literally never paid for a doctors appointment. The first time I paid for any sort of medical care was with DD2's birth, when we hired private midwives. My mum was single and low income though, and we're now low income too, so I guess the HCC would be the factor there?

This might be a bit of a silly question, but I've only started following politics recently. Take the deregulation of uni fees for example, can they be regulated again in future budgets? Or could the copay be removed to go back to full bulk billing? How likely or unlikely is it that the major changes could be gone in a couple of years or more, with this or a different govts future budget?

Robbing our children. Well, a birdie reckons that the $80bn cut is a ploy to motivate states to demand higher GST revenues, which makes sense. Wonder if the extra will end up back where it belongs, though.. :/
It's all just so much bastardry.
Almost everywhere round here bulk bills. Guess I'll have to raid the change jar next time :rolleyes: I absolutely believe in the importance of universal health care and this is just driving the wedge in further. Look at the shocking state of health in the US! And I've resigned myself to having to pay full, upfront university fees by the time my kids are that age (or they won't be able to go because we don't have the income). (It's all right for those politicians who got a 'free ride' when the government paid the lot!)

Also, the university fee thing is huge. The current Liberal leadership want to see an introduction of a US style fees structure for universities. I want to live in a country where children from low income backgrounds can aspire to university without spending the first 15 years of their career paying off crippling student debt.

ETA - yep, MsFly, it infuriates me that politicians who got a free ride through uni want my children to miss out if I don't start saving now.

:

---

Also, the university fee thing is huge. The current Liberal leadership want to see an introduction of a US style fees structure for universities. I want to live in a country where children from low income backgrounds can aspire to university without spending the first 15 years of their career paying off crippling student debt.

ETA - yep, MsFly, it infuriates me that politicians who got a free ride through uni want my children to miss out if I don't start saving now.

---

Yes! Joe Hockey et al keep spouting off about the age of entitlement ending, while sitting on careers obtained with degrees that were obtain for free. Alright for some.

I remember marching against fee hikes two decades ago. Bronwyn Bishop said we squealed like entitled pigs. Nothing much changes.

:

---

I just don't see how a robust, well funded education system and universal health care is middle class welfare.
I'm down with reducing things like FTB but cutting spending on health care and education is saving money by not making any investments. If you don't invest for the future the future becomes impoverished.

---

I didn't say anywhere that I agreed with cuts to health and education and I'm not lumping it in with middle class welfare. But if I had a dollar for every person online I've seen today whinge that their FTB is being cut I wouldn't have to worry about Tony's budget because I'd be rich. Cuts to University have been happening for a while though. Under the Rudd/Gillard Govt discounts for upfront payment of fees dropped from 20% (which it was when I started 4.5 years ago) to 10% and it will eventually be phased out. So even people with the capacity to pay for their degree upfront has been penalised with higher fees. Costs per unit of study have also gone up over the past 3 years as well.

I think that if you do a degree on finance (because this is what it is really), then you have to pay. I think the current HECS system in that you don't have to pay until you earn over a certain amount is ridiculous because some people actively avoid paying it by ensuring that the never earn over the threshold limit. I wouldn't ever like to see it go to a US system where only the wealthy get tertiary education and we have to start 'college funds' as soon as our kids are born, but something needs to be done to reign in some of that debt. I think it's arbitrary to argue that it's unfair for them to make changes to uni fee structures when they had a free uni education, because a similar argument could be put forward over how the past generation had to raise their kids without welfare payments such as baby bonuses, FTB and school kids bonus like we have now. To play devils advocate, it could also be suggested that a university degree is an optional extra and that we don't actually need one to do well financially in life.

And I do acknowledge that I post from a position of privilege as well.

:

---

To play devils advocate, it could also be suggested that a university degree is an optional extra and that we don't actually need one to do well financially in life.

---

I've got to heartily disagree with that. There was a time when making a decent living in life was as black and white as working very hard and being persistent. You know the story, "I was 17 and left school, put a letter in to the manager of X company, and they have me a job on the spot. I worked there for 35 years and now I'm a partner". It's a vicious cycle. You need experience to get a job, but you need to work to get the experience. You can't go into any sort of job anymore without some form of qualification, and you certainly can't do well financially in life without some form of education. If I went to get a job now, as a technically reasonably uneducated person, I'd be working shifts in fast food, maybe a part time or full time role if I was lucky. Maybe I could spend years working up to a manager role, but even then you are required to obtain qualifications and receive training along the way. I certainly can't see my family living comfortably, owning a home etc as non tertiary educated. Of course, that is just my opinion, but for me, having a degree means a much better chance at success, both personally and financially. The budget worries me a lot for this reason. Education should be one of the very, very last things to receive cuts.

Pumpkin Zulu - I have a number of certificates and diplomas and I have never need to university. I have paid for private collages and have job where I have worked over 8 years as a manager with a company car etc. I worked my guts off to get there, but I never went to university.
So much now days is on the job training, school based trainee ships so students are finishing year 12 with a qualification in a range of different trades and careers.
Trainee ships and apprenticeships are so common these days, and give you a lot more realistic training and experience than any classroom can.
On the budget, I personally don't have much of an issue with it. I think people become so accustomed to hand outs that they forget that once upon a time you didn't get paid to have children - you budgeted and lived off one income and saves and lives within your means (speaking from experience when we got $800 for having a baby and that was about it!)
I know that's just one point, but I don't have an issue with having to pay a small fee for medical visits, and I actually agree that paying a fee to go to emergency is a good thing.
So many people I know personably who are whinging about the doc fees are drinkers or smokers, or people who wouldn't thing twice about spending money on take away or nights out or buying things everything they go out.
All just my opinion though :)

I too am another that has 'done well' and not been to university. I have some diploma's/certs yes, but definitely not a uni degree. Have I worked hard, very, but it is possible to do it. I know a lot of people who don't have uni quals and own homes and are financially secure. Many of us have really struggled to get to where we are, but it is possible to do it. And some of these people have average Joe jobs, working in the food industry or retail. Someone has to do these jobs too and the statement that if you do, you can't be successful is a tad offensive to me personally.

This budget was never going to be pretty, but a government can't continue to run a country with the debt we have - if I ran my home like that, I'd be bankrupted! There are some things they've cut which I don't agree with, but big cuts were always going to be a necessary evil.

:

---

Pumpkin Zulu - I have a number of certificates and diplomas and I have never need to university. I have paid for private collages and have job where I have worked over 8 years as a manager with a company car etc. I worked my guts off to get there, but I never went to university.
So much now days is on the job training, school based trainee ships so students are finishing year 12 with a qualification in a range of different trades and careers.
Trainee ships and apprenticeships are so common these days, and give you a lot more realistic training and experience than any classroom can.
On the budget, I personally don't have much of an issue with it. I think people become so accustomed to hand outs that they forget that once upon a time you didn't get paid to have children - you budgeted and lived off one income and saves and lives within your means (speaking from experience when we got $800 for having a baby and that was about it!)
I know that's just one point, but I don't have an issue with having to pay a small fee for medical visits, and I actually agree that paying a fee to go to emergency is a good thing.
So many people I know personably who are whinging about the doc fees are drinkers or smokers, or people who wouldn't thing twice about spending money on take away or nights out or buying things everything they go out.
All just my opinion though :)

---

I already live off one income, I have no choice, these changes will mean i won't see my children very much at all because I will be working all the time and then they will be at their fathers. I will have to give up uni to do this not because of the uni changes but because their education and living expenses come before mine. I have the opportunity to earn far more than any welfare amount once i finish this degree (to which i already work in the industry for pittance because I'm still unqualified). But we have to live first. I could break the welfare need in this house if people would stop moving the goal posts on me. I didn't ask to be single i didn't ask to be poor, all I ask for is a hand up for a short time so that we may have a better future. At the moment our future looks bleak, I've read that the changes are to encourage people - women - into the work force, I'm already there plus studying plus parenting on my own. My best is just not good enough and quite honestly I'm terrified if this goes through. I'm frugal because we have to be I don't know what else to cut. I'm thankful I'm 30 at least if I'm fired I'll be right =/

:

---

I too am another that has 'done well' and not been to university. I have some diploma's/certs yes, but definitely not a uni degree. Have I worked hard, very, but it is possible to do it. I know a lot of people who don't have uni quals and own homes and are financially secure. Many of us have really struggled to get to where we are, but it is possible to do it. And some of these people have average Joe jobs, working in the food industry or retail. Someone has to do these jobs too and the statement that if you do, you can't be successful is a tad offensive to me personally.

---

Completely agree. DH left school in year 11. No uni, went into a trade. He is now self employed, we had our mortgage and kids and while times get tough, it's always okay. Job security would have been no different for him if he had finished school and gone to uni.

I didn't go to uni either. I did a Tafe course in professional writing and editing and by the time I left to have kids, I was working for a children's education specialist doing their accounts and helping advise schools what literacy resources were beneficial in their classrooms and libraries. Experience led me there, not a uni degree. The only person in my immediate family who did go to uni still has no idea what he wants to do and at nearly 30, he's only just started work full time (in a job completely unrelated to any of his degrees and where a degree is unnecessary).

:

---

This budget was never going to be pretty, but a government can't continue to run a country with the debt we have - if I ran my home like that, I'd be bankrupted! There are some things they've cut which I don't agree with, but big cuts were always going to be a necessary evil.

---

This really isn't true - countries are not homes and their budgets do not need to be run as such. Many many economists actually believe that some level of debt is very good for the country - (many many countries run with debt and always have done - not just post GFC)

There is an article that elaborates on the above called "Australia’s economy is healthy, so how can there be a budget crisis?"

The last paragraph

:

---

While short term measures such as expenditure cuts and debt levies may have an impact on the size of the deficit, they cannot “fix” the economy. The economy is not in disarray, and long-term budget deficit and debt issues require well thought-out policy on the structure of taxation and expenditure.

---

Or have a read of the article on the guardian "This budget is a clear victory for Australia's 1%" - if there is a need for 'necessary evil' then it simply has not focused in the right places. 13 billion dollars is lost from tax revenue each year through negative gearing - a well structured plan to phase it out would give considerable long term savings (there is a good article on macro business "the negative gearing myth that just won't die - about why it wouldn't be a disaster for renters, peoples retirements etc etc.)

Blackcat, I totally hear what you are saying, because I was in the exact same position as you 10 years ago. I was a single mum, living on my own in a big city with no family around at all and quit working 2 jobs so I could study because that was my only option to get ahead. I was on a ridiculously small amount of single parent income and not a lot more, and back then there was no $5000 baby bonus payments or anything like that.
My pension paid for my rent, petrol, food and if I was lucky, bills and nothing more (more often I was behind than breaking even) and it was the toughest time of my life. Like you, I had to send my daughter to day care or to a friends for big long days at a time to be in class, and I felt like a terrible mother and struggled on a daily basis.
But I guarantee it was all worth it in the end. I'll never forget the feeling of being able to buy something my daughter wanted without a second thought once I was qualified and had a job and a decent income, because for a long time even a $5 toy or treat was out of the question.
To study the course I did I had to at private fees upfront, cause university or tafe didn't offer the course, and I got myself into total debit to do so.
But like I said, I have an amazing job & we bought a house and things really do work out in the end.
But yes, it's hard and it's tough and it sucks, and I do understand :)

The average Australian household is run much, much worse than the government! $79,000 in debt for every person living in Australia. Household debt is not comparable to sovereign debt.

:

---

I've got to heartily disagree with that. There was a time when making a decent living in life was as black and white as working very hard and being persistent. You know the story, "I was 17 and left school, put a letter in to the manager of X company, and they have me a job on the spot. I worked there for 35 years and now I'm a partner". It's a vicious cycle. You need experience to get a job, but you need to work to get the experience. You can't go into any sort of job anymore without some form of qualification, and you certainly can't do well financially in life without some form of education. If I went to get a job now, as a technically reasonably uneducated person, I'd be working shifts in fast food, maybe a part time or full time role if I was lucky. Maybe I could spend years working up to a manager role, but even then you are required to obtain qualifications and receive training along the way. I certainly can't see my family living comfortably, owning a home etc as non tertiary educated. Of course, that is just my opinion, but for me, having a degree means a much better chance at success, both personally and financially. The budget worries me a lot for this reason. Education should be one of the very, very last things to receive cuts.

---

I agree and disagree with it. I thought it would be a good discussion point. One one hand I see it as optional because there are many, many people who do extremely well without a degree and from my own experience, DH and I own our farm, have very little debt (far less than the $79000 that was quoted ;) ) and live quite comfortably and can afford to send our kids to boarding school - without a uni degree. It's only now at 40 that he's started his diesel fitters trade cert II and only then because he wants to do it, not that he needs to. I chose to do a uni degree because I wanted to become a teacher. I could have done other jobs that didn't require me to have a degree, but it's something I wanted to do so I was willing to pay the $20000+ for it.

On the other hand I know that some people can't do their jobs without a degree like nursing/medicine, teaching, accountancy, law etc. So in those situations you do need a degree. Doesn't mean that without it you won't do well in life, it just means that with it, you can do the job you really want to do and not settle for something else.

I don't think it helps anyone to make tertiary education unattainable because of the cost, but I don't think it should be free either. For that level of education there should be a fee attached to it because it's a specialised education.

So, reiterating that household debt and government debt are not comparable in any case... just for interest sake:
Government debt stood at roughly 9% of GDP as of end FY2013 and 50% of receipts. Household debt stood at 20% of household assets and 180% of annual income at end 2013.

ETA - that's an average across the nation Trill, obviously there are some households with no debt and some with millions. We were at 0 and even with the mortgage we're in the process of getting, we're still below average for 4 people.

To all the people banging on about how well they've done without uni degrees & then disclosing they've got other non-school or trade quals, you are missing the point: TAFE fees are being deregulated in just the same way that uni fees are, they will be subject to the same hikes in HECS/HELP fee and interest increases. TAFE just got a lot more expensive, more hoops for people to jump through. Watch the education take-up rate fall even further in marginalized groups.

I think we'll find that as our kids reach adulthood there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for those without some sort of further education.

:

---

To all the people banging on about how well they've done without uni degrees & then disclosing they've got other non-school or trade quals, you are missing the point: TAFE fees are being deregulated in just the same way that uni fees are, they will be subject to the same hikes in HECS/HELP fee and interest increases. TAFE just got a lot more expensive, more hoops for people to jump through. Watch the education take-up rate fall even further in marginalized groups.

---

Exactly.

I am just so disappointed :( our careers are in the uni sector and my DH and I just devastated that we will be losing a huge chunk of diversity in our student population. it will effect the outcomes of education as more and more pressure is placed to provide an outcome for the 'customer' as opposed to encouraging learning and a love of education. We have already seen this in the last 5 years or so with some of the changes in HECS and the reduction in places for full HECS students. it is a travesty and will force people out of the sector. I know that under these proposals I certainly would never of been able to achieve a university education - let alone have a PhD. I was poor, and my school marks were below par but i got a fair go and managed in that first year of uni to come out on top and continue from there. it makes me wonder how many other people will just not be given that same chance.

And on top of that, now our own careers are put on the line. sure, we may have a job, but the quality of that job is diminishing as we turn into simply providers of a product. research funding is out the window and without that, there will be no progress. And the effects of this are immediate. In our case DH and I have had to sit down only yesterday and discuss our options and it might include us being forced out of the country to seek better conditions (ie a future lol).

I am totally bummed and more than a little frightened of where this is taking us....I mean, we knew that it was coming, but it still completely sucks bum.

The problem you're talking about though Cassius isn't restricted to just one political party in power. It's across all levels of Govt. We're screwed over by this govt at this point in time, but it's something that's only going to get worse regardless of who is running the show. I'm all for learning for the love of learning and furthering education, but it's those 'just for fun' degrees that are only done for self-interest as opposed to being career driven that complicate the situation by using up available funds. I don't know what the solution is because as soon as you start to restrict opportunities for education you start heading down the slippery slope of restricting other things, but if the last two CSP's available places for a course had to be decided between the 20 year old with a long life ahead of them in their chosen career or the 60-something semi retired who just wants to do a degree for their own enjoyment and self-interest with no intent to use that degree for work, then who should get the CSP? This is the problem we have. We have more people wanting to undertake tertiary study than the country has funds to support them all.

My understanding of HECS/HELP is very limited - but the bit I don't understand is the government are deregulating so universities can set their own fees right? But they are not capping the HECS amount that can be borrowed - so isn't that likely to mean a bigger HECS/HELP debt? Or is the theory that the big fees will put people off - so not as many people will take out the HELP in the first place?

We could suppose that the fees could get cheaper because they will have to be a lot more competitive now because people will choose a uni based on cost. If Uni A charged a fee of $16000 for a degree for example, but Uni B charged 18000 for the same or similar degree, people are naturally going to go with Uni A. I could be totally wrong and they may price themselves out of the market in an attempt to become an elite education model whereby a more expensive degree must equal a better degree than the budget uni down the road who charges less.