Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Continued the debate

McKenzie argued that the bill provided a one-off 20 per cent reduction to higher education and vocational training debts, lifting the compulsory repayment threshold to $67,000. McKenzie contended that the policy was poorly targeted, benefiting high-income graduates while ignoring the financial struggles of non-university attendees and those facing rising living costs. McKenzie cited economic analysis suggesting the measure would extend debt repayment periods for low-income earners and characterised it as a reverse Robin Hood policy. Despite these criticisms, McKenzie stated the Liberal Party would not block the legislation's passage.

Government response

Clare affirmed that the bill fulfilled a key election promise and would benefit three million Australians. Clare acknowledged the concerns raised by the member for Kooyong regarding higher education reform but stated that the government was not in a position to support the proposed amendments at this time. Clare emphasised that the Universities Accord represented a broader blueprint for future education policy and commended the bill to the House.

Opposition response

McKenzie argued that the debt reduction was a narrowly targeted relief measure that failed to address the broader cost-of-living crisis affecting all young Australians. McKenzie highlighted that the policy would primarily benefit recent graduates with large debts while offering little to those who had already repaid their loans or future students. McKenzie asserted that long-term relief required broader economic reforms rather than specific debt forgiveness.