Agreed - after watching John Oliver's piece on student debt in America I'm pretty convinced that Australia's system is fine. Tony Abbott's only issue was introducing deregulated fees at the same time that he cut funding to universities. The latter is what's really causing the issues sa far as I can see.

By the way, the way it works is pretty much that you have to reach an income threshold before you need to start paying back your student loan.

Simply not having the American system doesn't default to 'fine.' Besides, Australian education is now well on its way to a similar system.

> Simply not having the American system doesn't default to 'fine.'

Interestingly, that's the worst thing about Canada. Everyone just aims for "better than America", which is still a very low bar by Developed Country standards.

I'll accept student loans with debt charged at the market rate the moment the fees and interest are applied retroactively.

If a student graduating today should repay society the cost of their education, why shouldn't a student who graduated 30 years ago like, say, Tony Abbot?

I'm not there right now, but my parents are saying that's exactly what he's proposing - the retro-active bit.

It will impact me, I still have ~$20k of HECS debt that I didn't pay, and because I'm not earning money in Australia, I'm not paying it now.

That could be changing after student fees get deregulated[1]. $50,000 for an arts degree and $100,000 for medicine. No doubt that price will go up.

Australia is actively being made dumber as we devolve in to a class system.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/uwa-to-hike-fees-30-pe...

> it still transfers more responsibility to the student than subsidizing education to make it free

Nothing can be made free by subsidizing it. The cost is hidden, but it's certainly still there. When a government subsidizes something, it's just transferring wealth from some people to others.

The end result is much worse, because no one uses other people's money in a prudent way, and no one knows what the best use for your money is to you personally - only you do.

So, you are arguing for K to 12 education to be private? And you are arguing for public health systems outside of the US to adopt the US model which is much more expensive with no demonstrated better outcome for the general population?

I'm advocating for everything to be private. But not advocating for the US system, which is far from a free market.

You're correct, but I believe you have been downvoted because instead of quoting general economist mottos about the misuse of public money, you could have cited factual examples. In fact in my (free) French engineering school, I know quite a minority of people who intended to become actors, musicians, sound technicians, travellers... (and succeeded). As much as I like the idea that artists have a knowledge of how the technical world works, I believe the Australian govt is the smartest at spending this money.

> I believe you have been downvoted because instead of quoting general economist mottos about the misuse of public money, you could have cited factual examples.

I just presented some obviously factual statements. Would you demand an example if I said there's no such thing as a round rectangle?

Absolutely, I personally think it's one of the best things about the country.

After living and working for a year and a half in the US, and 7 years in Canada, I've seen first hand the impact of charging for university, and how it impacts people lives for decades.

I met tons of people that chose not to go to university simply because they couldn't afford it. I was shocked and saddened that happens in developed countries.

I have tons of 30-something friends that are still paying interest only on their student loans, and it's crippling their life choices.

I really hope we can kick Abbott out before he does much more damage.

Are people in Australia seriously talking about getting him removed? Does anyone even know what the process is in Australia to remove a Prime Minister?

> Are people in Australia seriously talking about getting him removed?

No.

The political climate in Australia has seriously deteriorated over the last decade and much political discourse is now indistinguishable from hysteria. The criticism being leveled at the Abbott government from progressives is very, very similar to what conservatives were saying about the Rudd/Gillard governments of the last 6 years - they're destroying the country, they don't represent the people, etc. Since the Internet is, in general, a more progressive place you're being exposed to a lot more of this hysteria than you would've been previously.[0]

> Does anyone even know what the process is in Australia to remove a Prime Minister?

The proper, established process is a Federal election. They happen every three years, and they give the electorate an opportunity to renew a government's mandate or to remove them from office as they see fit. At the last election, Tony Abbott was selected to be Prime Minister. He may or may not survive the next election, we shall see.

The new attitude in Australian politics of "I don't like this government - they should be summarily sacked" is despicable and anti-democratic. It seems to have infected both progressives and conservatives alike. It shows a complete lack of respect for the democratic process when one side decides that - since they don't like the new government's policies - they will simply ignore the fact that the government was duly and lawfully elected by the people. The dismissal of a government[1] is an extraordinary event that should only take place under extraordinary circumstances. The current circumstances are not extraordinary - progressives don't like a conservative government, what a surprise.

I don't agree with a lot of Mr. Abbott's policies, but as the Prime Minister of the country he should be afforded some respect. I will happily voice my disagreement with him, but I will not call for him to be dismissed. I will wait until the next Federal election and exercise my democratic rights then.

[0] Although it's an unpopular opinion, the conservatives had more reason to call for the Gillard Government's removal, as the hung parliament really placed the legitimacy of her mandate in question. Nonetheless, I think these types of criticisms are silly and hysterical coming from both sides.

[1] As another commenter mentioned, the Governor-General can dismiss the Government and trigger an election. This has only happened once, when the Whitlam Government was unable to pass supply bills through the Senate. This resulted in something similar to the US government shutdown that was experienced recently. This was a dark day in Australian politics and not something we should be eager to repeat - certainly not when the government is functioning (even if what it is doing is not particularly popular). "Well may we say 'God save the Queen' - because nothing will save the Governor General."

We don't have a lot of options for removing him, a few, but not many, one of the most likely is is party throw hi out fearing he is personally is killing their political careers.

The governor general can fire the government.

And as a domestic student those fees are also subsidized so the actual debt is relatively small (software engineering at a middling university ends up just shy of $30k for the entire degree)