I thought I had made the right decision for a brighter future... now I'm more than $50,000 in debt and regretting life's choices
Perth woman Pascal Zoghbi, 22, told Yahoo she regretted studying a Bachelor of Business and majoring in marketing at the University of Western Australia.
She said her debt was around $48,000 when she graduated in 2023 and believed the figure was slowly growing smaller due to compulsory repayments from her salary.
'Because I knew I was paying it off, I genuinely thought it would be at least under $50,000,' she said.
'The fact that I saw it back to $50,000, if not more - that was shocking.
'I was like, "Are you serious?" Literally everything that I have paid is just now back again.'
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a pre-election promise to cut 20 per cent off all student loan debts, which would wipe around $16billion for three million Aussies.
While not legislated yet, Albanese has said it would be the first piece of legislation introduced into the new parliament when it returns on July 22.
Under the plan, a graduate with an average student debt of $27,600 would see their loan reduced by $5,520.
The reduction would be backdated to June 1, before the 3.2 per cent indexation was applied this year.
In 2024, debts were indexed at four per cent.
The reforms would also raise the threshold for repayment from $54,453 to $67,000 for the 2025-26 financial year, and lower the rate to be repaid.
For someone on a middle income of $70,000, this would mean they pay around $1,300 less a year in repayments.
But for Ms Zoghbi, that would still leave her with $40,000 left to repay.
'I'm still $40,000 in debt for a degree that is not worth being $40,000 in debt for. It used to be free, which baffles me,' she said.
'As a marketing degree, you cannot get enough money coming in in any job that's going to be able to financially set you up to pay your HECS debt.'
Ms Zoghbi said she was worried her HECS debt could impact her ability to secure a home loan in the future.
'It's not worth the debt at all,' she said.
'I do not implement anything that I've learned at uni in my marketing job right now.'
Ms Zoghbi said she knew many people working in marketing who don't have degrees and managed to get a foot in the door with experience.
'It's all about experience at the end of the day, it's not about your degree at all,' she said.
During a visit to the University of New South Wales last week, federal education minister Jason Clare said new data showed the number of Aussie students starting a university degree was 'bouncing back big time'.
'The number of Australian students starting an undergraduate or a postgraduate degree this year looks set to be the highest on record,' he said.
'And that's a good thing. We want more Aussies to get more skills and to be able to get the careers of their dreams.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
26 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Government ministers say coalition is ‘at one' over student contribution fees
Government ministers have defended the plan over student contribution fees, and said the coalition is 'at one' on the issue. Earlier, Tánaiste Simon Harris said there was no rift in Cabinet over whether student contribution fees should go back up or not. Advertisement He and the Public Expenditure Minister Jack Chambers warned that the threat of US tariffs have brought uncertainty to the Irish economy which would be taken into account in budget negotiations. Mr Harris also accused the opposition of 'misinformation' on the student fees controversy and said Sinn Féin 'have some cheek lecturing us on college fees' and said that college fees in Northern Ireland are more than €5,000 a year. Controversy over the future student contribution fee began on Sunday after Higher Education Minister James Lawless said that because there was no cost-of-living package, student fees would 'reset' to what they were three years ago. The student contribution fee was at €3,000 before the inflation crisis, and was reduced by €1,000 as part of Government measures to help people grapple with inflation. Advertisement This would cost an extra €1,000 per academic year. Opposition politicians criticised the mooted increase and asked the Government to give clarity to parents ahead of the upcoming academic year. Mr Lawless came out on Monday and said it was the case that he currently does not have the funds to reduce fees, but would 'fight' his case as part of budgetary negotiations in the coming months. The Fianna Fáil TD also said he was 'hopeful' that whatever interventions he gains would kick in from the start of the next year, but added: 'I don't think there is any formula that can get the September instalments addressed.' Advertisement Asked about whether there was a rift in Cabinet over the issue, Fine Gael leader Mr Harris said 'certainly there is not'. He said that fees would not go up in September as those fees are covered under Budget 2025. He said most families pay the student contribution fee in instalments, paid in September and in the new year, and so the second instalment of the upcoming academic year would come under Budget 2026. 'If I was a parent of a child going to college today, I'd be saying, 'Do what happened last year, Do what happened the year before, do what happened the year before that',' he said at Iveagh House on Tuesday. Advertisement 'Pay in instalments and let's see where the budget brings us to. 'I'm clear as to where I'd like to get to, which is where the programme for government commitment is: reduce the fees progressively and abolish them over the lifetime of the government.' Minister of State Thomas Byrne, who was at Iveagh House with Mr Harris, said 'I think we are at one on this'. 'I'm going to work with our colleagues in government and make sure that we deliver on programme for government commitments which are based on what we've already done and are based on making sure that this economy is prepared for what's coming at it, and our education system is central to that. Advertisement 'We will look to the cost, and that's we will do what's in the programme for government. That's what we've agreed to do only a few months ago. There is no deviation from that whatsoever.' At Leaders' Questions, Mr Chambers said the summer economic statement would be agreed shortly, which sets out how much will be spent in the budget. Mr Doherty said this statement was not clear enough for families. 'There's no point blaming Donald's Trump tariffs for what you're doing to students,' Mr Doherty said. He said under the fee changes combined with rental changes made by the government, students would be particularly affected by the threat of increased student contribution fees. Mr Chambers said that Budget 2026 needed to be approached with caution. Labour leader Ivana Bacik said this represented 'yet another screeching U-turn' from 'the coalition of chaos'. She said families' budgeting plans had been thrown into 'disarray' by Mr Lawless' comments. 'What I think you said is that people may think this is an increase but really it is a reduction, and that is not the reality. 'We're approaching the start of the 2025/26 academic year and parents and students have no certainty, and indeed, are now led to believe that there is an extra 1,000 to be paid.' Social Democrats deputy leader Cian O'Callaghan said people would have 'reasonably thought' from the programme for government commitment that the current student contribution fee of 2,000 euro would be reduced down from that, rather than remaining at that level. Mr Chambers said Mr Lawless had been 'clear' that affordability for students was a priority for him. He warned that preparations for Budget 2026 would take into account economic instabilities Mr O'Callaghan asked: 'Minister did you only discovered the economic risks and threats posed by the Trump administration after the election in Ireland took place?' He said to blame it on the Trump administration, when his election took place in early November, 'doesn't cut it with people'. 'How can you break promises like that?' he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Hannah Thomas's injury sparks questions over NSW protester rights. What does the law say?
The altercation between police and protesters that left Hannah Thomas in hospital with a serious eye injury has reanimated a perennial issue in New South Wales – the right to protest. The former Greens candidate, who ran against Anthony Albanese in the seat of Grayndler at the federal election, was charged alongside four others after attending a protest in Sydney outside a business allegedly involved in supplying services for parts used in Israeli jets (which the company denies). She has blamed the NSW government's 'draconian anti-protest laws' for her injury, claiming they have 'emboldened' the police in interactions with protesters. NSW police said after a preliminary review of body-worn video of her arrest that there was no information to indicate misconduct. Here are the basics of the protest laws in NSW, and how they have changed. There is not an express right to protest in NSW, but it's covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication. Governments cannot create laws that significantly impede this right. However, there are many laws that critics claim have eroded it. Courts can overturn such laws if they are found to be constitutionally invalid, and have done so. Tim Roberts, the president of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, says a protest itself cannot be considered unlawful. However, an individual protester can be charged with an offence based on their conduct during the protest – for example, if they fail to comply with a move-on direction by police. No. However, protest organisers can apply to police ahead of time using a Notice of Intention to Hold a Public Assembly – commonly known as the 'form 1' process. Protesters submit the form to NSW police outlining details such as which roads the protest intends to march along. It is not mandatory for organisers to use this process. But if they do, and police accept the details on the form, protesters can be protected from being charged. If police oppose the form 1, a court has the final say. Earlier this year, the court sided with police after they knocked back a form 1 submitted by the climate group Rising Tide, which planned to blockade the Newcastle port. Organisers went ahead with the protest regardless. The court decision simply meant the protesters were not protected from being charged under protest laws if, for example, they obstructed a major facility, or failed to comply with a move-on direction. Police move-on powers are limited if the protest has an approved form 1. For protests that don't – which tend to be snap protests – the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act (Lepra) states that police may issue a move-on order if protesters obstruct traffic or a person poses a 'serious risk' to someone else's safety. But in February police powers were expanded in laws that one Labor MP reportedly described during an internal meeting as the most 'draconian' change to protest law in decades. Under the change, police can issue a move on-order if a protest is taking place near a place of worship. The protest does not need to be directed at the place of worship or even about religion. The legislation does not define 'near' – this is at the police's discretion. Sites in Sydney where protests commonly take place, such as Town Hall and Hyde Park – are close to places of worship. Police are required to give a move-on direction as a first warning. If a protester does not comply, they can be arrested and charged. This law has been mired in controversy. It was passed as part of a suite of reforms aimed at curbing antisemitism – and which are now the subject of an inquiry exploring whether parliament was misled before passing the laws. The catalyst for the laws was not a religious event, but a protest outside a synagogue at which a member of the Israel Defense Forces was speaking. It is also facing a constitutional challenge from the Palestine Action Group. Other laws have been introduced in recent years, primarily to target climate protests. In 2022, the then NSW Liberal government legislated – with support from Labor – a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $22,000 fine for protesters who obstruct facilities such as ports and transport hubs. The penalty also applies to protests on main roads. This was passed in response to a protest by the climate group Blockade Australia. David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, says people feel they must get permission for a protest, even though that is not the case. He says this feeds into language used by police such as a protest being 'unauthorised'. 'In New South Wales, the anti-protest regime is probably the most dire in the country,' he says. He says this is for multiple compounding reasons, including that NSW has more anti-protest laws than any other state. NSW also has the second highest maximum financial penalty for obstructing main roads and major facilities – South Australia has the highest maximum financial penalty at $50,0000. Mejia-Canales also says the laws are 'broad and vague', which makes it a challenge for protesters to know whether or not they broke the law. Police have been given a lot of discretionary power over applying protest law and also via the form 1 system, he adds. The centre has argued more than 49 laws introduced by federal and state governments over the past two decades have eroded the right to protest. Its report found NSW had introduced more laws than any other jurisdiction. Since the report was released last year, the Minns government has introduced two more laws – an offence of blocking railways, enacted after Blockade Australia shut down train lines in Newcastle, and the law around protests near places of worship. Roberts says successive state governments have increasingly reacted to protest movements – particularly climate and now the pro-Palestine movements – by introducing more legislation. He argues that place of worship changes are so broad that it is unclear to a protester whether they are in breach or not. Chris Minns says there is a balance to be struck between the right to protest and the rights of non-protesters, and that doing so is often difficult. 'Like big cities right around the world, you do have to deal with everybody's right to enjoy their city, to go to church, to go to a mosque, to enjoy recreation on the weekends free from harassment or vilification, alongside the public's right to protest,' the premier told reporters. In February, Minns said he did not believe the broad nature of the laws restricting protests near places of worship had left them open to misuse. 'We do put a lot of trust in NSW police, and I believe that they exercise it judiciously,' he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Liberal figures push for expiry dates on gender quotas in bid to win party support
Liberals pushing for changes to party rules to boost female representation in parliament will propose gender quotas with enforceable expiry dates, in a bid to win the broadest possible support for the plan. Wednesday night's meeting of the NSW Liberal Women's Council is set to include preliminary discussions about gender quotas for party preselections, days after the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said she was open to rule changes. Proponents of quotas, including the NSW senator Maria Kovacic, say sunset provisions to remove preferential treatment for women must be included in any rule change. The new House of Representatives will include just six Liberal women, a level of gender diversity not seen since the Howard era. The president of the council, Berenice Walker, said practical solutions to bring in more women were urgently needed. 'Men are just not going to give up their power and that's where it needs to be mandated,' she said. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Walker warned 'review points' would be required for any quota plan to assess their effectiveness after certain thresholds were met. 'I've noticed that there are more people coming on board to discuss the potential for quotas. They do want to look at solutions.' Kovacic said any quota rules would take multiple electoral cycles to be effective, and would require the support of state and territory divisions. 'Our goal must be genuine gender parity, with equal numbers of men and women contesting both marginal and safe seats,' she said. 'Achieving this goal will likely take two election cycles. 'Once that balance is reached, we can return to the existing system with confidence that equity has been successfully embedded. A sunset clause would be an appropriate mechanism to ensure the temporary nature of a quota system.' The senior Liberal frontbencher Angus Taylor and the former prime minister Tony Abbott are among the high-profile opponents of quotas. Taylor has said they 'subvert democratic processes' and has called for more mentoring of women as a measure to improve representation. The federal Liberal vice-president and former MP Fiona Scott said quotas 'could be a solution', provided they were part of a suite of changes. 'We need more pathways and organisations for women to inspire professional women to join,' she said. The shadow minister for women, Melissa McIntosh, said the quotas debate oversimplified the issue. She called for the review into the party's future, established after its devastating federal election defeat, to consider a range of mechanisms, including mentorship, pathways and quotas. 'The review must first and foremost, when it comes to women, look at addressing the culture of the Liberal party because you could have all the quotas in the world but that won't make any difference if the cultural issues aren't fixed,' McIntosh said. 'We need to reflect, attract and support women – in our communities, within our party and the parliament. There is no question the Liberal party needs greater female representation.' The newly elected NSW Liberal senator Jess Collins said quotas were a bad idea, and ignored the many women who were preselected without preferential rules. 'I think that is a complete slap in the face for all of those terrific women, and I think it'll take the party backwards,' she said. 'I see gender quotas being weaponised as a means of consolidating factional power. We are trying now to move the New South Wales division out of that factional maelstrom, and I see gender quotas as a way to hold on to that power for those people at the top.' The NSW Young Liberals president, Georgia Lowden, said party members were open to trying new approaches, because 'things aren't getting better'. 'We need structural and cultural reform to recruit, mentor and promote more women. We should look at quotas as a temporary measure to level the playing field while we build lasting change.' 'We need to show women across the country that there's a place for them in the Liberal party.'
