The unimpressive Hockey, and university policy from out of the blue

I'm starting to get the feeling that Joe Hockey has been rehearsing and retelling the line that the government hasn't broken promises that he's starting to believe it;  a sad example of the psychological trick of pretending a lie is the truth for long enough that you start to believe it.

He gave a woeful interview on the radio just now in which he tried to pretend the GP co-payment idea was an example of extra funding needed for health.  His problem is, of course, that it is destined for this medical research fund instead, so he had to pretend that it really does fund health because it may find a cure for cancer!

He also will not be honest and say flat out what everyone knows - he expects the States to ask for GST to be increased if they are to be the ones holding the can for long term hospital funding.

In other Budget commentary, I note that on The Drum last night, Judith Sloan made brief mention of the Budget being "really mean" towards "youth" - which is up to the age of 30.

This aspect of the Budget is (so far) attracting less attention than I expected.   I am rather surprised that Shorten and Labor have not yet come and condemned that change already as clearly too draconian and must be modified.

I was also listening to Christopher Pyne on the university deregulation idea.  He seems to think the youth will like it because they can go get a diploma easier which will then the basis for entry to an undergraduate course.  Just rather sounds like adding a rather unnecessary step if you ask me - at greater expense.

These changes seem to have come pretty much out of the blue, and have serious long term effects on students.   If he can come within 1 km of a university gate without risking getting egged, I'll be surprised.

I will also be very surprised if the youth vote does not collapse entirely for the Coalition.

Update:    thought I would see if I could quickly Google up the Coalition's election 2013 policies on tertiary education.  Here it is:

•We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

•We will work with the sector to reduce the burden of red tape, regulation and reporting,freeing up the sector to concentrate on delivering results and services.

•We will review and restructure government research funding to make sure each dollar is spent as effectively as possible.

•We will ensure the sector has a stable, long-term source of infrastructure funding.

•We will work with the sector to grow higher education as an export industry and to support international students studying in Australia.

 Yep, nothing in there about doubling the cost of a university degree.  As one Professor from UQ says:

The 2014 budget is taking the higher education sector into uncharted territory. One imagines that a deregulated market for university fees cannot be good for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds but, as Bruce Chapman says, no-one really knows what the social effects of this will be. It is certainly true, however, that this will bring us much closer to a privatised higher education sector where those with the greatest ability to pay will receive the greatest benefit. It would be surprising if there was not a serious political objection to the implications of this initiative; there is every reason to see it as a measure which will increase inequities of opportunity.

Update:   Go back further to 2012, in an article in The Age, and you get Christopher Pyne claiming this:

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said reports the Coalition was considering raising fees were "wrong".
"While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places," Mr Pyne said.
But Mr Pyne's spokesman declined to comment on whether the party had plans to deregulate the capped fees universities can charge for courses.
"Our higher education policy will be released at the appropriate time before the next election," he said.

I don't believe it was.