You forgot to mention the fact that some women work permenant part time and never earn enough money to actually pay anything back. I know quite a few nurses who have worked part time or casual their entire working life, mainly because it suited their family lifestyle. I also know quite a few female doctors who had a baby very soon after graduation and went into permenant part time work.
Also, the issue of women working in lower paid professions is a personal choice, it is not mandatory. I was a nurse for over 30 years and it was never about the money, only job satisfaction.

The article seems to be implying that our esteemed Minister for Women and PM would act in a manner that exacerbates problems for women, so it's obviously entirely wrong.
The Canetoad is justly famous for his forward thinking and sensitivity and his caring and nurturing nature is there for all to see on a daily basis.
The Canetoad's vision for the future is clear and easily understood, one need only consult the history books to see it.
Putting women back into the home and keeping them under-educated and subservient is demonstrably good for them, just look at how happy their menfolk were with that situation, proof-positive of it's benefits for all concerned.
So, let all the women of Australia cease their complaints, let them find a good man and give him a good home and children and assume their "proper" role in society and stop bothering their pretty little heads about things that don't concern them, we'll all be happier in the long run, and let us thank the Good Lord we have a political party and leader that are so wise and caring.
Sickening isn't it, yet it's very obviously the policy of those currently running this country!

The author fails to mention the extraordinary subsidy in uni fees. The disparity isn't between males and females, the true disparity is between those that got into uni and those going to private colleges.

My daughter was fortunate to get into a design course at uni where the fees are less than 25% of those charged by private colleges. It seems a little unreasonable to complain about some very small interest charges when the government is already providing a massive subsidy and so many others miss out.

I certainly hope this is true.

It just might reduce the number of girls doing pretend disciplines for soft degrees, only to be able to get clerical work in the public service, at ridiculously high, [for the work involved], wages & conditions.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if it actually did a bit to balance the gender divide in teaching. Even a slight reduction in the bleeding heart brigade in education would help the nation.

Even better, it might reduce university enrolments, & bring them down to kids with an IQ high enough to actually learn something useful. Got to admit, I'd like to see that.

don't worry Amanda if we continue with country destroyers like that of the party you belong to, the Greens and Clive no one will be getting any assistance with education. The whinging and whining from the commun ity then will of been caused by people like yourself. 'Progressives'are great at stuffing things up and then crying about the consequences of their stupidity.

Yes Amanda.
And because women invariably need to take time out of their lives to marry and raise a family, this is exactly as it will pan out, with a much higher debt, bulked up by compounding interest!
Bracket creep could also play a part, to make the repayments kick in, and well before any semblance of a family budget can afford them?
If the government is so short of money, then it has a number of other viable choices!
1# repealing wealthy old men's tax breaks on their huge super deals! Surely it's already enough that privilege has allowed them to amass huge fortunes, without them also putting the bite on the less well off, as reductions to the bottom line; that's currently costing the budget bottom line some 40 billions PA!
And as things stand, will soon cost the budget bottom line more than that paid as pensions! Deal with it now, and before it becomes even more unaffordable/untenable!
2# family trusts cost the budget bottom line some thirty billions PA, and only to bulk up much higher incomes!
None of these things are being proposed to be touched, just old age pension entitlement changes, and a very much more expensive HECS debt etc!
When this Government parked it rear ends on the treasury benches, fair play just flew out the window!
If things are that desperate, why not cut out all welfare for the rich, and then use that money to completely negate the so called deficit!
And start drawing down debt with the billions left, and in just five or six years.
This different approach would allow more discretionary funds to be held in the hands of those, with little or no choice but to spend them and thereby soften the economic hard landing, which could very easily be part of an unavoidable future; but particularly, if the current economically illiterate government keeps unnecessarily cutting!
Rhrosty.