Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise for reflecting on your feminine side, Mr Deputy Speaker! Across Australia, VSU has cost students at university campuses close to $170 million, and it is students over these years that have suffered that loss directly or indirectly.

I just want to talk, very briefly, about sport. The Australian Olympic Committee, in the review that I referred to earlier, talked about the impact on sports generally but cited rowing—which is a popular sport in this place—as an area where some 80 per cent of national rowers have a connection with a university club. Evidence in that review showed that there has been, since the introduction of the policy of VSU, a 17 per cent reduction in student participation in sport. There are 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university than was the case before VSU. The Olympic committee provided evidence to that review along these lines:

Given the importance that the university sports system has on elite level sport, these trends will have a direct and real impact on Australia’s ability to maintain its hard won international standing in sport.

I also want to address briefly the scare campaign being run by the other side about the reintroduction of compulsory student unionism. The government is not changing the prohibition in the Higher Education Support Act which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. New provisions prohibit the fee that universities are now able to charge being used by a higher education provider to support activities which support a political party or candidate for election to Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or local government.

Further, this prohibition must be imposed on any person or organisation to which the higher education provider pays any of that fee revenue. There is no freedom of association issue here, let us be clear about that. Rather, it is about a collective contribution for the provision of services which this side of the House see as being an inextricable part of higher education campus experiences. This is about a collective contribution that spreads the cost in an equitable manner and ensures the survival of those services. This is not a novel concept.

For the first time, this bill will ensure that higher education providers receiving funding for student places under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme must meet national benchmarks in relation to the national access to services and national student representation and advocacy protocols. Higher education providers must ensure that students are provided with information and access to basic support services of a non-academic nature. The providers must ensure that students have an opportunity to participate in university governance structures through democratic representation as well as access to independent advocacy services. Those benchmarks are to be developed in consultation not only with the university but also, importantly, with students.

To further improve the quality of these services and campus life generally the bill also permits universities, from 1 July this year, to implement compulsory student services and amenities fees capped at $250 per student per annum, which, as best my memory serves me, was about the union fee that I paid in the late 1980s. It is a fee, which is indexed annually, to provide services and amenities above and beyond the national benchmark standards that I just referred to.

There are specific services that that fee can—and can only—apply to: food and beverages, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care, housing, employment and financial services, visual arts, performing arts, debating, libraries and reading rooms, student media, academic support, personal accident insurance, orientation information and support services for overseas students. Those are the purposes to which that fee can be put and it can be put only to those services. It is hardly the basis for a socialist revolution.

Equitable access is a major focus of this government in education generally and in this area in particular. Eligible students will have the option of taking out a HECS style loan to cover this fee, to be called SA HELP. Guidelines under the provisions will also ensure that part-time students are not forced to bear more than their proper share. This is a practical, balanced approach to reinvigorating our campuses and ensuring that students have access to vital support services without terrifying those opposite, with their hysterical reaction to the ‘u-word’.

There are many, many third-party endorsements of this bill that range across higher education providers, student advocacy bodies and many more. I do not propose to go through all of them, but I have noted that the Group of Eight supports this bill, as do Universities Australia and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations. As I said earlier, the Australian Olympic Committee endorses it, as do Australian University Sport and many, many more.

David Barrow, a very talented young man who is now President of the National Union of Students, has urged Senate support. As he has explained it:

These guidelines rebuild and protect the life enriching experiences and crucial support services fundamental to a university experience … particularly at regional campuses.

This bill rights a significant wrong perpetrated by the previous government on young Australians, when most of the members of that government were able to enjoy the rich, full and diverse campus life that was underwritten by over 100 years of university unionism. This restores vital student services and will protect representation and advocacy rights in a fair and balanced manner that will benefit students without imposing a financial burden at a time that they cannot afford it. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context