Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It might help the member for Moncrieff, who keeps injecting. It might give him some assistance. I suggest he sit back and just listen. We released this summary report. We undertook consultations from February 2008 and we invited submissions from stakeholders. The summary report says:

Most submissions concluded that the abolition of upfront compulsory student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and campuses.

Many noted that the introduction of VSU had forced rationalisations, and that current levels of services were more limited than had previously been the case.

In many instances, assistance was provided by the university but these funds were redirected from other uses such as teaching, learning or research.

That was the case with the University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and other organisations. The University of Queensland, for example, had to redirect funds to help the student union with funding for sport because the costs had gone up enormously. That is the case across the country.

The opposition should have a look at the study. I doubt whether they actually consulted it. It also found that there was a reduction of $166 million in funding from amenity and service fees, expected to rise to $200 million in 2009. It found that there was a loss of 1,000 jobs, a 30 per cent reduction in employment. How can those opposite say that they are committed to the sector, they are committed to jobs and training and they are committed to providing services for students at university when they presided over that? Those are the consequences of their obsession.

This legislation really is good. It is about bringing back assistance to the sector. I have spoken to Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Alan Rix, from the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I had a long conversation with him about this particular issue. In an email he sent to me, he had this to say:

My personal view is that the guidelines in the area identified for support, including infrastructure, seem appropriate and would enable an institution to provide services accordingly.

That is from someone in the sector, from the University of Queensland, who is held in high esteem—a pro-vice-chancellor, a well-known academic in Queensland and a well-respected person in the community. That is what he has to say about this. Do we hear those opposite quoting anyone from the sector? No, they spend their time deriding student unions and the people who stand up for the students who are struggling to get through university. They spend all their time casting aspersions upon them.

We have got to provide solutions for more funding to go back into the sector. We recognised the negative impact of voluntary student unionism, and that is why this legislation came before the House and then the Senate earlier this year. Regrettably, because of their ideological opposition, those opposite opposed it in the House and voted it down in the Senate, and we can see from the shadow minister that they are going to do that again. That is really a shame. It shows that those opposite clearly do not support the sector—and we see that again in the legislation relating to income support for students that is currently before the Senate. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about this as another example of the coalition not supporting the university sector and students who are struggling, particularly those from rural and regional areas. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear that about 150,000 students who receive youth allowance will not get the proposed $2,254 start-up scholarships to help them meet the costs of their study if the legislation that is before the Senate is blocked, and students who would otherwise be eligible for a $4,000 relocation payment will not be able to receive this. These would be the consequences of the coalition’s behaviour and belief with respect to the university sector and students.

The coalition say it is because they want to support choice, but we know what their view on choice and freedom is. Work Choices is the greatest example of the coalition’s belief in choice and freedom. It is freedom for the rich, but those who struggle, those from the working class and others who do it tough to get to university are on their own. That is the coalition’s attitude to university funding.

As I have said, many universities—Griffith University, the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology—have said they have had to redirect funds from other avenues to their consolidated revenue, and other universities have had to use funds from research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall in funding for campus services. Without the passage of this legislation, we will see services decline further, and some, sadly, are likely to fold. I urge the National Party, who claim they are the party of the bush, the party that represents the regions, to do the right thing by regional students who attend the universities I mentioned earlier—

See this speech in context