Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 will amend the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation and deliver a balanced, measured and practical solution to rebuilding student services and amenities of a non-academic nature and restoring independent democratic representation and advocacy in the higher education sector. The bill contains the same provisions for student services and amenities as the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 that was defeated in the Senate on 18 August 2009.

Students are paying the price for the Liberal Party’s outdated view on, and ideological obsession with, voluntary student unionism. Voluntary student unionism is the raison d’etre of young Liberals and student Liberal groups. This is the glue that, for many years, has bound these diverse young conservatives together. Voluntary student unionism was something that the small ‘l’ Liberals, the libertarians and the big ‘C’ conservative groups within the conservative youth group movement could agree on. They could not agree on much but one thing they could agree on was voluntary student unionism. It was a policy obsession for many a member of those opposite in their early twenties, and unfortunately and rather sadly for them it remains a policy obsession today.

Those opposite do not care about the practicalities of their obsession. They do not care about the young mother who is unable to go to uni due to a lack of affordable university child care. They do not care about landing a blow on regional and rural students. They do not care that they have carried this policy obsession for decades. They care more about their world view being maintained than about the practical and real outcomes of this view on the lives of students. They mask their view in an argument about choice. They fail to grasp the very simple proposition that we live in communities and that universities are also communities.

Quite clearly, when we take a community approach to things and how they are there for the common good, we understand that there is cross-subsidisation. It happens every day of our lives. It happens with the rates that we pay to the local council. It happens in terms of the services provided by the state government. It happens in relation to the taxes that we pay to the federal government. We do not all use up these services to exactly the same measure but we are happy to accept that we live in a community and that part of living in a community is the cross-subsidisation that results so that those who are worse off, who find it a bit tougher than others and who cannot afford some of the services receive subsidised services. That concept is no different when we look at university communities and how they should operate. We are being asked by the opposition to ignore the fact that universities are communities.

The opposition’s view is that we are all individuals and so we should purchase all of our services on an individual basis. This is the type of rationale that leads to the argument that we should not have a police force. There should be private security guards for those who can afford them and for those who cannot afford them—tough. That is the individual choice that someone makes. This is the approach that the opposition have taken. The opposition have taken an ideological view rather than a practical one on needs of students in universities across the country. In the past, the opposition have tried to mask their ideological arguments in a sort of overarching argument about choice. We saw a stark example of this in the debate on industrial relations and Work Choices.

Those opposite were asking us to swallow the notion that individuals should be able to make choices about their own working arrangements and that they should be able to have so-called ‘flexibility’ of individual contracts. The Australian population, quite frankly, did not believe them. At the last election, there was an overwhelming rejection of what those opposite were saying about choice in the workplace. Voluntary student unionism is very similar to that issue. This is not about individuals having choice; it is about providing services for kids who are going to university who would otherwise not be able to afford those services. So for the member for O’Connor to say that kids will have the choice of going to the cafeteria or bringing a packed lunch is insulting to university students, particularly those students who come from my area, which has a lower socioeconomic make-up than many other areas. The kids in my area struggle to get to university. The subsidised services they are provided at universities are often the only way that these kids are able to take advantage of those services.

The government is not saying that this legislation is the return of compulsory student unionism. There were problems with compulsory student unionism, and I think any fair-minded person would concede that. This legislation is not about compulsory student unionism. We are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. The new provisions state that a higher education provider who spends the fee on support for a political party or a candidate for an election to Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments or to local government is prohibited. A higher education provider must also impose this prohibition on any person or organisation to which it pays any of the fee revenue. The fear about this money finding its way back, as the member for O’Connor said, to the ALP’s coffers is clearly a position that the member for O’Connor has taken without reading the legislation, because it specifically says that that is not possible.

Most fair-minded people would concede that there were problems with accountability in some student union organisations in the past. Many fair-minded people would concede that the previous government threw the baby out with the bathwater and that it went too far in its approach to university services and amenities. Students are being forced to deal with these consequences. Under the previous government, close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding. This resulted in the decline and, in some instances, the complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child-care, sporting and fitness services at universities. The member for O’Connor, again, I think, insulted university student when he tried to say that that funding was being spent on cheap beer and massages. Clearly, the member is not in touch with what the legislation is about, and he is certainly not in touch with what happens at universities. This legislation is about ensuring that some vital services are provided. The member for O’Connor insults university students and fair-minded people with his statements.

Of the areas in this country’s economy that were neglected over the 11½ years of the previous government, higher education suffered more than most. In fact, the neglect of higher education by the former government was so bad that, while other OECD countries were on average increasing their funding by up to 48 per cent in the 10 years leading up to 2004, Australia saw a decline of four per cent. This shows a massive difference between what was happening in higher education in this country and that of comparable OECD countries, and we are paying for it now with bottlenecks in skills shortages. The previous government was warned about this over 20 times by the Reserve Bank and still it did nothing about it. When you see how the previous government decreased funding in this sector, it is little wonder that we have problems in skills shortages in key industries. The previous government created that situation. They knew that there were skills shortages in the country and that the situation was getting worse because of their inaction in education generally but particularly in higher education.

The National Party have recognised publicly that the current approach to funding student services and amenities is not sustainable and that it has had a terrible impact, particularly on our rural and regional campuses. The National Party voted at their recent party conference to support a compulsory fee being levied on university students to support services and amenities on campus. Despite this, they did not support the passage of this critical bill in the Senate, preferring to side with their coalition partners over the needs of regional students. The National Party need to put their money where their mouth is. They cannot pretend to support funding for student services and amenities when they are out in the bush speaking to their constituents but vote against this important legislation when they are in Canberra.

Increases in student costs on campuses were also identified through the consultations, showing that, as a consequence of VSU, students had been hit by price hikes in areas such as child care, parking, food and fitness services. Students have also experienced the indirect costs of VSU on the quality of their education with many universities being forced to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall in funding for campus services.

Following consultations, the Australian government has developed a balanced, practical and sustainable solution to help ensure that non-academic student services and democratic student representation are secured for the long term. Under this plan, for the first time universities will be required, as a condition of funding, to meet new national access to service benchmarks to ensure students have information and access to basic but important student support services like counselling and welfare services. In another first, universities will also be required to fulfil new representation and advocacy protocols to ensure that students have a say on campus.

The government is consulting with the higher education sector and other key stakeholders on the development of these benchmarks and protocols and we will ensure that feedback from within the campuses is considered as part of this process. On top of these requirements universities have also been provided with the option of setting a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250 per full-time student and indexed each year, to help rebuild student amenities and student support services. Universities will be responsible for whether or not they set a fee of up to $250 a year and will have flexibility to determine which students are required to pay that fee. To help students manage the fee, the Australian government will provide access to a HECS-style loan under the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP. This is called Services and Amenities-HELP. This means that students will be able to defer payment of the fee in a HECS-like arrangement and not have to start paying back the fee until they start earning a set salary in line with their HELP repayments. Universities who choose to set a fee will be required to consult with students on what services and amenities the fee will be used for.

The government has also released draft guidelines that set out the range of services and amenities that may be funded through the collection of any services and amenities fee. They include things like child care, health services, sport and fitness amenities. Let us make it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker—the new arrangements are not a return to compulsory student unionism and we are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. Further, the fee will not be able to be used to support broader political activities. The government believes that this is a balanced, practical solution that enables universities, students and the government to work in partnership to rebuild important student support services and ensure democratic student representation and advocacy at Australian universities.

The University of Newcastle’s Ourimbah campus on the New South Wales Central Coast—in my electorate of Dobell—is a fast-growing and increasingly popular choice for higher education. The campus grounds are nestled in an area of plush subtropical rainforest and bushland in a central location of the region. The Ourimbah campus offers university, TAFE and community college programs and courses all on one site so that students can take advantage of pathways between levels and sectors of education and training. Affiliates are the Central Coast Community College and the Central Coast Conservatorium of Music.

There are a range of degree programs offered at this campus, including the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Science, Bachelor of Information Technology, Bachelor of Business, Bachelor of Early Childhood Teaching, Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Exercise and Sport Science, Bachelor of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Bachelor of Psychology. These are a few of the undergraduate courses available. The Ourimbah campus also has a number of postgraduate courses, including a Graduate Certificate in Science, Graduate Diploma in Education (Primary), Graduate Diploma in Science and Master of Food Technology.

So you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the University of Newcastle’s Ourimbah campus has grown to become a very good and very desirable higher education venue. The campus is currently engaging in such research programs which ask, ‘Can green tea lower cholesterol?’ under which Central Coast people with higher blood cholesterol are being targeted to determine whether regular consumption of green tea can help lower blood cholesterol levels. The Ourimbah campus is also behind the establishment of a new marine research centre on the Central Coast. This national centre of excellence in marine research and education will be a reality for the region by Christmas with the keys to its new home handed over at that time.

This year marks 20 years since the first classes commenced at the Central Coast campus. This milestone gives the community the opportunity to reflect on the growth of higher education in the region over that time and the importance of having access to high-quality educational services. I have talked before in this parliament about how great our university campus is on the Central Coast. Recently I made calls for the campus to change its name. One would think that one of the things we could do rather quickly is at least change its name to the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, rather than the Ourimbah campus, and then look over time to develop a university in our own right on the Central Coast. This issue is not just symbolic. It has a great effect on people being able to identify that this is a place of higher education—TAFE, community college and university—and that this is the Central Coast’s. It is something that the university needs to look at.

In addition to the government’s commitment to improving university services and student representation, the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education will report to the government later this year on broader issues relating to universities. Ourimbah university student Kris Gesling wrote in response to my previous speech:

I’m glad the Federal Government boosted uni funding after Howard’s decade of decay but it was just a drop in the ocean to make up for what he did to our education system. We need more funding for education across the sector to ensure that Australia stays at the forefront of innovation. We’ve been lucky with the resources boom but that won’t last and has a devastating impact on our natural environment.

Let us go back and have another look at what this bill is actually saying and when these changes come into effect. Universities that choose to implement the fee and make essay help available will be able to charge the fee once legislation has been passed and guidelines are in place. Universities will be able to charge up to $250. This amount will be indexed for 2010 onwards, in line with other loan programs under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. International full fee paying students are not eligible to access the higher education loan program. These students need to have the means to pay their tuition fees. It is therefore reasonable for these students to pay the services and amenities fees if a higher education provider decides to impose them.

Part-time students are also affected by these changes. The guidelines to be made under the new provisions will specify how the maximum fee will be worked out for a student who is studying on a less than full-time basis. Higher education providers will be able to charge less than the maximum or not require some students to pay a fee at all.

To wrap up, let us be reminded why we are going ahead with the changes under this legislation. The previous government went too far with its approach to the university sector, and amenities and students are being forced to deal with the consequences. Under the previous government’s approach close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding, resulting in the decline and in some instances complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child-care, sporting and fitness services. Universities have also reported having to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to make up for the shortfall of funding for campus services.

Without urgent intervention services will continue to decline and even fold completely. The decline in student support services has also impacted on the capacity of Australian universities to attract international students. Sporting organisations have identified a decline in participation and an inability to invest in infrastructure and undertake long-term development planning. The government has consistently committed to ensuring that university students have access to vital campus services. We are honouring this commitment. This is a practical, balanced and sustainable solution for securing the future of support services on campus and also for ensuring that students have access to independent representation. This is not compulsory student unionism. We are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation.

You wonder whether the ideological problem that the opposition have with this legislation is because they are so historically opposed to any reference to unions. We saw what they did with Work Choices. We heard the member for O’Connor spend a good part of his contribution not talking about this legislation but talking about unions, industrial organisations, and their capacity to raise money and use it in political campaigns. Those things are clearly prohibited in relation to this particular piece of legislation. This legislation is about providing student services. It is about providing health services. It is about providing a counselling service. It is about providing sporting services. This is legislation that makes sure students attending higher education facilities around Australia get fair access to these services. It is about making sure the community that exists on university campuses has a fair go, collectively, rather than it being left to those who can afford to pay for these particular services being the only ones who can gain access to them. This is a piece of legislation that is important. It should be supported and I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context