Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, something happened, indeed! I did notice, though, that a number of those on the other side have been involved in, I suppose you could call it, union politics on student campuses in the past. The former member for Higgins is another. When he got re-elected, a little disappointingly for him but not for me, personally, he only spoke once in this place and that was about this bill and the re-emergence of ‘Labor Inc.’ on university campuses. But enough of their pathological hatred for anything bordering on unionism.

They also continue their attack on our public universities themselves. They have never been supporters of public universities, even though many of them have benefited from a public education through our universities. Not only have they attacked funding of universities, but they have tied their funding, perversely, to their perverse industrial relations systems in the past. In other words, you do not get funding or you do not get certain programs unless you introduce AWAs and other forced industrial relations systems in the university—again, this pathological interest in trying to dumb down liberal—small ‘l’ liberal, I have to say—institutions in this country.

Finally, I believe their view of politics is not to argue the substance of any legislation such as this. If you go through the substance of this legislation, which I will now attempt to do, you will see it has nothing to do with their opposition to it. That is purely political. When you ask for substantive argument about why we should not try to reintroduce what we regard as services and necessary amenities to our campuses, they cannot give it to you, except to say, ‘You’re trying to introduce compulsory unionism to our campuses.’ And on they go. Those are their four basic reasons for why they are opposing this bill. There is nothing of substance in their opposition, except that they are the opposition and they are well and truly acting like it today.

First and foremost, on a positive note, I would like to say what this legislation is all about. Fundamentally, it is about restoring a balance, as we promised we would do. It is about restoring the balance between what was taken away during the Howard era—and what is now being supported in the post-Howard era in this House by the opposition—and what existed before the Howard era. It seeks to do this in a contemporary way. It is not going to be the same as the past. It is going to be our way today. That is what it seeks to do. This time we are putting some balance back into the tertiary education system and accompanying services, after they were hacked at—and I think that is a pretty correct description—by the previous government in what was, as I have noted before, a poorly disguised attack on what they perceived as a political threat to their future on campuses around Australia.

Contrary to what some members have said in this House, both when this legislation first came up and more recently, the past legislation stripped nearly $170 million from university funding and left universities struggling to cover many vital and valuable services to the students the previous government claimed to represent. How do you make up $170 million of stripped services? I would like to know how to do that. One way the universities did it—had to do it, were forced to do it by those opposite—was to take away funding from their mainstream programs. They took it from student classes, programs and courses so they could redirect it into what they regarded as fundamental amenities and services. For example, dental services at La Trobe University and the Southern Cross University were closed down completely. I do not know about you, but having the old molar problems is bad enough at any time. But, if you are a rural and regional student at La Trobe University and you need assistance with your oral health—which can affect all of your health, of course; that is why I have always been struck by why, to this day, it is not part of Medicare, but that is another issue—and you cannot access basic oral health services on campus, it is very difficult. It is very difficult, as we all know, to access those services outside the campus. That is just an example.

The University of Technology, Sydney, La Trobe Uni and James Cook Uni had to close their legal services. In the case of the University of Technology, Sydney, this affected not only the students but also the local community, who had also accessed the service. The emergency loans scheme once offered at the University of Sydney had to close down. I understand that three universities shut down their Centrelink advice services. Nine universities shut down their student legal and taxation advice services. Childcare fees at La Trobe Uni rose by $800 a year and direct funding for sporting clubs was cut by something like 40 per cent and so on. Members on this side whose electorates include those campuses and those students have cited example after example of amenities and services being cut because of the Howard government ripping out $170 million, which is still supported by those post-Howard acolytes sitting on the other side. We all know this. Students are more than people just sitting in class and consuming lectures. Students, particularly those who come from rural areas such as my own electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania, require services to support and complement their studies. Those students are forced to travel, live away from home and go to university campuses throughout this nation and elsewhere. Those services and amenities are very important to those students.

I think it is very important—and, again, it has not been mentioned by those opposite—that this legislation allows higher education providers to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee. They can choose. It does not mean it is compulsory; it is up to those higher education providers to choose whether to implement this form of amenities fee. It is capped at $250 per student, it is indexed annually and what it is meant to do is clearly and precisely set out. It is not meant to and cannot be used to promote Labor, Green, Liberal, National or Callithumpian Inc., as the member for Mayo was very quick to point out in his rather scratchy contribution on this legislation. It allows higher education providers to choose to implement such a fee. It does not say they must do so, contrary to the mischievous comments made by members opposite. So this is not imposed by us from without. It is up to the higher education providers to make the decision, taking into account the whole of the demands and expectations of their students on their campus. They make the decision.

I mentioned earlier that, contrary to the claims of those opposite, the changes introduced with voluntary student unionism that Howard era and post-Howard acolytes still support did not reduce costs on university campuses. Those changes merely shifted those costs—for example, evidence demonstrates that students have been hit with increased costs for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport, food and so on. They have also indirectly affected academic achievements, with a number of unis forced to redirect funding, on their own account, out of research and teaching budgets to cross-subsidise and fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut.

For the edification of those who may be listening to this debate and those present in the House I would like to explain a little more about what the intention of this legislation is and what is not intended.

See this speech in context