Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I never cease to be amazed, when I listen to members on the other side of this parliament debate any legislation, by how they let their ideological predisposition and hatred of unions permeate every contribution they make to debate in this House. We are not talking student unionism here; we are talking about an administration fee so that students attending university can have the services they need, so that there is infrastructure in place to support students. Members on the other side of the House, like the member for Ryan, roll out the same, tired old arguments we have listened to in this parliament time and time again made by the ideologues on the other side. It is amazing. They absolutely never change and because they are so embedded in their philosophical hatred they are disadvantaging students and universities.

This legislation 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. Listening to speakers on this legislation from the other side of this chamber, one would think that it was only the government—the Labor Party—that was pushing this agenda. But, no, that is not correct; the universities are very supportive of the legislation that we are debating today. Universities throughout Australia have pledged their support for this legislation. I may have glimpsed the member for Cowper on his feet earlier in this debate and I know that universities and students in the area that he represents will be able to benefit from this administration fee that will be used to improve non-academic services and infrastructure within the university—I think it is Southern Cross University—in his area.

Earlier this year I had a visit from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle and he talked to me about an application that the university had made under the Structural Adjustment Fund. At the same time he took the opportunity to raise with me what he thought was one of the most important issues facing the university. Given my role as a representative for Shortland electorate, where one-third of the students attending that university actually come from, he felt that he had my ear and so he would raise this exceptionally important issue. What was that exceptionally important issue? It was student administration fees, and how the legislation introduced by the previous Howard government—driven by ideologues such as the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, and people who are out of touch with their communities—had impacted enormously on students and the university itself.

The fees collected at the University of Newcastle had decreased from $6 million to $1.5 million. That meant that the university faced the dilemma of whether it took money from some other source or took money out of another bucket of money, which was very important, to ensure that these vital services continued or let the services decline and do away with them. Along with that, the effect would be that the students attending the university would not have access to those services. So far, the university has been able to continue to support the students. What that university—the one attended by the majority of students from the area that I represent—would like to see happen is for this legislation to pass through the House.

As the representative of the people in the Shortland electorate, I argue very strongly for this legislation to pass through the House and for the members on the other side of the House to get over it—to leave behind your hatred of unions. This is not about unionism; this is about ensuring that students attending university actually get the services that they want and have exposure to a whole lot of different life experiences whilst they are at university, rather than the sterile picture that members on the other side of this parliament have of the types of services that students need and deserve.

The new provisions prohibit the new fee being spent by a higher education provider on supporting political parties or candidates for election to the Commonwealth, state or territory parliament, or local government. The higher education provider must also impose this prohibition on any person or organisation to which it pays any of the fee revenue. Maybe that could be a problem for members on the other side of this parliament after listening to the debate on electoral reform. Maybe that is something that they would like to see happen rather than not. The legislation is not a return to compulsory student unionism and the government is not changing sections 19 to 37 of the Higher Education Support Act.

The introduction of the voluntary student unionism legislation by the previous government stripped close to $170 million out of university funding. I just pointed out how much money it stripped out of the University of Newcastle, the university attended by the majority of students from the Shortland electorate.

Members on the other side of this House have argued ‘choice’. Students do not have choices about a lot of things in their lives. I strongly encourage members to go and talk to the students that they represent in this House. The voluntary student union legislation has led to huge increases in the cost of child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport and food. When I was attending university, one of my children attended a childcare service. I would not have been able to complete my university degree if the provision of that service had not been subsidised through the fees that were being paid then.

Students have also experienced numerous rises in indirect costs. These are things that they do not have a choice about. These are things that are happening now. I think that for members on the other side of the House to sanctimoniously sit there and say that this takes away choice shows just how out of touch they are with what is happening in their electorates and how out of touch they are with what is happening at universities. These are just more platitudes by an opposition that is only good at slogans and opposing everything, not at representing the people of their electorates. It is the students who are paying the price for the outdated ideas of the ideologues on the other side of the House.

What I find a little bit confusing is the position of the National Party. They recognised publicly that these fees should be supported. The member for Cowper would have been at the recent party conference that supported a compulsory fee being levied on university students to support services and amenities on campuses. That is the belief, the argument, that has been put forward by the National Party outside the parliament. But inside this parliament, subservient to their Liberal Party masters, they vote against what their national conference supported.

I can understand why many electorates previously held by National Party members are now held by Independents. People in those electorates can see that it is Independents who stand up for them and Independents who understand what their needs are—not National Party members, who say one thing at their national conference and come into this parliament and vote against the interests of the students and the people they represent. I find it so disappointing that there is one voice outside the parliament and another voice inside. All of this shows a lack of understanding of the issue and the need for members in the parliament, on both sides, to get up and support their universities as I am doing.

The vice-chancellor of the University of Newcastle pointed out that fee income had dropped from $6 million to $1.5 million as a result of the voluntary student union legislation. That is money that has been ripped out of the University of Newcastle. That money needs to be reinstated and this legislation is vitally important for achieving that. In the previous parliament, this legislation was supported in the House. This is really a reintroduction of previous legislation, legislation that the opposition voted against in the Senate, getting enough support to defeat it. I implore senators to get behind this legislation, because without urgent intervention the services at universities will continue to decline.

This legislation is vitally important for students. The non-academic services provided by universities go towards creating the whole-of-university experience for students and they go towards supporting child care, the cost of food and the many other costs that people have no choice but to pay. Those costs are increasing simply because members opposite cannot understand that these costs are being passed on to students. This is great legislation; this is legislation that will benefit students attending all universities. I urge the members on the other side of this parliament to put aside their ideological hatred of unions and support the legislation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context