Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 on a number of bases. One of the issues that I particularly want to talk about is that throughout the thread of the debate I have heard reference to taxpayers again contributing to costs. From the other side of the chamber, I find this fascinating, given that the use of taxpayer funding for a number of initiatives does not seem to be problematic, and I refer here to the NBN where funding is not a particular issue.

In terms of student amenities fees, I had the privilege of serving as the pro-chancellor on Edith Cowan University’s governing body. One of the tasks I was given was to deal with what was then the VSU. In the VSU there was debate around the compulsory nature of the fee, the direction of the fee to the student guild and the way in which we had to provide for students the services that they needed to allow for their continued study within the university sector. I support the need for the amenities that students often require in the context of their work. I say this in the knowledge that within my electorate of Hasluck there are many who are studying through university pathways but, equally, that they struggle with rising living costs which impact on their capacity to have the funding that they need to pay compulsory fees. I also have a concern that, in terms of these living costs, each time there is an increase in charges or there is an increase in interest rates these pressure points cause people to consider other alternatives in the way in which they pay or make decisions about what they can afford or not afford. I appreciate that they have access to a loans system that will enable them to pay that fee, but the accumulation of those fees over a three- or four-year period in which they will have to repay them is also problematic when it comes to considering the combined aspect of both the repayment of the HECS fee and this additional amount.

The other element is that part-time students do not always access services. Students who are online do not access services. In the context of the compulsory nature of these fees, I cannot think of any other example where the government requires people to pay for a fee for a service or for an amenity that they will never use in a lifetime. The compulsory nature of it is also challenging, in that I know at the time I was involved with the VSU that in order to get your marks and to graduate there was a requirement for all fees that were outstanding to be paid, which was also an imposition. I certainly would not like that to be a consideration in the context of this act. The sum of $250 a week does not seem much, but when you have got students who are having to meet the cost of living, who have to meet rental costs and who then have to meet other costs associated with social life on a university campus it becomes problematic.

The Treasurer yesterday in question time talked about skilled labour and the workforce that Australia will need for the future. I read through the comments of the Minister for Defence from a interview he had had in which he considers the nature of voluntary and student guild fees. I refer to his comments:

Labor’s priority here is to do two things as outlined in the Platform: Firstly, to ensure that students, if they so choose, can voluntarily organise themselves into representative organisations. Secondly, and more importantly, that all students have access to decent amenities and services, whether that’s sporting facilities, cultural facilities, child-care facilities and the like.

The funding of those services has been a matter of conversation between me and the Universities. I believe that the Commonwealth, the Government of the day, has a responsibility, together with the Universities, to fund those services and of course it’s also appropriate for students, if they so choose, to make a voluntary contribution to those services, or indeed to be charged a fee if that is appropriate when they use those services such as sporting facilities, gyms and the like.

I know that there are constituents in my electorate who do not access the services or the amenities provided by universities because of the nature of their own obligations to family, to work and by virtue of the part-time nature in which they undertake courses. So I see a sense of injustice in being required to pay a compulsory fee for something that you do not use. I am also cognisant of the need for student support services, because there are students who do draw down on the types of services that are listed within proposed section (4) of the legislation. Drawing down on these services certainly assists those students who need them. From my perspective I think it is also important for the electors of Hasluck, because many are progressing their career pathways through university and tertiary studies, for a couple of reasons. One is for long-term employment within the industries they work in. A second reason is to improve the options that they have before them in the context of the work choices that they can make because of the qualifications that they acquire. But, thirdly, technology in the innovation society and knowledge society is moving rapidly and many people choose studies in order to enhance both their knowledge and their understanding of the fields in which they work. We will continue to see new and emerging businesses and industries that require a different mix of skills.

The fees will become compulsory because universities, certainly in the readings I have undertaken, indicate that these services are important and therefore they would want the fees to form the basis for the provision of those services. I would not want to see students make choices to defer studies which impact on Australia’s ability to develop in a global and economical society, which is absolutely critically important to both the wealth of this nation and the way that our industries can develop to become highly competitive with the competing interests that will prevail from corporate bodies and overseas companies that would want a patch of Australia’s business sector.

I note proposed section (5)(a):

(a)

that a higher education provider requires a person enrolled, or seeking to enrol, with the provider to pay for a period starting on or after 1 January 2011 to support the provision to students of amenities and services not of an academic nature, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of those amenities and services …

Where is the element of choice? And where else, really, would you be compelled to pay for something that you would never use? That is one of the conundrums that I have in terms of what the government is proposing. Those on the other side, contrary to my own father’s description of the Labor Party as being there for the working family, are demonstrating that they are not thinking about those who are affected. It is important that we encourage young people to make choices that empower them through the acquisition of knowledge and an awareness they can contribute to both their own career progression and the progression of the community in which they live. This bill would impose a financial burden on a significant number of students who will already in many instances be struggling to meet the costs of living away from home, particularly if they are not eligible for youth allowance due to the changes that Labor has made, and that concerns me considerably because this gap year concept I do not think is healthy for the continuity of somebody’s education. It is a struggle to balance study and hold one or more part-time jobs to earn a sustainable income to meet the fees that continue to occur.

The other issue is mature age students who need to retrain to progress to better incomes and careers, and within the context that is being created by the Gillard government they certainly will need opportunities to do that. I also know, from a review that I was involved with, that a number of women who are mothers wanting to study part time or wanting to take their lack of schooling, because they left school early, and convert that to a university pathway will feel the impact of this imposition of a fee. Many of those that I am aware of would not access the amenities. Nor would they be members of social clubs or other organisations because of family commitments.

I commend the government on the fact that the bill states that ‘a higher education provider, or a person or an organisation in receipt of funding provided by the provider, must not spend an amount paid to the provider as student services and amenities fees to support a political party or the election of a person as a member of the legislature of the Commonwealth, a state or territory or a local government body’. That is important, because it takes away what has been a practice of the past and certainly what I evidenced in the review of the Edith Cowan students’ response to VSU. I do support very strongly the welfare of students, promoting their health and wellbeing, helping them to secure accommodation, helping them receive advice on financial matters or giving them information about their orientation. I think that is absolutely critical, but it does not mean that there should be a compulsory fee for those who will never access the services such as career counselling. When I look at the elements within that, again I do not have an issue with that, but I do have an issue with amenities. The provision of food or drinks, as mentioned in the bill, to students on the campus of a higher education provider should go to a commercial market, because if these students were not on the campus they would certainly access equivalent amenities in the community in which they live. There is also child care for the children of students and the provision of libraries and reading rooms. I think there are also expectations that many of these things will be covered by the $250 fee that will provide the basis of this.

If we look at the whole list of provisions within proposed subsection 3 of the bill, I cannot see how the total accumulation of those $250 fees would cover the range of services required for all. In this instance, if this is so important and so critical, according to the debates I have heard, then why would universities and governments not work towards a solution that did not require a compulsory fee by reconsidering the funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the universities for the services that need to be provided? There is a reference to providing legal aid, but surely there would be an opportunity to look at legal aid itself and to make changes to the provisions that relate to means testing and the availability of that service to allow university students to access those services, even though the intent within the relevant legislation certainly covers the way in which people can utilise legal aid. I have no issue with students having an advocacy role, but I do have an issue with compulsory fees covering that.

Again, I ask this parliament to give serious consideration to not supporting the compulsory fee, but if there is a compulsory fee the parliament should not support applying it to part-time students or those online or off campus. There is the SA-HELP assistance, but the cumulative loans and cost of HECS put students on the back foot after they graduate by having them pay it back while at the same time looking at opportunities for a mortgage and establishing a family. I think governments have an obligation to look at better ways of doing this.

Education is important. Lifelong learning is important. Any imposition on that should not be a factor that impacts on the workforce of this country if we are to develop the skills required for both the existing and emerging industries that will evolve over the next decade. I do not support the compulsory fee and I again ask that consideration be given to those who will be affected and who will not use those services.

See this speech in context