Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a former student representative, I am extremely pleased to be able to speak today in favour of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 since it reflects the government’s longstanding commitment to sustaining the essential university services that are so heavily relied on by students. This bill will secure the funding of student services and, most importantly, it will provide student service providers and universities with funding certainty, which will enable them to plan with confidence.

I will begin by making a few remarks on the comments made by the member for Hasluck. It seems to me that he presented two key strands of argument. The first was that some students may not access the services that are funded under the proposed fee to be implemented under this bill. That seems to me to be a troubling line of argument because by the same logic we might also argue for an opt-out taxation system. I imagine that most of us here would have some reservations about putting something like that to the federal parliament.

The second point he raised related to the financial difficulties that might be presented to students because of the fee arrangements under this bill. I am not entirely sure whether the member for Hasluck is fully familiar with the provisions in the bill that contemplate a new loan component under the Higher Education Loan Program. This would mean that if those fees were to be implemented by universities—and obviously there is the opt-in capacity of universities under this bill—they would be capable of being offset by a student loan under this new arrangement. So the prospect of students being subject to any kind of financial difficulties as those fees are imposed is somewhat limited.

I will refer back to some of the comments made by prior speakers in this debate. I particularly note those members of the National Party who have spoken in this debate because I find it particularly troubling that it seems that those members, with their professed commitment to constituents in regional and remote areas of this country, have seen fit to not only not support the bill but not speak in favour of the bill on what appear to be fairly blunt ideological grounds when the needs of their respective constituencies would suggest that they should support it. Those members of this place who represent regional and outer metropolitan electorates should easily recognise that the consequences of preventing funding from being provided for student services has a disproportionately harsh effect on regional and smaller universities, and also on those university campuses located outside of metropolitan centres.

It is certainly not just the government who says that. Submissions made by regional universities to a discussion paper in 2008 also emphasised those points. University campuses in those areas offer a base from which very important services and amenities can be used by both students and the wider community. So it is extraordinary that people who profess to represent those communities would come here and oppose the measures that are being put by the government today.

We know that students from regional areas who move away from home to undertake tertiary study tend to rely on welfare and support services, counselling and health services provided at universities, and a range of other things that enable them to successfully undertake and complete their studies. We know that it is a difficult transition for those students to make and the legislation before us will provide support particularly for those students. It will also assist in creating jobs and important community infrastructure.

Our commitment as a government to sustaining student services has been reflected in the regional Australia package announced in September 2010. As a government, we know that regional and outer metropolitan universities are often hit the hardest in the scramble to obtain sufficient funding to sustain student services. We know the particular value of student services and funding security in regional and outer metropolitan centres.

I am particularly pleased to note the resounding support of the Group of Eight universities for the measures proposed in this bill. In comments made earlier this week, the Group of Eight particularly noted that:

The introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in 2005 has had a serious impact on the delivery of childcare, sporting, health, counselling and other services, and on campus life and student representation more broadly.

They went on to remark that:

The Go8 supported this Bill from the very beginning and continues to do so. It has had the support of the entire university sector for almost two years and still students are waiting.

The gravity of the Group of Eight’s comments in this regard is very significant, as the opposition would no doubt know. The comments are also echoed by Universities Australia and a variety of other significant organisations. I trust that members in this place and our colleagues in the other place will have due regard for the expertise of those universities and peak bodies which have voiced their opinions on the bill and will appreciate the detrimental effect of a failure to pass this bill.

Through consultations held with universities in 2008, as was remarked on in this debate earlier, it was found that $170 million had been cut from funding for services and amenities. The services which suffered as a consequence included health, counselling, employment, child care and welfare support services. They are hardly peripheral services. They are hardly services that might be regarded as superfluous to the needs of students trying to put themselves through university successfully, and they are hardly services that would not be relied on by regional and rural students.

Since the introduction of so-called voluntary student unionism, most universities have been subsidising, in one manner or another, student services and amenities. We know that they do this because they recognise the value to students of a campus culture and because those services which I mentioned before are often critical to supporting students and enabling them to successfully continue their tertiary education. The consequence of this has been, however, that funding available to universities for teaching, research and other essential services is reduced.

At Monash University, which has a campus in Berwick on the border of my electorate, we know that student services are being more directly managed by the university. Those services are being subsidised by some $5.3 million in funding in order to continue supporting Monash sport and the careers and employment function. The implementation of VSU meant the loss of employment for students, the loss of the transport office and the Indigenous office, and increased prices for child care, transport, parking, graduation and for access to sporting facilities. It really is not clear to me which of those services, in a very long list of services, is so terribly controversial and so terribly objectionable that we should be resisting passing this bill today.

Monash is just one example of a university which has experienced significant practical impacts as a result of the defunding of student services and amenities. Universities have given an indication of some of the measures which they have taken in order to support student services and amenities which would otherwise have been cut. In some instances they have been forced to substantially increase parking fees and fees for food and child care to deal with the funding disparity. In other instances they have in fact been forced to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets, which is extraordinary.

So we can see that it is students who ultimately pay the price for defunding of these services and amenities, both directly and indirectly. The bill before us aims to support students and universities and end that damage. The bill will require that higher education providers which receive Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding comply with new student services, amenities, and representation and advocacy guidelines. As a consequence, universities will be required to implement national access to service benchmarks for all domestic Australian students in line with the arrangements that already exist for our international students. Those benchmarks will ensure that all Australian higher education students are provided with information on how to access important health, welfare and financial services and are provided with access to advocacy services.

The bill also introduces national student representation protocols which aim to ensure that students have an opportunity to participate in university governance structures. Those new benchmarks will help ensure that students have access to advocacy support services to support student appeals and to provide vital help for students who may need extra assistance on matters that really can be overwhelming and unfamiliar.

As someone who has sat as a student representative on university committees and appeals committees, I know that there are students who can find themselves in very difficult personal circumstances which can in turn have very serious ramifications for their continued study. It is extremely important that those students have an opportunity to be properly represented in appeals at times when they are very likely to be distressed. Student representation and advocacy services are essential in ensuring that those students are given a chance to explain their circumstances.

All of these sorts of functions that are contemplated in the bill are not contentious. They are things that should reasonably be expected to be provided for students who are attending universities and it is quite unfortunate that the members opposite have not recognised that.

The benchmarks that are proposed in this bill will certainly ensure that universities provide opportunities for democratic student representation as is appropriate so that student views are taken into account during the decision-making processes of the university. Over and above these basic services, representation and advocacy rights, the bill will also allow universities the option to implement a services fee which would be capped at a maximum of $250 per year and indexed, which they could use to invest in necessary services and amenities.

Those universities that elect to implement such a fee would be expected to consult with students on the types of services and amenities that that fee would help to support. The government, as I mentioned earlier, has gone further in this bill to ensure that any such fee does not present a financial barrier for students. The bill requires that any university introducing a fee must also provide eligible students with the option of taking out a loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program.

Others in this debate have mentioned that inevitably the funding that would be available for services and amenities as a result of this bill would go towards Machiavellian ends and be used for political funding. The bill prevents universities from allowing the expenditure funds raised from a student services and amenities fee to support political parties or support the election of a person to the Commonwealth, state or territory legislatures or to a local government body. So there should be no qualms about the manner in which funds provided for necessary student services might be used for political ends.

This government will continue to work together with higher education institutions and students to ensure that students are given every opportunity to succeed and are adequately supported throughout their further education. Students have called for these changes. Universities have resoundingly called for these changes. It is time for those opposite to desist with their ideologically charged arguments and support what is a sensible resolution of an existing and longstanding funding issue for our higher education sector.

See this speech in context