Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No-one denies that universities need facilities or that students benefit from the range of activities and services provided at university. Nobody denies that it is very useful for universities to have very good sporting facilities. No-one argues against the provision of cafeteria services. No-one argues against a full and complete student life which would involve not only academic study but also extracurricular and cocurricular activities, including sporting activities. I believe that part of the experience of being at university does involve accessing these other services, does involve participating in extracurricular and cocurricular activities and in sporting activities. I think it is wrong for those opposite to suggest that the Liberal-National opposition is in some way opposed to universities providing other than academic facilities and teaching services.

At the core of our opposition to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 is our opposition to compulsion. It is not so very long ago that those opposite would have argued in favour of compulsory unionism—no ticket, no job. They would have argued that somehow it was beneficial for a person to be forced to join a trade union even though that person had no wish to do so. I think it is broadly accepted in Australia today, in 2010, that it is entirely inappropriate for compulsory trade unionism to be imposed on the workers of Australia.

Having established the fact that compulsory trade unionism is no longer acceptable in the community, I do not understand the inconsistency that we see uttered by government speaker after government speaker supporting the principle of a form of compulsory student unionism, as embraced in the bill before the chamber. Nobody says that we ought not to have these facilities at universities, but I think it is entirely inappropriate to impose a tax on students to provide facilities which they may choose not to use. If people are going to use facilities, then clearly they should be prepared to pay for them. It is wrong to impose on struggling students the fee proposed by this bill, which I understand is $250 per student per annum, indexed to $254 in 2011 and indexed every year afterwards. This bill seeks to impose on students, some of whom would use the facilities and many of whom would not use the facilities, an initial charge of $250 per student per annum. In fact, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Cowper in his contribution, the legislation is not intended to apply until next year, so the initial figure will be $254 rather than the $250 set out in the bill.

The legislation seeks to allay community concern by pointing out that universities would be required to spend the moneys raised on a range of services which are specified. These include cafeteria services for food and drinks, sporting and recreational activity, the administration of clubs and the provision of legal and health services, as was also pointed out by the member for Cowper. While the bill does in fact say that political parties cannot be supported, there is an opportunity for the funds to be used for purposes of a political nature. This is compulsory student unionism by stealth. University students often go to work to struggle to raise the money to enable them to study and to support themselves. The last thing students need is a compulsory tax imposed on them, which would make it more difficult for them to remain at university.

There is the moral issue that in a free and democratic society it is totally wrong that anyone should be compelled to accept the financial burden included in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. What university unions should do is provide innovative services which would encourage students to voluntarily sign up and be prepared to pay. The honourable member for Mitchell, I think it was, highlighted in his contribution how someone elected to join a student union because the student union was actually providing services which the student saw to be of value. Student unions do not have anything at all to be afraid of if they are carrying out what the student body wants them to do. If a student union is providing services that students want, then the students will be more than happy to voluntarily pay to maintain those services. Unfortunately, a compulsory fee tends to encourage mediocrity in the administration of these student organisations because no longer will the organisations have to deliver outcomes to achieve income. They will simply receive the income as a tax on students, many or most of whom having not the slightest intention of using the facilities this fee is supposed to support.

University qualifications are not easy to earn. While, admittedly, many more Australians now have university degrees than once was the case—and, hopefully, more Australians will in the future have the opportunity to obtain university and other tertiary qualifications—it is important not to place impediments in the path of the ability of students to actually go through university. These days, so many people at university, particularly mature age students, are virtually on the breadline and to impose a tax of $250 or more, which is indexed, is just another burden that they will have to bear. It is unacceptable, it is antidemocratic and, in my view, it is something that the Australian community would be totally opposed to.

In the past I have spoken in the parliament in favour of voluntary student unionism. I have opposed what the government is seeking to do. But it ought to be remembered that the Labor Party, prior to the 2007 election, actually promised not to bring in provisions included in the particular bill now before the House. The honourable member for Perth, who was then the spokesman on education, said:

I am not considering a HECS style arrangement. I am not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

The opposition agree with what the then spokesman for education said. We thought the member for Perth was being entirely reasonable. It seemed that the Labor Party had, for once, listened and was in fact responding to the genuine concerns of students and, I believe, the relief that students experienced when their voluntary student union legislation was incorporated into the law of this country. Having said that, the government is now tearing up the pledge made by the honourable member for Perth. This legislation will bring in the mandatory tax on students who simply cannot afford to pay it. Not only is it bad legislation but it is also morally inappropriate to promise to the Australian people one thing and then, after an election, seek to change that situation and break the promise which was made. Of course, some people would have actually voted for the Australian Labor Party on the basis of that promise at that election in 2007, which saw the Rudd government elected.

These compulsory student fees were abolished by the former Liberal-National government. That was done in recognition of the fact that not everyone wants to join a student union and not everyone wants to use the ‘services’ provided by the student union. They were also abolished because many people were concerned that money raised through the collection of fees was often spent on political events and activism and was, in fact, promoting causes which the students who were forced to pay for those campaigns actually opposed.

On top of that, as I said, there are students who are already struggling financially. I think this is an appalling situation. External students who study online or by correspondence have to pay the fee. They have virtually nothing to show for it because they are not on campus and are unable to access any services or amenities. So even if you can argue that those people on campus have the opportunity to, at least, use the facilities, external students do not have that capacity and are essentially providing a subsidy for those people on campus who choose to use the facilities on offer.

As I said before, the VSU legislation of the former government gave students a choice as to whether or not to join a union. This legislation does not give students a choice as to whether to pay or not pay the fee. This is 2010; this is Australia. We are a free country where we respect the rights of individuals—the rights of individuals to take certain positions, the rights of individuals to fund certain facilities and the rights of individuals to basically do what they want, as long as other people’s rights are not impinged upon. But, unfortunately, this legislation is un-Australian because it is seeking to force students to compulsorily support activities and facilities which they may have no intention of using.

As I also said before, it is no longer politically acceptable to have compulsory trade unionism. I do not see how it is politically, socially or morally acceptable to have what is, in effect, a form of compulsory student unionism by compelling students through a tax to pay $250, indexed, to support facilities and activities—no matter how beneficial they are—which individual students may choose not to use.

In the time that I have remaining, I want to reiterate that genuine student organisations which are doing the job, which are providing facilities, services and activities which students want to use will have students coming forward, prepared to pay for those particular things. This legislation supports a lack of performance by student organisations, because the organisations do not have to deliver the outcome to actually receive the resources. I find that not to be in the interests of students, it is not in the interests of the community and it is not in the interests of universities. And while universities may well bleat over the money they have lost from compulsory student union fees since the VSU legislation came in, one ought to also recognise that university funding has gone up. So the amount lost is not as much as the universities would, in some cases, have us understand.

Australia is a democratic organisation. This piece of legislation is the antithesis of democracy. It brings forward compulsion. It treats students as lesser citizens and I think that students ought to have the same rights—such as the right not to pay this fee—that employees have to join or not join a trade union organisation.

See this speech in context