Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The federal Labor government is committed to ensuring that young people, young adults and mature-age students have a suite of policies that will assist them, whether it is assistance in funding pursuant to the Bradley review, increased pensions or increased opportunity for work—because many students study part time—or whether it is increased funding directly to the campus or structural adjustment funding, which is currently being examined by this government. We are determined to make sure that universities remain viable.

It is important for us to look at the history of this situation and have a look at the long-held conservative ideology, the philosophical fixation, the ideological obsession, of those opposite with respect to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. It is summed up in one word: union. That is why you hear that word uttered with venom, bile and bitterness by those opposite, time and time again. Speaker after speaker in this place used that word in a pejorative way, attacking unions. That is what this is about. It is not about anything else but that.

Let us have a look at the history of this legislation and go back to 1996. The then Howard coalition government, newly elected, signalled its intention to introduce voluntary student unionism. It tried to pass legislation to this effect several times in the late 1990s. Those opposite must have had a terrible time in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties at their university campuses, constantly battling their walls. They must have grudges, gripes and grievances which they have brought into this chamber from those days. The advocates opposite of voluntary student unionism received a big boost when in 2004 the Howard coalition government gained control of the Senate. The then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, on 16 March 2005 brought forward into this chamber legislation which had some degree of opposition in the coalition, particularly from the National Party. Senator Barnaby Joyce made some noises in relation to this matter. Despite opposition, particularly by the university sector and student associations, the legislation went through this House and through the Senate. There were discussions between then Minister Nelson and Senator Fielding, who insisted that there was not any behind-the-scenes fix in relation to that legislation.

The consequences of that legislation were pretty clear to the Howard government straightaway, because, to assuage the National Party and Senator Fielding, they provided $100 million to universities through three competitive fund programs, just to make sure that the Nationals felt that they were not getting a raw deal. I say to those opposite, particularly the National Party and the LNP members of this place, all 21 of them: guess what? Regional and rural Queensland universities have suffered the most because of your action.

The university sector opposed the voluntary student union proposal of the Howard government. Professor Ian Chubb, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University and Chair of the Group of Eight, back on 23 March 2005 wrote an article for the Australian Higher Education supplement supporting the existing arrangements as they were in those days. I heard speaker after speaker opposite talk about choice and talk about the fact that services were not being used. It sounds like an opt-in, opt-out option with respect to taxation: ‘I do not use that road; therefore I should not pay for it. I did not drive that tank; therefore I should not pay for it. I did not attend that museum over in Perth; therefore I should not pay for it.’ That sort of proposal is really silly and stupid.

This is what Professor Ian Chubb said back in March 2005, supporting the existing arrangements before the Howard government, in quite an iniquitous way, attacked the local associations and the university sector. He said:

The Group of Eight—

that is, the sandstone universities in this country—

supports the arrangements as they exist, whereby autonomous universities can charge fees to all students to provide services that are available to be used by all students. Not all will be used by everybody, of course: not everybody will play football or chess or need child care or legal advice or counselling or help with accommodation, essay writing skills, statistics or the rules of cricket. Some services might be non-academic, but they help to ensure that campus life is a life and that a campus community is a community. Effective student associations and the representation they provide also make an important contribution.

We had speakers opposite talk about their philosophical heroes, such as Margaret Thatcher. The member for Kooyong was waxing lyrical yesterday afternoon about how wonderful Margaret Thatcher was. This is the woman who said, ‘There’s no such thing as society.’ Those opposite must think there is no such thing as campus life and community life at university.

A snapshot by Universities Australia of student associations in 2005 said that, in the final year before voluntary student unionism came in, the universities collected $172.8 million from student services and amenities charges. They provided really, really awful political activities and campaigns such as food outlets, buildings, meeting rooms, toilet facilities, stationery and second-hand bookshops, childcare services, legal services, welfare services, accommodation assistance, health and employment services, funding to student groups including clubs and societies, support for campus theatres, short- and long-term loans for students, student newsletters and newspapers—such awful, awful things for campus life to have!

This is a politically motivated opposition. It was about their obsession in 2005 and it is now. We are talking about things which are not politically motivated: child care, legal services, clubs and sporting activities. These are crucial to a civilised society and are crucial for those people who are away from home.

Let us look at the consequences of what they did in regional and rural Queensland particularly, for those 21 members opposite of the LNP, who should hang their heads in shame if they vote against this. The Central Queensland University Association staff was reduced from 42 to 15 through redundancies or attrition, resulting in the loss of $1 million in wages in their community. This was in 2007 as a consequence of Mr Howard’s ideological obsession. James Cook University Student Association was forced to retrench much of its existing staff, with significant reductions in services, sport, recreation, orientation week events and academic advocacy. Even the Schonnell Theatre and University of Queensland cafe were closed. There was an estimated loss of $6.5 million in student association revenue at Griffith University in Brisbane, resulting in the university providing $1.5 million from its own budget to help offset losses and maintain services. The University of Queensland campus at Ipswich also suffered. We saw the University of Southern Queensland suffer too. We saw example after example in Queensland of the failure of the previous government. The University of Southern Queensland saw a loss of $910,000 in membership funding almost immediately. That university needed to step in to protect staff from an uncertain future and there were redundancies and a cancellation of capital programs and of involvement in orientation week. I have the University of Queensland Springfield campus in my electorate. Sporting scholarships for elite athletes were discontinued and there was reduction in funding for inter-university sport and university games, with fewer athletes attending those events. There was a reduction in the financial support for clubs from $10,000 to nil. Griffith University and Queensland University of Technology were the same. There is example after example of where the impact of the Howard government’s legislation affected universities. And it persists today. But those opposite continue to oppose sensible, practical, balanced legislation that would assist campus life—all in the name of their hard right obsession.

The member for Fisher talked about the fact that they were supporting the tertiary sector; giving assistance to the tertiary sector. Let us see what they did in terms of assistance to the tertiary sector and for choice, because those opposite talked about choice all the time; they were on about freedom and liberty and choice. Guess what choice the tertiary sector had? The Howard government said, ‘We’re going to de-fund you, we’re going to cut back your funding, if you don’t impose Work Choices.’ That is what they did by legislation. ‘If you don’t comply with what we said in our hard right extremist policy, we’re going to cut your funding.’ That is what they did. That is the choice they gave, one choice for the rich and another for those struggling universities in regional and rural Queensland. They made it difficult for kids from low- and middle-income families from rural and regional Queensland to go to university.

The National Party realised this folly because there were murmurings back in 2005, and since that time they have had conferences at which the National Party, to their credit, have wanted to turn this around. They have passed resolutions at their conference for a compulsory fee, as we are doing here with the $250, giving the universities the options. So when this comes to a vote the National Party members sitting opposite should vote with us, because if they had any guts and fortitude, if they had any integrity on this issue, they would listen to what their members have had to say. They would not vote with the ideologically obsessed Liberal Party members, who seem to have suffered as a result of their experience at university campuses in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. They would vote with us to help regional and rural campuses, to make sure community life was decent and usual and kids could get access.

Those opposite said that a lot of university students do not use these facilities. But we know that not everyone is aware of the fact that they might have a legal problem or a tenancy issue which they might need legal advice on. They might not necessarily have that problem now but it might come up in the future. A university student hurts themself in a football match and needs physiotherapy. A young mum needs child care to make sure that she can go to lectures and tutorials. She may not normally need it because grandma or the father of the child may be available to look after the child, but this time they may need it. They may not need it for years but they need it occasionally. A student might want to go to the movies at cheaper discount rates like those at Schonnell Theatre. This is the option that should be there and available: good services, practical services. Those opposite seem to be talking about unions as if somehow they are all solely about the purpose of political campaigns, as if this is somehow unionism by stealth. That is what the member for Fisher talked about. But this is about doing the right thing by students and by student campuses across the state of Queensland and elsewhere. Making it difficult for those university campuses to function, making it difficult for them to continue community life, is not in the best interests of universities. It is not the way to make sure we lift productivity, we educate our young people to the best of their ability and we give options for young kids to get out of the circumstances where no-one in their family has gone to university.

The University of Queensland campus in my electorate has health science, medicine and nursing. There are kids going to the campus who would never have gone to university unless there was a university in Ipswich Central. USQ at Springfield has so many people who never could have gone to university, whose families had never dreamed they could go to university. Making it easier and making life more amenable, giving them options to services, helping them physically, financially and legally and with child care as well is the right thing to do; it is the sensible, practical thing to do. Those opposite should not be opposed to this. I have discussed this at length with Pro-Vice-Chancellor Alan Rix at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus and he supports this proposal. I know that those at USQ also support this proposal. Doug Fraser is the CEO at USQ. They support what we are doing here. The sandstone universities, Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, support our proposal. I ask those people opposite, particularly those LNP members from Queensland, to do the right thing, stand up to the ideologues in the Liberal Party and vote with us on this issue. (Time expired)

See this speech in context