George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, it would not have to be compulsory. And if it was not going to be such a financial imposition on students, who are busying studying and working in part-time jobs when they are not studying, why is there the need to introduce a HECS style payment system for it?

Having listened to the debate so far on this bill, the argument has been put forward that this compulsory fee must be charged to pay for services that are not commercially viable. Well, if a service is not commercially viable, doesn’t it mean that it is not being used by the majority of students? And doesn’t the question need to be asked: why are universities providing these extracurricular services if they are not being utilised by students and they are not commercially viable?

One of the most reprehensible things about the old compulsory student union fee system was that it was charged to part-time students and students who studied externally, and there are many students who study externally at Central Queensland University, which is the main university in my electorate. And I know, along with the member for Herbert, that James Cook University also has a high number of external students. It is reprehensible that students who do not use any of those services are charged for them. It is disgraceful. To charge a fee to these students for services that they do not get to use is something I do not understand or fathom.

When the Howard government abolished compulsory student union fees, it was the National Party that fought for and gained transitional funding that helped smaller and regional universities with the transition to voluntary student unionism, and most have transitioned very well indeed. The National Party recognised that some regional universities did not have the student base that the large city based universities have to fund their services and it was for this reason that the Howard government introduced the VSU transition fund.

I note that the consultation undertaken by the government and included in the Impact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students report found that the benefit of the current legislation—if there are any—was the streamlining and more efficient delivery of services to suit student needs, the opening up of the provision of services to a commercial model and consultation with students to determine what could be defined as essential services. The minister for tertiary education said, when announcing these amendments, that ‘it is important that we are able to restore the services and amenities that have been depleted’. I actually suspect that this is not the case. I suspect that this is more about restoring the student unions to a position of financial strength so that they can conduct their campaigns against the conservative side of politics.

If there were some type of hard guarantee that these funds would not eventually end up in the hands of a left-wing student unions, I would have some comfort. But the bill does not go far enough in restricting universities from distributing the funds to left-wing student union fronts, and that is going to happen. You can see it as clear as day.

Although the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations will say that these amendments have nothing to do with a return to compulsory student unionism, this bill is just the thin end of the wedge. If the bill passes, it will not be long before there is pressure from re-energised student unions to demand that this services and amenities charge become a student union levy. Either way, it is going to be compulsory.

This bill is quite clearly ideological. This bill is about payback. It is about getting rid of voluntary student unionism and going back to those bad old days when Labor-controlled students unions, like those at the University of Melbourne, had to be investigated for graft and corruption. They had to get auditors to come in and scour the books because they were funnelling funds off to Labor mates, funnelling funds off for wild parties for a bunch of left wingers and funnelling funds off to Labor mates to do jobs for the student union—which really were not jobs at all. All of this had to be investigated in the bad old days of compulsory student unionism—the bad old days when students had to fork out so that ideologues could make trips to conferences of the National Union of Students and move motions attacking Israel and all sorts of radical nonsense. This bill is about going back to the bad old days when student union newspapers were simply propaganda pieces for either the Labor left or the socialist alliance.

Students in this country do not want to go back to those bad old days. Students want to keep money in their pockets for the essentials: rent, food, electricity—the price of which you guys are doing a pretty good job of driving up even further—and textbooks. Students do not want to pay for services that they do not use and are not interested in using. Students do not want to pay for quasi-political organisations. Students do not want to be forced to join organisations. Being forced to join organisations is in direct opposition to article 20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: ‘No one may be compelled to belong to an association.’ Students do not want to return to compulsory student unionism. Students do not want this tax.

This debate will be remembered. It will be remembered that the people on this side of the House voted to save students from this tax, from this return to compulsory student unionism, from this bill which is in violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights—forcing students to pay for something and forcing them to belong to an organisation. It will be remembered that those on the other side of the House voted to slug university students, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, with a tax of $250 a year. What a disgrace. Those who claim to represent and help the underprivileged and the poor are here today advocating for a tax to be slugged on them. What a disgrace; what a shame. We will not do that on this side of the House. We stand up for students. Labor just wants to tax them.

See this speech in context