Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very difficult, as we all know, to access those services outside the campus. ‘Cross over the road,’ says our friend on the other side—oh yes, any old access to dental services. I am sure if we did a little survey in this chamber at the moment it would tell you how many weeks you have to wait to get dental services. What a load of rubbish! La Trobe University, James Cook University and the University of Technology, Sydney, had to close their legal services. Of course, you can just go over the road! In the case of the University of Technology, Sydney, this affected not only the students but also the local community, to whom they provided the services as well—and no doubt took some fees from those who accessed the service and were able to pay. The emergency loans scheme once offered at the University of Sydney had to close down. I understand that three universities shut down their Centrelink advice services. Nine unis shut down their student legal and taxation advice services. Childcare fees at La Trobe Uni rose by $800 a year, and direct funding for sporting clubs was cut by something like 40 per cent—and so on.

Members on this side whose electorates include those campuses and those students have cited example after example of amenities and services being cut because of the former Howard government ripping out $170 million from the system. That is still supported by those post-Howard acolytes sitting on the other side. We all know this. Students are more than people just sitting in class and consuming lectures. Students, particularly those that come from rural areas such as my electorate of Braddon in north-west Tassie, require services to support and complement their studies. Those students are forced to travel, live away from home and go to university campuses throughout this nation and elsewhere. Those services and amenities are very important to those students.

I think it is very important—and again it has not been emphasised by those opposite—that this legislation allows higher education providers to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee. There is a choice. They can choose. This does not mean it is compulsory. Let us get the facts right. It is not compulsory. It is up to those higher education providers to choose whether to implement this form of amenities fee. Also—unmentioned by those opposite—it is capped at $250 per student. It is indexed annually. What it is meant to do is clearly and precisely set out. It is not for the old beer fests that were mentioned by the member for Dawson, or for the running of the old lefties clubs or whatever. We know that is specifically prescribed against. So why don’t those opposite tell the truth and say what is actually in the bill instead of doing all this fearmongering that the member for Indi has given you all to trot out in this place?

It is not meant and cannot be used to promote Labor, the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals or Calathumpians Incorporated, none of that—and you know that to be true. It allows higher education providers to choose to implement such a fee. It does not say that they must do so. So this is not imposed by us from without. It is up to the higher education providers to make the decision and to remember it, taking into account the whole of the demands and expectations of their students on their campus. They make the decision. There is consultation on this decision by universities. You do not hear that from the other side—so please tell the truth and speak about what is actually in the provisions of the bill instead of trotting out this other guff.

I mentioned earlier that, contrary to the claims of those opposite, the changes introduced with voluntary student unionism that the Howard-era and post-Howard acolytes still support did not reduce costs on university campuses. Those changes merely shifted those costs. For example, evidence demonstrates that students have been hit with increased costs for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport, food and so on. They have also indirectly affected academic achievements, with a number of unis forced to redirect funding, on their own account, out of research and teaching budgets to cross-subsidise and fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut.

For the edification of those who may be listening to or may read this debate and those present in the chamber and for posterity, I would like to explain a little more about what the intention of this legislation is and what is not intended. The new fee, if introduced by higher education providers, comes with some room to move. So as not to introduce a financial barrier, eligible students will have the option, if the fee is introduced, of a HECS-style loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP. The fee will be indexed along with other loan programs. So, importantly, if it is introduced by a higher education provider, it is capped and if somebody finds it financially difficult then they can take a loan to help them pay that fee.

This bill is not about a return to compulsory student unionism. I point out to those opposite that section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which prohibits a provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation, is unchanged in our legislation. We know that there would be scaremongering about support for political activities on campus, but the amendment is very clear on this point. This is very interesting, given that those opposite have carried out scare campaigns about this legislation, mainly driven by what I regard as ideological motivations. I reiterate that the new provisions prohibit the fee from being spent by a higher education provider on support for a political party or a candidate for election to the Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments or to local government. I have other things that I would like to add about this legislation but let it be known that it is not compulsory unionism. There is choice. There is support for students who may find it financially difficult if that university through consensus accepts this legislation.

See this speech in context