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

Secondly, listening to those opposite, both in the past and now, particularly the member for Flynn here as well as the member for Indi and the member for Mackellar, we hear this pathological, ideological hatred of unionism. Because of this pathological hatred, they have associated unionism with anything to do with fees for amenities and services on our university campuses. Do not worry about the truth; if it has the word ‘union’ in it, it has got to be bad—and of course it has got to be compulsory. This legislation is not about making it compulsory at all. It is about making it optional for universities. So tell the truth, and none of these fibs you have been pumping out with some of your cobbers opposite.

Those opposite also continue their attack on public universities. They are not supporters of public universities at all. Their record is that money was ripped out of our public universities. The so-called legislation—the Howard legislation, which is still in effect—only took out more services and more money from universities, who had to try to re-divert and redirect their resources to make up for those services that the Howard government wanted to rip out of universities. That is the truth, but of course you do not hear that. It is all ‘in the name of free market forces’ and ‘the students want to get on with the fundamentals of life’ and all these types of things. What a load of rubbish. Students have fundamental needs in life, and those needs were provided for by the universities through their services and other facilities. So do not give us all this tripe about you knowing the essentials of what students want today. You do not know at all.

Finally, I believe their view of politics is not to argue the substance of any legislation. That was demonstrated today. If you go through the substance of the legislation, which I will now do, you will see it has nothing to do with the opposition to it. That is purely political. When you ask for substantive argument about why we should not try to reintroduce what we regard as necessary services and amenities to our campuses, the opposition cannot give you an example except to say, ‘You’re trying to reintroduce compulsory unionism to our campuses.’ That is the fundamental argument all the time. Go and read the bill. It says the opposite. But they do not worry about that. On they go.

Those are the four basic reasons why they are opposing this bill and opposed earlier attempts to introduce it. There is nothing of substance in their opposition to it except that they are the opposition—and they are well and truly acting like it today. They stand for ‘no’, for obstructionism and for little else. But they pride themselves on that.

First and foremost—and on a positive note, because I am a very positive person—I would like to say what this legislation is all about. Fundamentally it is about restoring a balance. Labor is about restoring balance after the destructive years of the Howard era—and the acolytes of Howard are floating around in the chamber today and leading the mob opposite. Fundamentally this is about restoring balance, as we promised we would do and the electorate said: ‘Thank you very much. We endorse balance. We endorse you as the government.’ This is about restoring the balance between what was taken away during the Howard era and what existed before that government’s miserable changes. It seeks to do this in a contemporary way, which means a way for now that is appropriate and takes into account changing circumstances and the needs of students, their families and their communities. It is not going to be the same as in the past, contrary to all the fears that the member for Flynn raised in reading the template answer that the member for Indi popped out for him to read. It is going to be our way today. That is what the bill seeks to do. This time we are putting some balance back into the tertiary education system and accompanying services, after they were hacked at—I think that is a good description of it—by the previous government in what was, as I noted earlier, a poorly disguised attack on what they perceived as a political threat to their future on campuses around Australia. Hence, like the member for Flynn, attacking the lefties—

See this speech in context