Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. This bill will introduce a new tax, levied regardless of income or economic position, and will add an additional cost to a tertiary qualification. It will be levied regardless of whether a student will ever access the services they are meant to be paying for. It will impact external students, full-time students and part-time students as if they have equal access to services. This bill increases the financial impost on students. It does so without improving the standards of education or educational outcomes and infringes on the rights of students. This bill is yet another example of this government not understanding what students actually want and care about or what will make participation in our educational institutions easier. We have seen this all before, when changes were made to Youth Allowance requirements making it more difficult, especially for students outside our major cities, to get an education.

This bill is rushed. As a member of the Education and Employment Standing Committee, I experienced firsthand the manner with which the government thumbed its nose at the committee process and the need for this bill to be properly examined. The reality is this rushed process will create problems with the implementation of this tax on students. For example, in a submission to the committee, a university stated:

However, it is important that there is a reasonable time-frame by which universities are expected to meet the requirements of the related Guidelines (Student services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines, and Student Services and Amenities Fees Guidelines).

The submission goes on to state:

In addition, the commencement of the Bill will need to factor in the time needed for universities to set up appropriate internal financial, enrolment and information processes. For this reason, I suggest that mid-2011 provides a realistic timeframe to introduce the fee.

Labor have rushed this bill through the committee process, but for what purpose? The government have stated that they foresee the implementation of this new fee on students at the start of the next academic year, but the reality is that this will put undue pressure on universities to have their infrastructure in place in order to collect the fee.

This raises the question of how effective administration of the expenditure of the proceeds of this fee will occur if there are difficulties in simply collecting money from students. This is but one question this bill raises; however, the government should have been looking for answers or to at least ask a range of other questions before they introduced this bill into the House. Public comments from the government demonstrate they do not understand that students want control of their own funds. In a media release of 15 November 2010, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans, said:

It’s now time for the Liberal Party to move beyond old ideological debates, recognise the value of providing good services to students on our university campuses and support this legislation.

We have heard a lot from members of the government decrying opponents of this bill as ideologues, but it is the government who have put forward this bill on the basis of ideology. A better question Senator Evans should ask himself is: why does the Labor Party wish to take the assessment of value away from the students whose money it is and place that job with the universities themselves? It should not be up to the coalition or the government to identify whether student services are offering good value to students. Students should choose whether the offerings of student unions on their campuses offer value for money or whether they would be better off using their hard earned money on other items. There is a disconnect here. Students will be forced to spend this money with a complete disregard for whether services will be utilised. There is a true equity issue here. External students who never have the opportunity, let alone the choice, to access student services will be forced to pay the fee.

I believe in the fundamental right of students to choose to belong or not to belong to a student union, student guild or student association. There is a fundamental right of freedom of association in the workplace as there should also be on any campus throughout the country. Membership of any organisation should not be a prerequisite for achieving an education; it is fundamentally wrong. Individual choice is an integral part of our society. This bill erodes the rights of students to choose. It is wrong and unfair. This bill is an infringement on individuals’ rights and liberties and their right to a tertiary education.

This is not a small endeavour that Labor has embarked upon. All of Australia’s one million students will be subjected to this new tax, and at $250 each we are looking at a quarter of a billion dollars ripped out of the hands of our students that could otherwise be used for textbooks, study materials, the cost of living and even as a contribution to pay down their student debts. A best case scenario through exposure to the poorly thought out SA-HELP is an increased student debt. This will at best increase the administrative and financial impost on students.

The government claims that students are wholeheartedly behind this tax, but the average student is not. Speak to students on campuses throughout Australia and they will tell you the same story: ‘Why should I pay for something I don’t use? Why should I pay for something I can’t and never will be able to use? Why can’t I just pay for the services that I decide I need? Why does the government want to make it harder for me to get an education?’

Student unions do not represent the average student. They push a political agenda as evidenced by the recent campaign against the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign with funds contributed by students. The National Union of Students saw fit to spend funds on a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition last August, two weeks out from election day, which at the very least involved four campaign stunts and internet based advertising, which is still present on the NUS website. You can read of the NUS’s push for same-sex marriage legislation on the same website. Whether you support same-sex marriage or not, no-one in this place or elsewhere could legitimately claim that there is not a divergence of views on this issue. And this divergence of views is not exclusively outside the student community; it also comes from within it. Students who are vehemently opposed to having their student services fees used to fund activities would see those funds being used to support these same causes under this bill. How this could be acceptable to anyone is beyond belief.

The government would argue that the legislation before the House protects against these practices, but the reality is that the legislation is so poorly drafted that it is full of potential loopholes where student funds can be used for political purposes. Whilst the prescribed prohibitions in this bill may disallow student money being spent in support of political parties or candidates, there is nothing to prevent expenditure on political causes or issue based campaigns, and I have a deep concern with this. Not all students support or oppose the same issues. These campaigns will be decided by a minority of students but will be funded by the majority, indeed the entirety, of the student body.

The government is selling this bill as the deliverer of services to students, but the reality is there is a real possibility that moneys intended for student services will be siphoned into campaigns whether students agree or not. The bill puts the burden of compliance on the universities themselves to ensure funds are not spent on prohibited uses, yet how should a university go about enforcing this? It is unclear in this bill and, indeed, it is unclear whether the government wishes sanctions to be placed on bodies that spend student funds for such purposes.

Should this bill pass, time will tell where student funds are being directed. The case made by proponents of this bill is that the student services provided by student organisations funded as a result of this bill will help students get their education. However, the services most often spouted by supporters of this bill are already provided through universities or by the government itself. University students are not discriminated against at government agencies when they present themselves for help. Students already have health services through Medicare. They have access to subsidised child care. They have access to support in the case of an emergency. They have access to the same non-government organisations that are so important to many other members of the community.

Students can form and fund sports clubs and societies without the need for support from a student union, and the money of other students, just like any member of the public can pull together like-minded people to enjoy a shared interest. There should be no discrimination against university students in the broader community. Where university students are discriminated against is through this bill. I urge the House to reject this bill.

See this speech in context