Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. This bill has been before the parliament twice previously. This is the third time, and I am not sure which aspect of this legislation I find more offensive. I am not sure if it is the intellectually arrogant attitude of those Labor members opposite who say to what are frequently among some of the most disadvantaged Australians ‘You’ll pay an extra $250 a year because we think it’s in your best interests’ that is most offensive or the fact that the Labor Party thinks that we are all mugs. The reason I say that they think we are all mugs is that that is the only possible explanation for foisting a $250 a year new tax on Australia’s university students and then saying to them: ‘Look, this is not about unionism. This is not about political propaganda. This is only about making sure that we have the best services available to you.’

We just heard this view from the member for Newcastle, who spoke before me, when she made the remark that the money cannot be used for political candidates or for political parties—and left it at that, as if it were some kind of safeguard or guarantee. For the last 10 or 20 years, the Labor Party has abused the hardworking dollars of Australia’s university students through the university movement, and it is as if that has all been erased. I think Australians are a little smarter than that. They are a little smarter than the Australian Labor Party gives them credit for, because they know that, whilst the money may not be used specifically for political candidates or for political parties, the Australian Labor Party absolutely will use the money through their student unions on campaigns, and those campaigns will be issue based. If you want any examples of that, just look at an organisation like GetUp!

We already know that GetUp! is nothing but a front for the Australian Labor Party. We will see student unions using the money being paid by Australian students in exactly the same way, which is to campaign on important university related issues of the day, which might just happen to correlate with what the Labor Party wants to campaign on federally. That is the reason why there are really two issues of concern here. There is the intellectual arrogance of saying to someone, ‘You will be forced to pay $250 a year because it is in your best interests,’ and the view that we are all so stupid that we would actually think that the money would not be misappropriated and used on political campaigns.

The coalition has voted against this legislation twice before. It is a very simple proposition, and it goes to the core issue of whether or not we think adult Australians have the right to choose how they want to spend their money. In the community outside of universities, if a student or, indeed, if anybody wants access to particular service, they go to myriad community groups, non-government organisations or, in some instances, government organisations for support. They might want to play a sport such as cricket, AFL or rugby or whatever it might be. They might join a community group that is being run by the community, that is funded by the community and that is in the interests of the community. But, when it comes to universities, for some reason a whole separate set of rules applies. If you are a student who goes to TAFE, apparently you are not worthy of this rule—you are not worthy of having the government force you to pay a tax for access to services. If you are a university student, you apparently have no right to choose. According to this legislation and according to the Australian Labor Party, you should be forced to pay $250 a year towards student services, even though they may not be services that you ever use, ever want to use or, indeed, ever have access to. That is what is at the core of this legislation. It is the complete ripping away of the right of young Australians and mature or older Australian students to choose how they want to spend their money.

I have had the privilege of being a student in both the public system and the private system. I have to say that the contrast between them is clear. It has certainly been my experience to place the efficiency of the private system above the public system any day of the week. But, notwithstanding that, the vast bulk of Australian tertiary students study in the public system and the vast bulk of them vote with their feet when it comes to student services. People were sick of being forced—basically taxed—to pay fees to universities for services that they did not want or need. It is the reason that so many of the peripheral groups collapsed. They did not meet the needs of the customer base they were trying to appeal to. What happened with those that did? The groups that had a commercial business case still received support from university students. Students would voluntarily choose to join those clubs and societies and to pay a membership fee and, lo and behold, they paid a lot less than the $250 that the Labor Party want to force them to pay. Those groups have remained solvent because they met a demand.

I know that the issue of supply and demand is contrary and perhaps not understood very widely by those members of the Australian Labor Party who seem to operate in a world where there needs to be no correlation between supply and demand. But there are those of us who actually think that the marketplace holds some value and that it is not good enough to hold a gun at the head of Australian tertiary students and say, ‘You will have to pay $250 a year for student services, even though you may not use them.’ There are those of us who say, ‘We think Australians are mature enough to make an informed choice about which groups and which societies they want to support.’ We think people should exercise their right to choose. We make no apologies for it. It is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party does not even give young Australians the right to make that election.

The truth is that this legislation is not only the height of intellectual arrogance by the Australian Labor but also another broken promise by the Australian Labor Party. Prior to the 2007 election, the then shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith, said:

… firstly I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach—

that is, Labor’s approach—

is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

That was Labor’s policy prior to 2007. Yet in November 2008, the then Minister for Youth, the Hon. Kate Ellis, announced that the Labor government would pursue a compulsory fee to pay for services and amenities. The minister stressed that universities will still be prevented from requiring that it be compulsory for a student to join a student union. However, it is clear that the compulsory fee is being used to subsidise union activities and services not necessarily used by the particular student paying the fee.

This goes to that issue of whether or not the money will be what I can only describe as ‘misappropriated’ by student unions. We know that in so many instances student unions have a particular agenda that they will want to pursue and that nine out of 10 times that agenda happens to marry exactly with the Labor Party agenda. And, lo and behold, the money that students are being forced to pay gets siphoned off and spent on political campaigns that back the Australian Labor Party or, indeed, even the Greens. That is where the money is going, and that is the reason the Labor Party is so desperate—and I suspect the Greens member is the same—to hold a gun to the head of Australian tertiary students and say: ‘You will have to pay this fee because it is in your interests.’

I heard the member for Newcastle come into the chamber and say, ‘Look at all these groups that have closed down,’ and she rattled off a long list of groups that had closed down. Isn’t it relatively straightforward that these groups have closed down because they are not supported by the students? The groups that are still functioning are the ones that students want to use and the groups that have no application to the day-to-day lives of students—or that students do not want to utilise—are not used. It is extraordinary that the Labor Party would come into this chamber and attempt to justify a particular set of rules applying to a small subset of Australian society. They will say to TAFE students: ‘Tough luck, you do not deserve it. You are doing vocational education, tough luck; it does not apply to you. But you are a university student—we dictate that you must immerse yourself in the university life.’

The truth is that Australian students have the right to choose. We are proud that we implemented a system that gives them the right to choose. They are no longer being ripped off hundreds and hundred of dollars a year. They are electing whether they spend their money on catering, whether they spend their money on the beer appreciation society, whether they spend their money on the rugby club, whether they spend their money on AFL or whatever it might be—arts, child care, you name it. There are systems in place to provide support to all Australians which do not discriminate against university students. There are systems in place to provide support to university students if they are low-income earners. There are systems in place to provide support to university students from regional and rural areas.

There are about 130,000 Australians who do university study externally and will not set foot onto a university campus. Under this legislation they still have to pay the $250 fee. If that does not highlight how completely perverse and unjust and inequitable this is, then I do not know if it can be more clearly explained to the Australian Labor Party. Why should 130,000 Australians have to pay $250 a year for an amenities fee when they do not even set foot on campus? More likely than not, the Australians that will have to pay that fee will be those living in remote and regional areas.

The simple reality is that it is unsustainable to say to one small subset of Australian society: ‘We believe that we know better than you do. We, the Australian government, demand—and in fact legislate—that you must pay this fee each year. We do not want to hear concerns or complaints that you never use the services because that does not matter. You have to cross-subsidise what other people do.’ The fact is: if you want to argue on the grounds of equity or on the grounds of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds or on the grounds of social disadvantage, all of those support systems already exist in the community. What makes a university student so unique that they should be forced to pay this extra money in order to go to university?

I have the distinct pleasure of having come through the Young Liberal movement. I have friends who were involved in the Australian Liberal Students Federation. Those in Young Liberals and the ALSF have fought for years for young Australians, and all university students in this country, to have the right to choose which services and which groups they support. I applaud the work of the ALSF and of the Young Liberals for their advocacy on university campuses across Australia. I applaud the work of those Australians who stand up for the 130,000 people who will be forced to pay and who will never set foot on a university campus. I applaud the work of the ALSF and the Young Liberals for being advocates for the majority of students who would be forced to pay and will not use those services.

We all know that at the end of the day the rationale that lies behind this is the Labor Party’s insatiable desire to do something for the Australian National Union of Students and for student unions that are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party who in many respects foist upon them the need to get the funds and who then say, ‘We will make sure that we tip those millions and millions of dollars into campaigns.’ That is what this is about. The Labor Party knows that there is no demand for all the kinds of loopy left-wing things that the Labor Party and the Greens want to put out there in the community so they can underwrite and cross-subsidise all of these political campaigns by forcing people through legislation to pay. They will argue it is about sports clubs, they will argue it is about culture and they will argue that it is something unique to universities, but if you look at tertiary students doing vocational education, if you look at the students who never set foot on campus, you really question whether it is very equitable. Of course, no member in this place can argue on equity as to why those that never use the service and never set foot on campus should have to pay the extra tax. Support services already exist in the community. For that reason, I remain opposed to this bill and I applaud the advocates on campus who are also opposed to it.

See this speech in context