Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I support this bill because it will reverse the destruction of the established fabric of student life that was caused by the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation. To start off with, it is worth considering what was attacked by that legislation when it was introduced by the former government in 2006.

A snapshot was taken by Universities Australia, formerly the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, of student organisations in 2005. It is recorded in a discussion paper which was published in February 2008. This found that in the final year before voluntary student unionism was introduced universities collected some $172.8 million from student services and amenities charges. The snapshot found that the funds were distributed as follows: 71 per cent went to student organisations, 14 per cent went to universities to run their own student services and 15 per cent went to other bodies, such as privately run student advocacy organisations.

Universities Australia said that examples of the services that were provided by student associations under the model operated before the introduction of voluntary student unionism included the provision of food outlets, buildings, meeting rooms, toilet facilities, stationery, second-hand book shops, childcare services, legal services, welfare services, accommodation assistance, health services, employment services, funding to student groups—including clubs and societies on campus—support for campus theatres, student representation, educational advocacy, short- and long-term student loans, student newsletters and student newspapers. We can see from that long list of services provided under the model which existed before the introduction by the former government of voluntary student unionism just what a broad range of services were provided and what a contribution those services made to the rich fabric of student life.

The voluntary student unionism legislation of the former government was seemingly driven by an obsession to destroy all things union and to tear away at all parts of the union movement, even things that are only peripherally related to the union movement—student unions, it has to be said, stand in a class of their own. But, even at the cost of destroying and tearing away at the essential fabric of university life, the former government was intent on tearing at and striking down anything that they regarded as being associated with the union movement.

I am a proud graduate of the University of Melbourne, an institution that I attended for some 5½ years in the 1970s. I look back very fondly at the myriad of activities that I was able to participate in as a student at the university. Indeed, I served on the union council at the University of Melbourne for some years. I look back very fondly at the range of services that I was able to access as a student at the University of Melbourne. I am talking about various clubs and societies. There are a whole range of those at the University of Melbourne, from the chocolate appreciation society right through to sporting clubs, bushwalking clubs and all of the other essential services that should be part of university life.

Because I attended the University of Melbourne in the 1970s, I am also able to remember—and establish—just what a longstanding obsession of the Liberal Party this has been. Students associated with the Liberal Party in the 1970s—notably including Mr Robert Clark, now the Liberal member for Box Hill in the state parliament of Victoria—went so far as to engage in litigation against the university, so concerned were they about aspects of the collection of fees and the student union’s activities at the University of Melbourne.

Partly, then, this was an attack on unions and partly also it seems to have been an attempt by the former government to suppress the political activity and debate that have been and should continue to be so much a part of university life in this country. Those objectives of attacking the union movement and suppressing political activity and debate were much more important to those opposite than ensuring that the experience of university life was a rewarding one and that the full set of services that should be available to students was in fact available. Those opposite did not care about the loss of services which followed on from the introduction of their legislation in 2006. I want to dwell for a moment on what the effect of the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation was, first of all, on sport, and then I am going to look briefly at the impact on regional campuses and then some other impacts.

The 2008 review of the impact of the previous government’s approach found that sport at universities across the country had been very seriously affected. Evidence was given to the review by a range of sporting organisations, from the Australian Olympic Committee to individual sporting clubs, and every single one of their submissions and all of the evidence was to the effect that sport had been an innocent but nevertheless a very real victim of the 2005 changes. The statistics included these: that direct funding for sporting clubs had been cut by 40 per cent; that there are now 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university across the country, which is a 17 per cent reduction since 2005; that funding for intervarsity sport had been cut by half and participation by women in the Australian University Games had been reduced by almost 10 per cent; that six universities had shut down their elite athlete support program altogether and eight universities had discontinued funding of sports scholarships; and that 30 per cent of the spending of the sector, in real terms, on the maintenance of buildings and playing fields had been cut away, severely affecting the long-term viability of sporting, social and cultural infrastructure.

It is worth repeating what the Australian Olympic Committee had to say about this, and I will read from their submission. They said:

For a number of our Olympic Sports, the university sporting clubs system is a key component in the elite athlete pathway. The best example of this is rowing where approximately 80% of national representative rowers are members of or connected with a university club.

They went on:

Given the importance that the university sports system has on elite level sport, these trends will have a direct and real impact on Australia’s ability to maintain its hard won international standing in sport.

To continue with a bit more from the Australian Olympic Committee:

… the introduction of the VSU legislation has had a direct negative impact on the number of students (particularly women) participating in sport and, for the longer term, the maintenance and upgrading of sporting infrastructure and facilities and the retention of world class coaches.

There has been almost universal praise for this legislation. I note that Australian University Sport, on 12 February 2009, had this to say:

The proposed legislation provides great hope throughout the tertiary sport sector. Many campus sporting programs and clubs continue to struggle in the post VSU environment. The passage of this Bill will be welcomed by the hundreds of thousands of student-athletes and members of the community that regularly use university sporting facilities in the pursuit of health and well-being.

It is an extraordinary thing that, by introducing the legislation that it did in 2005 in its obsessive attack on all things union, the former government damaged sport and damaged participation in sport in the university sector at the very time that all governments in this country should recognise that engaging in preventive health measures, and encouraging people to participate in sport, should be the direction in which we are headed.

There was an equally disastrous impact of the voluntary student unionism legislation on regional campuses and regional students. The 2008 review found that students who attended regional campuses were more severely affected than were students attending metropolitan universities, and that is because regional students, generally speaking, are heavy users of services and amenities on campus. Often they have come from some other city or part of Australia to attend the regional university and thus lack the support that people who are attending tertiary institutions closer to home can expect from their families. A good example was the closure of the dental service at Southern Cross University, which until 2006 had been subsidised by student non-academic fees. Some 2,100 students at Southern Cross University accessed the service in 2005, but two years later it was forced to close. At James Cook University the Centrelink services at the Cairns campus were closed down, and the legal service was also closed down. Indeed, I can say that legal services closed down at a number of other universities around Australia, including the University of Technology, Sydney, and La Trobe University.

There is a long list of direct and detrimental effects that the introduction of voluntary student unionism had on the tertiary sector across the country, with closures of dental services, loan schemes and legal services. I have already mentioned the cut in funding for sport in all respects at universities. It has to be said that overall there has been a very direct decline in the opportunities for participation in university life—in the opportunities to enjoy university life, because all of us would recognise that attending a tertiary institution is not simply a matter of attending lectures and studying for the course in which one is enrolled. There are other, perhaps intangible, benefits of university life, including socialising and participating in extracurricular activities with other students, that are in a very real sense education for life just as much as are the formal courses that a student is enrolled in.

There has been overwhelming support for this legislation. The Group of Eight, which is the coalition of leading Australian universities, in November last year had this to say:

The Federal Government’s decision to allow universities to support essential student services through the collection of a modest fee is a sensible compromise that will enhance the quality of Australia’s higher education system

Universities Australia, which is the industry peak body representing the university sector, on 3 November 2008 said:

Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation.

Also in November last year, the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations said:

We certainly welcome the recognition by Government of the importance of student services and representation. Since the onset of “VSU” we have seen a dramatic decline in services and representation for postgraduates on most campuses.

There have been some suggestions by speakers opposite that, because the scheme being introduced here permits universities to impose a capped fee of up to $250 and because it further provides for students to borrow and thus increase their debt in order to pay that fee, this is in some way imposing an additional burden on students. I say to those opposite who have made this suggestion that students are already, and have been for over two years, paying the cost of voluntary student unionism. They have been paying because the facilities and services that were previously available to them either were substantially reduced or had been cut completely, leading to the situation where, in order to obtain those services, students who had previously been provided with them collectively were paying for them themselves. Students have been hit with increased prices for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport and food. They still need all of those services as people attending tertiary institutions. The fact that services have not been provided collectively has not relieved students of their need to access such facilities and services.

Students have experienced indirect costs caused by voluntary student unionism because universities have had to redirect funds that would have been better spent on other aspects of university activities. They have had to redirect funds that would otherwise have been spent on research and teaching to fund services and amenities that, because of the introduction of voluntary student unionism and the reduction of funds available, would otherwise have had to be cut. In addition, it should be clear to all that the reintroduction of a student amenities fee will help to rebuild important student services and amenities. The paying of this fee by students will not be a financial barrier because students will have the option to take out a HECS style loan as a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program.

This legislation will, as I said at the start of this speech, reverse a disastrous change in the administration of our tertiary sector. It will go a long way towards restoring the provision of services to students. The only striking thing about the debate in this House has been the number of speakers opposite who have persisted with their obsessive desire to continue to destroy all things union. I commend the bill to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my opposition to the proposed amendments in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for a compulsory fee to be imposed by higher education providers from 1 July 2009 for student services and amenities. The fee is to be capped at $250 per student each year but will be indexed annually. The bill provides for a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP—the Services and Amenities Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP—that will provide eligible students with an option to borrow the fee through SA-HELP. But we have no clear idea what the eligibility criteria will be. The Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines will be tabled as a disallowable instrument after the bill has been passed. The bill requires higher education providers to comply with the new Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. This is clearly funding for student elections, union officers and salaries and, like the fee guidelines, will be tabled after the bill has been passed.

Historically, Labor’s student amenities fees were clearly compulsory upfront union fees. The Higher Education Support Amend-ment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 prevented a higher education provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student association, union or guild and prevented a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities or services that are not of an academic nature. However, to deal with concerns regarding the impact of voluntary student unionism on regional campuses and on recreational and sporting activities, the Howard government provided transition funding to universities. Forty-four projects funded by $85 million assisted universities with the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for sporting and recreational facilities. Other projects were funded through the Support for Small Businesses on Regional University Campuses fund to establish operations for small businesses on regional campuses and provide services for students. The regional university sport program provided $10 million over four years to support regional universities in maintaining their sporting programs.

The minister claims that she does not intend this bill to reintroduce compulsory student union fees, but the only political activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are support to political parties and support for election to a Commonwealth, state, territory or local government body. The legislation does not prohibit funding campaigns against legislation and policies or for direct support of trade unions or any other organisation not registered as a political party. I am sure we will see some very creative student union activities and cross-subsidisation.

The legislation does allow the funds to be used for student representations—in other words, compulsory student unionism by stealth. Students will have no choice but to fund the political agendas of student unions whether they want to or not. How will these funds be audited? Where is the departmental monitoring to ensure compliance with the guidelines? At the end of the day, it will be at the minister’s discretion as to whether any penalty is imposed.

Many students believe that the government is attempting to reintroduce compulsory student union fees via the back door, with student unions set to be the beneficiaries of at least part of the revenue raised by the compulsory charge, aided by the lack of compliance requirements. I am told that the University of WA has a $120 fee for students to join the guild. If this fee is compulsory, will universities simply increase their fees immediately to the proposed $250? And on what basis will the universities’ fees be evaluated?

Many students also believe that they should have the freedom to decide how and on what they spend their money, if in fact they have some to spare. They do not want to be forced to pay for services or amenities—many of which are already offered by universities—that they do not use. Specifically, over 130,000 external students may never have the opportunity to use any of those facilities, but they will have to pay. What impact will this compulsory fee have on the businesses currently patronised by the students? Students will not be able to afford both the compulsory fee and the fees of community and regional sporting clubs and associations or those of the private support and community services that are provided off campus—services they are currently paying for.

Coming from the regional electorate of Forrest, I know too well the financial and emotional stresses students have to deal with when they leave the security of their south-west family homes and move to Perth—or any other capital city, for that matter—to continue with their education and take up tertiary courses only available at metropolitan universities. There are extensive additional costs they and their families have to meet compared with their fellow metropolitan based students. Students from regional areas are already financially and socially disadvantaged when they have to move from their home base to that metro area. They are disadvantaged due to the high costs they incur but also due to the extra emotional stress of simply being away from home and their families, and some students handle this better than others.

For young students this can sometimes be the worst time in their lives to be away from their support base, which is their family. They are basically on their own. In their first year, university is a whole new world and, unlike their city based counterparts, they cannot continue to live at home with meals prepared and, often, the washing done and with the comfort and support of just being with their family. Regional students’ lives take on a very busy schedule. They have to find a place to live and a vehicle to get around in. They have to work to pay the rent and buy food and clothing. These are the very things that they used to take for granted in the family home. Cooking for themselves is just another hurdle and challenge. If you are a first year student, there is the challenge of managing the social and relationship issues in a major city, as well as finding money for parking at some universities and for fuel, if you can afford it, for the odd trip home to the country. And then the student has to find time to study.

Rent prices in Perth have increased dramatically over the past year. Rents for units have jumped 25 per cent and house rentals have jumped 17 per cent. Houses to share with fellow students are definitely in short supply. It is often extremely difficult to find a landlord or real estate office willing to rent to students. Students and their families have to find two weeks rent in advance and four weeks bond, as well as connection fees for electricity, gas and telephones. Accommodation at residential colleges can cost approximately $300 a week per student. Often regional students see themselves as poor students, and those from regional areas often are poor students—and for more than just financial reasons—compared to metropolitan based students because their families have such a battle to get them to university in the first place.

This bill will simply add to the cost of education for students and their families at a time when the economy is in decline. Many first year students from Forrest have told me they will not use the amenities that will supposedly be funded by this charge. They have said they cannot afford the fee and, in many instances, simply will be unable to use the services that the fees are supposed to provide. This is a Labor government $250 tax to fund compulsory student unionism by stealth, imposed irrespective of a student’s income, actual use of services and where they are doing the course. Students, as I said, studying by correspondence will also pay the $250 tax. What services and facilities will those students actually use?

I also know of students in music performance studies who provide entertainment for the campus at various concerts during the day and in their own time at night as an extension of their studies. Universities already have their clubs, sports and recreation facilities but not every student uses them, particularly those doing, as I said before, correspondence courses. Those who can afford or want to use the facilities now pay a fee. This is as it should be—a free choice made by the individual student depending on their circumstances and willingness to use the facility. Under the Howard government’s legislation, students on average saved $246 a year. Those who chose not to become members of a student union saved $318 a year. But with the government’s current spending sprees and $200 billion borrowings, our students, youth and future generations will inherit massive Labor debt—and here we have another tax on university students to fund compulsory student union fees.

In February, the Minister for Youth took submissions from stakeholders on the impact of the current VSU policy. The findings were reported in The impact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students: summary report. Some of the benefits were listed as:

… 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.

At a number of universities there was no longer a student union. In other instances, a number of student groups had merged into one body. Some institutions commented that there had been benefits from voluntary student unionism in terms of student representation and, in particular, that representation was now from a much broader base. Yet the government is intent on forcing this policy onto all students. I note that the Greens are also calling for more effective student advocacy. There is a campaign online called ‘Hey Government, Leave My Wallet Alone!’, where numerous blogs can be found in opposition to the reintroduction of student services fees. One says:

No fees, no new tax on students, deferred or otherwise, said pre-election Labor.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs said in interviews that an elected Labor government would not reverse the introduction of voluntary student unionism. The member for Perth said:

No, we won’t. We’ve made it clear we will allow students to voluntarily organise themselves.

When asked if an elected Labor government would contemplate some sort of loan or deferred payment, the member for Perth said:

No, absolutely not. One thing I can absolutely rule out is that I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, particularly a compulsory HECS style arrangement.

An excerpt from the comments on the website I referred to earlier—Hey Government, Leave My Wallet Alone!—includes:

I could barely support myself through-out the year and I don’t get a cent from centrelink and eventually I had to skip lectures to pick up extra shifts at work and now I’m expected to pay for services that I won’t use.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very concerned about the disproportionate disadvantage students from regional areas face, those students whose parents have to work to provide their children with tertiary education. Many students from regional areas also do not qualify for youth allowance from Centrelink. Growing numbers of students have to take a gap year, deferring their university studies to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance; otherwise, they are unable to afford to go to university.

An article in the Courier Mail by Amanda Horswill on 7 November 2008 explained why generation Y students are opting for a gap year before going to university. She writes that many gappers are being forced to take a year off to work and save up cash for their future studies. A survey of the class of 2007 year 12s undertaken by the state government found that university deferrals rose from 7.1 per cent in 2006 to 8.4 per cent in 2008, with 52.4 per cent of students working full time and 38 per cent working part time. A quarter of deferrers blamed monetary reasons for their deferrals. Most of this group said they needed to work to finance further study. A further 8.5 per cent said they were working so they could qualify for the youth allowance to help pay for part of their study and living allowances. What is not known is how many of these actually never return to take up their places and do not follow through on their tertiary education ambitions.

Many in my electorate of Forrest struggle to send their children to university, even with students taking that gap year, working to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance. Mrs Collins of West Busselton, John Thompson and Denis Frost are just three of my constituents who have contacted me recently because their children do not qualify for youth allowance. Mrs Collins’ daughter lives in Perth and studies at TAFE. She is trying to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance but there are simply no jobs available for her at the moment. Mr Frost’s son spent seven months in Cambodia last year undertaking volunteer work. He now wants to study but cannot afford to move to Perth and therefore his studies are on hold while he tries to find work. The problem is that he will have to start from the beginning again and work the 18-month period and his university studies will be deferred for a lot longer than he would have liked. Consideration should be given to waiving the qualification for independent youth allowance for those students who participate in an exchange program and who are often out of Australia for a full year.

However, the key issues on this bill remain, and they concern the following. Should the fees be compulsory? No. Will the fees be increased? This may be the starting point because the fees, capped at a maximum of $250, are indexed. Where is the guarantee that the money will be spent by universities on services? What administration will be applied?

This bill has been scheduled for debate today, but the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations reporting on 10 March. I remain opposed to the introduction of what will lead to compulsory student union fees.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Forrest talked about affordability of university education for young people, but this is an unfortunate example of crocodile tears. Certainly there are substantial difficulties being faced by university students today, but they are a direct consequence of the Howard government ripping out hundreds of millions of government support for universities and instead encouraging universities to charge higher fees and introduce full-fee degrees and higher HECS charges. It is these things, the legacy of the previous government, which have made university education less affordable for young people than it has been in the past.

A report released by the National Union of Students in 2007 on its findings concerning the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism, known as VSU, reported that:

• VSU has failed to deliver what its proponents argued for—self sustaining student organisations just able to survive off voluntary memberships, investments and trading operations.

It reported that:

• 25 out of 30 student organisations reported substantial or total job losses; much of these cuts have come in the area of professional support to student representatives;

And that:

• 13 out of 18 organisations reported that they had made substantial or near total cuts to departmental or portfolio funding (ie campaigns, activities, support programmes).

The Australian University Sport and the Australian Campus Union Managers Association review of the impact of VSU was that:

• Prices charged to students for use of services and facilities have in general increased materially since on-set of VSU outstripping, in most cases, consumer price index (CPI) and placing greater financial pressures on students.

In stark contrast, the Labor government acknowledges that it has a responsibility to allow universities to provide suitable student services and also to ensure that students have appropriate representation. This bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, honours that commitment to ensuring that students have access to vital campus services and our commitment to undo the damage inflicted by the previous government.

The government is taking a balanced and practical approach to ensure student amenities, services and access to independent and democratic representation and advocacy are secured now and into the future. Through these amendments the government will, for the first time, introduce national access to services benchmarks relating to the provision of information on and access to services such as welfare and counselling services in line with the current requirements for overseas students. The government will, for the first time, introduce national student representation and advocacy protocols to ensure that students have an independent voice on campus. These protocols will facilitate access for students to advocacy support services and ensure opportunities for democratic student representation and student input during the decision-making process.

To support quality services over and above these benchmarks and protocols we will provide universities with the option to set a compulsory fee capped at a maximum of $250 a year indexed annually. A set of guidelines is being developed outlining the range of services and amenities for which the fee can and cannot be used. This will include things like child care, health care and sports and fitness clubs. It will be a decision for each university—let me repeat: it will be a decision for each university—as to whether it wishes to implement a fee and the level of the fee up to $250. The fee will support student services and amenities over and above the new national access to services benchmarks and national student representation and advocacy protocols. The bill will also ensure that students wanting to study diploma and above qualifications in the vocational educational and training sector are able to access the training they choose without worrying about upfront fees.

To increase productivity, Australia needs to increase the skill levels of the Australian population. For the last four or five years, the number of students studying diplomas and advanced diplomas in the public VET system has decreased from 197,300 in 2002 to 165,000 in 2007. This bill includes amendments to allow for future expansion of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, which will provide the flexibility to reduce the loan fee for particular students and streamline credit transfer requirements for a range of students through the guidelines. In August last year, the government announced that VET FEE-HELP would be extended to state subsidised diploma and advanced diploma students in Victoria, with the loan fee being withdrawn for these students. Reducing the loan fee and relaxing credit transfer restrictions form part of this measure. The availability of VET FEE-HELP is expected to significantly contribute to the Council of Australian Governments’ target to double the number of diploma and advanced diploma completions by 2020. The Australian government is committed to building a highly skilled workforce that will deliver productivity growth in a low-inflation, modern economy. World-class universities are a crucial component of an effective economic strategy to deliver the growth that this nation requires as we come through uncertain times.

On the subject of world-class universities, this bill demonstrates that the Labor Party has a genuine feel for what campus life is really like. A university is a community. Universities can be large, cold, remote, impersonal places. You need to feel that you belong. Students who feel that they belong will have a much more rewarding and successful student life. My first university degree was from the University of Melbourne. I took advantage of its great facilities and its active student life. At the Rowden White library I listened to records—Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones—which I, as a poor student, could not afford to buy. I used the athletic track. I used the swimming pool. I went to the student union theatre and watched films at cheaper rates than at commercial cinemas. I went on bushwalking club walks and enjoyed from a distance the more far-out clubs and societies such as the chocolate appreciation society and the engineers society. I went in the Mr Commerce drinking competition and I was runner-up. I am not sure if I ever told my parents that. I hope they are not listening. All these student activities enhance campus life. They bring it richness and meaning: the sport, the arts, the journalism skills—forged writing, outrageous copy, for student publications. That is why when the Victorian Kennett government moved to introduce what it called voluntary student unionism it was opposed by a glittering array of artists and entertainers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.