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

As I was saying—I think about a week ago, when I was interrupted by question time—the Howard government’s 1999 legislation sought to amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 in order to make voluntary student unionism a condition of Commonwealth grants to higher education institutions. I ask the House: what is voluntary about this? It was compulsory to be voluntary! Where was the choice given to universities? The Labor Party respects university autonomy; the Liberal Party does not.

The effects of Howard government legislation on students were both adverse and severe. Take the example of La Trobe University. Its Students Representative Council has advised me that in 2006, the last full year of the compulsory general service fee, the university collected just over $7 million from it. In 2007, the university provided a total of $3.3 million—so less than half of this—for the provision of student services on campus. As a consequence of this change, the La Trobe University student dental service, also used by students at RMIT Bundoora, was closed. The free legal service was taken over by the university and its operation changed. The SRC had also offered a free tax service for students—this was closed. The SRC had operated a second-hand bookstore for many years, which sold textbooks to students at well below the price of a new text—this was closed. Clubs and societies funding was cut by 25 per cent, student magazine funding was cut by 70 per cent and representation funding was cut by 80 per cent. I have no doubt that that cut in student advocacy was exactly what the Howard government, the previous government, wanted to achieve.

As student organisations represent a source of criticism from time to time, the Liberal government had determined that they must be crippled and crushed. That is what voluntary student unionism was all about; it was not about some benign view of giving students a choice. By contrast, the National Union of Students and other student bodies had been highly critical of the previous federal Labor government over HECS and other issues. Nevertheless, the Labor Party—and this is one of the conspicuous differences between us and those opposite—is big enough to take criticism and big enough to tolerate dissent, and we did not try to kill off student unions.

Liberal Party paternalism toward young people that says, ‘We know what is best for you; you cannot manage your own affairs’—that kind of arrogance and authoritarianism—shows a dislike of the pluralism and tolerance which, in the Labor Party’s view, makes us a richer, more diverse and more successful community.

I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 and to support it through the House. I hope that it makes its way through the Senate and becomes legislation as soon as possible.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to very strongly oppose this piece of Labor Party legislation, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, which, of course, is a piece of legislation for its true believers, because most of them have come through this training school. Truth be told, that is what this is about—this is part of the Labor Party training school, and we will walk through that in a little bit more detail.

We just heard the member for Wills, who is a longstanding member of this House, talk about how the previous government’s legislation was not about choice—it was authoritarianism, apparently, gone mad. Well, it seems to me that forcing someone to pay a tax or to be a member of the union would be closer to that than giving them a choice would be. We know what this is all about—this is about funding the next generation of Labor MPs and Labor activists. That is what it is about, and I refer to my home state of South Australia in that respect: I see the next speaker on the list is the member for Kingston, and a good member she is too, but she is a product of the Australian school. She, of course, was the president of the Flinders University students union; the member for Adelaide, who is the Minister for Youth, was the president of the student association for, I think, about six years. So this is all part of Labor Inc.

What they do is have the compulsory union fee and get the next group of numbers into their faction and into their group. In South Australia that group is the SDA, run by Senator Don Farrell or, as the Advertiser dubbed him earlier this week, the ‘godfather’ of the Right in South Australia. They get their next group of people in so they can control the Labor Party—we saw last week the benefits of that for Mr Koutsantonis, who is now a minister in the state Labor government after many years of undermining the Premier of South Australia. He got rewarded because he is part of the faction that runs the state government; it is the same with the Minister for Youth and the member for Kingston. They have all been part of this training school. They started off at university in the student union—funded through compulsory fees—and had the activist training. It is all part of Labor Inc. So that is the motive of this bill: Labor Inc. need this bill because they need the next group of activists to be forced through their training school, and that is what it is all about—it is as simple as that. This is a bill to keep Labor Inc. going and to keep Labor Inc. moving forward, and we will see that in the future years. That is all the Labor members care about, and that is what this bill is about.

Here are some facts about the voluntary student unionism legislation that was moved by the previous government. In 2004, $160 million was collected around Australia in compulsory student union fees. At the time, Labor claimed that over 4,000 jobs would go with the introduction of VSU, but that is a claim that just has not been substantiated. Labor has run a desperate scare campaign on this about services and amenities. You see the name of this bill: the student services and amenities and other measures bill. Of course, that is not what it is about; it is about a compulsory union fee to drag more people into their faction in the Labor Party so that they have got more control and so that they can dish out seats going forward. That is what it is all about and that is how they have operated for many years, particularly in my state of South Australia. They have the numbers in certain seats—the member for Adelaide, the Minister for Youth, benefited from that in the past and the member for Kingston is the same. So this is what this bill is all about—it is part of the Labor Inc. system of training the next group of activists.

I wish to make five points in particular on this bill. The first point is that this is clearly a broken promise of Labor. Labor told the public before the last election that they were not considering an amenities fee. At a doorstop interview in May 2007 the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then education spokesman, said:

… I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

I repeat: ‘So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.’ What do we see with this bill? We see the very thing that the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then shadow spokesman on education, said they were not contemplating. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the member for Melbourne, during a debate on the Higher Education Support Bill on 14 October 2003, said:

The reality is that Australian students and Australian families have pretty much reached the limit of their capacity to contribute to their own education or their children’s education.

The minister for finance was saying that we do not need more fees; we do not need more expense on young people going into university because it is hard enough as it is. The obligation on education providers to support student unions goes beyond what existed before the previous government legislated against compulsory fees and compulsory unionism. It was just another case of Labor misleading leading into the last election. We have seen a lot of that. We have seen it over the last couple of days with a promise, which has been broken, to the Christian Lobby regarding the funding of international abortions. We are now seeing the same with this bill. It is just another broken promise from Labor. We saw it with the great ads for the economic conservative who now is the great social democrat. It is a consistent approach. That is the first point: it is a clear broken promise, a clear breach of Labor’s undertaking.

The second point is about unionism. The bill will effectively see the return of compulsory student unionism. The only political activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are support for political parties and support for election to a government body. This leaves out a whole range of political activities including funding campaigns against legislation and policy, potentially against political parties or for direct support of trade unions or any other organisation not registered as a political party. This fee is used for activists’ training, to boost the extra numbers at protests et cetera. This is an attempt to reintroduce a compulsory fee that will in effect fund the activities of student unions again. We hear much about the childcare services and so forth that this legislation is allegedly there to fund. That is simply not true. It is there to fund the student union slush fund, all part of the training of the next group of activists for Labor Inc. That is what this bill is all about. Student unions are not councils. Student organisations often argue that such a fee is equivalent to a local government charging property owners rates for the provision of services such as garbage collection and libraries. Student organisations are in fact more like a sporting club where members pay a voluntary fee in order to participate in recreational activities. So people will join if they wish to join, if they see a benefit in the service, rather than being forced into paying a fee which is then used for all sorts of activities, which people do not realise or indeed do not agree to. Rather than making a case for why people would want to join student associations, this legislation is about forcing them to. Labor know that, when people look at the options or the range of activities, most people choose not to join because it does not give them any benefit, so they have to force them. It is the lazy approach to unionism that the government are supportive of, because it boosts numbers and, as I said before, increases revenue for all parts of the training for Labor Inc.

The third point is the financial burden on young people and students going to university. This fee of up to $250 slugs students at a time when the economy is already in decline, when people are finding it more difficult to meet their obligations. We heard Labor for 11 years carp on about the costs of going to university, the high cost of up-front courses and so forth. Now we see Labor adding another up-front fee that people have no choice about, with no option about whether they wish to use these services. They are forced to contribute to a whole range of political activities, all based on the Labor Inc. theory.

The bill will impose a regressive tax on students which is indexed to inflation. The fee will therefore become higher each year. It is $250 now, but of course it will increase. It will increase the obligations on the next group of students coming through. Students often work in a number of jobs to pay for rent and other cost-of-living pressures, which of course is becoming more difficult as time goes on. We see a report today in the Australian in relation to my home state of South Australia, where the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association is predicting that wage costs will increase by 15 per cent. That will increase the pressure on the ability of those restaurants to employ young people. Many young people who go to university work part time in restaurants and catering organisations and if wage costs increase by 15 per cent, through Labor’s changes to industrial relations law, then we will see a substantial reduction in the number of young people who are taken on. That is a bad thing for students. At the same time, Labor is imposing a new tax, a $250 compulsory student union fee, on these same university students. So they are reducing employment options and imposing additional costs all for the purpose of the Labor Inc. organisation.

In the case of part-time students and the 130,000 external students around Australia, many of them will never have the opportunity to use the services but they will be charged the fee. It is outrageous that students studying by correspondence should be forced to pay this fee, particularly if they never set foot on campuses. What about mature age students who work full time and attend night sessions or indeed study across the internet? It is simply a new tax to fund activities which people are not choosing to fund themselves, so they have to be compulsory to give the student unions the amount of money that they need to run the activities to train the next group of activists for Labor Inc.

Students living on minimal budgets, who will have fewer chances for employment under this government’s approach to industrial relations law and the economy, will now be slugged another fee just to add to those pressures. This is bad policy, but it is designed wholly and solely for the political benefit of those on the other side. This is their training school. We have seen it in South Australia, where the Minister for Youth and the member for Kingston have come through the Labor training school and have been rewarded with their seats in the parliament for doing the right thing by the faction in South Australia. It is all part of the Labor Inc. system that brings them through.

We have seen it in a whole range of activities in South Australia. Yesterday, there was a great spread in the Advertiser about the secretary of the SDA, the key union in the Right faction, with his love life posted all over the Advertiserall part of the management of the faction, of course. This student union fee is designed to benefit that group of people. This is a bad piece of legislation. It is bad law. It is a new tax. That is simply what it is: it is a new tax benefiting those on the other side to help train their next group of activists.

The fourth point is that this removes choice. The very basis of the VSU legislation was to give students choice about whether they wanted to use the services or not. What this fee, this tax, this compulsory unionism, is designed to do is to force people to pay this fee for the benefit of those on the other side. Students should not be forced to pay for services they do not want to use or have no intention of using. It should be a choice. It should be that if you need a service you pay for it to be delivered, rather than this approach from Labor, which is compulsory unionism. It is a new tax.

Once again, this highlights a stark difference between those on this side of the House and those on the other. We believe very strongly in choice. We believe that, if students are given their right to choose what services they use, they will, and indeed they have been doing so over the last couple of years, since the beginning of the VSU legislation. But what Labor want—what those on the other side want—is a compulsory fee because it boosts the coffers of these union organisations to train the next group of activists for the future.

We have seen a range of policies. We are starting to see a range of hard-headed Labor policies that they wish to implement, and this is one of them. We have seen already the flagging of the return to the old school hit list, which the Deputy Prime Minister is so enamoured of. She was a numbers person for Mark Latham, and that was a policy that Mark Latham pursued very heavily. Those on the other side do not understand the word ‘choice’; what they understand is ‘compulsory’, because it is for their political benefit, and that is what they are doing this piece of legislation for.

In my fifth point I wish to make some remarks in relation to VSU, the legislation that the Howard government moved through about choice in universities. The VSU legislation is working. Student services are still going strong, and voluntary student unionism is clearly working. People who choose to join the union, who are activists already, do so. Those who do not choose to, the majority, are not forced to. That is the big difference, of course, between those of us on this side and those on the other side. The lazy approach to student unions is to force people to do so.

The Howard government’s VSU legislation of 2005 has enabled students to save, on average, about $250 per annum, a real saving for someone who lives on a shoestring budget and who is now finding it harder and harder to get work because of the policies of those on the other side. They are now going to be slugged with an extra tax. There were real savings from policies implemented by the Howard government. It is a substantial amount of money. It would go towards their living costs—and this will take away from students’ abilities to fund entertainment and basics like electricity bills and rent. This is a bad piece of policy. It is a bad piece of policy designed for the benefit of those on the other side.

Why? The motive is clear. Student unions provide the training ground for the next group of Labor activists. We have seen it in South Australia constantly, as I have referred to already. What the Labor Party want to do here is bring back the compulsory aspect of this fee because it increases substantially the amount of money that is used for a range of political activities; it is not used for what those on the other side purport that it is. I pay tribute to the Young Liberal student association for the information that they have sent out to members. It has been very well written and well researched. They are a group of young people who believe in choice. They do not want to be forced to be slugged with a $250 Labor tax each year. There are reduced employment opportunities for those young people in this current economic circumstance because of policies of those on the other side, and at the same time they will be forced to pay a new tax, a new tax designed to help the betterment of those on the other side in their political careers and to increase the size of their factions and the ability of their factions to have the numbers to control their state organisation and therefore the seats that they get to choose.

We have seen it in South Australia. We see the great employment slush fund that occurs with ministers’ offices. The brother of the SDA secretary in South Australia is employed by the Treasurer, who is on the Right, and of course we have the member for Adelaide, who is part of that faction, the member for Wakefield and the member for Kingston. Then we have those on the other side who are part of the Left, run by the member for Port Adelaide. That is how the South Australian Labor Party work. They employ their own, and it is all through the training school of the student unions in the first place that gives them these numbers and that helps train them.

That is what this is about. That is the motive of this bill. It is not for the benefit of the vast bulk of young people who go to university to seek to improve themselves for a future career and to get the education they require. It is about increasing the ability of the Labor Party to train the next group, to keep the numbers in their relevant factions so they have the ability to control their party. So it is a sad piece of legislation.

It is true Labor legislation, of course. It will be sold in all sorts of positive terms and Orwellian speak about how important it is and how outrageous it was that the Howard government took away all sorts of services like child care, which of course is simply not true. This bill is about compulsory student unionism for the benefit of those on the other side, not for the students that they purport to represent. It is forcing people to dig into the limited resources they currently have to pay for activities they do not want. The only way those activities can be funded is by a compulsory fee. It is a bad piece of legislation. I urge the government to reconsider it. It is a broken promise. It will hurt young Australians, and I urge the government to reconsider.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, a bill that will amend the legacy left by the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism legislation of 2005, which saw the loss of various amenities and essential services to students. These are services that all students in our universities deserve and have every right to expect during their tertiary education. The review conducted by the Rudd government last year revealed that the effect of the VSU introduced by the previous government was that somewhere in the vicinity of $170 million was stripped out of student services and amenities across this country. This $170 million stripped out of university funding by the previous government resulted in a widespread decline in, and in some cases the complete closure of, health and counselling services, employment, child care, welfare support and advocacy services applied on various campuses. It is not surprising that the review exposed further damaging facts. It found that students were often paying considerably more for access to what were often reduced services, and that a number of institutions had been forced to redirect their funds because they actually believe in looking after their students and providing these services. The member for Mayo, who is leaving the chamber at the moment, may not have looked at this and would be surprised to know that a number of academic institutions redirected their funding to ensure that these essential services were maintained for students. That funding was stripped away from funding that would have ordinarily been applied to research and teaching services at those institutions.

In response to the review promised at the last election, the Rudd government introduced this bill, which is aimed to restore the student union services and advocacy representation on campuses. This is not a return to compulsory student unionism. I listened intently to the comments of the member for Mayo and, if you stripped from his 20-minute contribution his concerns about a return to a breeding ground for potential Labor candidates, there was precious little he had to say. He certainly did not talk about anything to do with his own education, about what applied in terms of student services in tertiary institutions then. I am sure that if he had been even half truthful in all of that he would have indicated that he actually participated in and benefited from those services. I invite every other member from the opposition, when they make their contribution today, to relate their experiences when they were at university. Don’t forget that just about everyone who is going to pop up in this debate will have gone to university, and will be tertiary educated. Not too many tradesmen are going to stand up and lecture us on VSU today, let me tell you.

If you strip away from the diatribe we were just subjected to the comments about student unionism being simply a breeding ground for Labor politics, he flies in the face of just about every academic institution that participated in the review of the VSU legislation. This was in my opinion the most severe anti-student legislation that has ever been introduced into the parliament. It was driven by an ideological obsession of the previous government, and that is what this government is moving to correct. This government is remarkably skilled at trying to undo the harm caused by the prejudice of the previous Howard government. We are fixing the ineptitude that has come through their prejudiced position, as amply demonstrated in terms of the VSU legislation itself. We on this side of the House are taking a balanced approach to ensure that student amenities and services, access to independent democratic representation and advocacy are secured now and into the future, and that this is done in a balanced way.

The Liberal Party to date have consistently refused to acknowledge the devastation and the retrograde aspects of their scattergun approach to university education, particularly to university support services for our students. I do not want to keep harping on the comments of the member for Mayo—I do not think he needs the publicity—but, if you listened to his contribution, it is not surprising that they have got it wrong on this bill. He claimed this bill is all about compulsory student unionism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would like to make it clear that the member for Mayo had nothing to say and that his contribution was all about student unionism simply supporting a breeding ground of Labor politics. I notice that the member for Higgins has walked into the chamber. No doubt he will be able to indicate to us his involvement in student unionism during his earlier years.

This government is not reinstituting compulsory unionism; it is looking to those essential services, those conditions which are necessary and which are expected. I have a daughter who went through the University of Western Sydney. I know how much she required various services that were provided. She went through under the regime of student contributions. I was very proud when she was awarded a degree. She did not get it in placard waving or anything else like that; she became a teacher and has for the last 10 to 12 years been out there teaching in high schools in my local area. I look on her time there, as no doubt she does, in terms of those services that were provided—in student assistance, photocopying, the occasional university sporting activity—being essential for university life. It does not behove us to sit down here and try to extrapolate this piece of legislation into something that is either pro or against compulsory union membership.

Do not forget where this debate on VSU originated from. This was the forerunner to the application of the anti-union forces which were mustered under the Howard government. This was just being consistent with their general approach to unionism. Because student unionism had ‘unionism’ in the name, they thought that they should follow on and do what they had tried to do to the working men and women of this country, extending that to students at each of our academic institutions.

We are about a decent education, restoring important student services and ensuring that students have appropriate representation on campuses. In order for our students to have greater and better opportunities to pursue their dreams, we must have good and fundamentally sound education facilities and students must be able to participate. Unlike the previous government, we are committed to world-class universities. They will play a crucial role in the future economic development of this country. There is absolutely no question about that. We must invest in our education, including our tertiary education. Our kids that are going through that are our future.

In the contribution I made yesterday in relation to the government’s general contribution to education, I think I mentioned something about the $14.7 billion now going through the economic stimulus into schools. This does things apart from delivering direct employment in that respect. What I tried to indicate at that stage, as you might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, is that an investment now in school based education is an investment, quite frankly, in the economic growth of this country within 10 years. If we are going to be a smart nation, we have to be prepared to make those contributions. We have to be prepared to ensure that those students coming through are adequately provided for. This piece of legislation is seeking to address the harm that was done by the previous government in respect of those students pursuing tertiary education.

Sadly, my electorate does not contain a university campus within its boundaries. My boundary stops at the front door of a university, so quite clearly, whilst I do not have the university in my boundaries, a great number of students who go to the University of Western Sydney’s Campbelltown campus come from my electorate, and those who are not from my electorate are from my neighbour’s electorate in Macarthur. So this university is well positioned for us to see what it does. As I have said, I have a daughter who has graduated from that university. The University of Western Sydney serves a very large and diverse area. Apart from its Campbelltown campus, there are another five campuses operated by that university throughout greater Western Sydney. Presently, I think it has about 35,000 or 36,000 students in all.

Interestingly, in its submission to the report The impact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students, the University of Western Sydney reported that the introduction of voluntary student unionism had had a disastrous impact on it, with the loss of $9 million in student service fees, representing a significant challenge to the nature, organisation, financial viability and traditional models of student representation in the University of Western Sydney. The university, it claims, was hit particularly hard by VSU because of the multicampus network that it operates through its six campuses, providing various services across each of those facilities. The imposition of VSU immediately undermined the capacity of the university to implement, develop and deliver quality services to students right across the board in each of those six campuses.

Student services at the University of Western Sydney that have been particularly severely impacted by VSU include the provision of the shuttle bus, which was cancelled. By the way, not all of those campuses are located on a rail line, so the shuttle bus was particularly important. That was cancelled. Clubs and societies are greatly reduced. Social sport and organised sport were certainly reduced. Campus life activities were significantly reduced as a consequence of VSU. This might not seem a lot to members on the other side of the House, but it is to students on a tight budget. Bear in mind where we are located in Western Sydney, out of the metropolitan areas of Sydney. Most of those students are on a tight budget out there, and most of the families who are helping to support those students are on a tight budget. These student services meant quite a lot, and I can verify what they meant for my own daughter, who graduated from UWS itself.

The University of Western Sydney also noted that it provided assistance to fund key services that were determined to be essential to student needs. It said that it had actually diverted some of its funding that would otherwise have gone into teaching-related and research-related services. Where the university has deemed that services are essential, it has had to pick up that financial slack out of its own particular university funding to ensure that those services were maintained. In particular, the university says that those services that were maintained included welfare, case work, direct support for students via the student associations and commercial services, primarily food and beverage services. It also had to weigh in to help support some of the sport and leisure services that operated on each of its campuses. Those were funds which were diverted from teaching and research activities and redirected into these services because staff, from the Vice-Chancellor down, deemed these to be essential services for those students who are participating in studies at the University of Western Sydney. These arrangements, quite frankly, are just not sustainable into the future. We have to at least have a positive view about what is essential and what we should be doing to ensure the welfare of these students not simply at the University of Western Sydney but undertaking tertiary education across the board.

After looking through a handful of the 162 submissions that were received by the inquiry, I found that almost all of them concluded that the abolition of student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact being on smaller and regional universities like the University of Western Sydney. Many universities, not surprisingly to those on this side of the House, have put forward the view that VSU has resulted in a lessening of the vibrancy, the diversity and, to some extent, the attractiveness of university life. I cannot verify that because all of my study at university was done part time, but we need to realise that vibrancy and diversity are important in ensuring that students enrolled at our universities complete their courses. That is important not simply for the kids that are actually going there but for the overall economy of this nation. We need to have the best minds graduating and applying their skills to improve the economy of this country.

This bill will provide an opportunity to enhance the on-campus experience for University of Western Sydney students through the growth of student clubs and special interest groups, as it will in all tertiary institutions. It will enhance the provision of specialist support services such as childcare facilities and welfare services for those in need, as well as improving university services such as food and beverage across all campuses. It will improve the representation of students in university affairs. What it does not do is divert funds from these bodies to political parties. I hate to disavow the contribution of the member for Mayo, but none of what he had to say was related to this bill.

Universities are working with student representatives and student bodies to establish new student organisations, which will commence shortly. These will be properly run organisations where students have a voice and can participate in their universities. The single student representative organisations will provide an independent and effective voice for the 35,000 students undertaking undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at the University of Western Sydney. The member for Chifley has just walked in to the chamber. I note he has a campus of the University of Western Sydney in his electorate. These measures are for students of the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney who not only attend university but want to participate in and be part of the fabric of university life.

I am delighted to be in this place to support this legislation because I know it is valued not only by the Campbelltown campus of the University of Western Sydney but by the campus in the electorate of Chifley and by all tertiary institutions. I call on members opposite, who claim they have a commitment to higher education, to do more than simply dwell on their past evils against unionism, whereby they sucked up VSU, and look at what we can do to facilitate better representation for students into the future.

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not be supporting the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I congratulate the previous member for his speech but, although it was well argued, I did not find it at all convincing. His entreaties at the end for the opposition to reconsider its position will be largely unsuccessful. I suggest to him that he in fact reconsider his position on this legislation. He also asked me to set out my own experiences and views on student unions, which I am quite happy to do. As a student who went to university in the mid-1970s, I found it was a condition of enrolment to join a student union. Until you had joined the student union and paid the union fee, you were ineligible to enrol. Like every other student who wanted to get an education, I joined the student union. In fact, you actually had to produce evidence that you had done it—a receipt for your fee—before you were admitted to the university. There was no choice about it, so I, like every other student who wanted an education, joined the student union.

I soon became aware, however, that the student unions were thoroughly unrepresentative of student opinion. By and large, they were run by a small minority of students with a very left-wing outlook on life. The student unions were dominated by various communist subfactions and anarchist groups, many of the leaders of which are now members of the Labor Party, having moderated in their old age. As a student leader, I began organising against the left-wing control of both the local student union and the Australian Union of Students. One of the issues that shocked me and shocked student opinion back in those days was the virulent anti-Israel stance that was taken by the left-wing students and the left-wing student unions. In 1975 they passed resolutions saying that the Australian student movement would not recognise the state of Israel, that they would organise boycotts of the state of Israel and that they would not travel to Palestine ‘until the Zionist entity is overcome’. That was the position of the compulsory student union, to which we all joined and paid our compulsory fee.

What concerned me in relation to those student unions was that although we were all forced to join them, and we were all forced to pay fees to them, very few students ever voted in student elections—which was how the left was able to capture and maintain control of those organisations. I ran for election myself in order to oppose the left’s control of the student unions, and I was successful. At that time, I thought that, if we were all forced to join these student unions, we should at least all be forced to vote. I believed that compulsory membership and compulsory voting might do something to actually moderate the extremism of these student unions. For a while I actually flirted with, and supported, compulsory voting in student elections. But, in 1978, a student by the name of Robert Clark took a case, which was successful, against the Melbourne university SRC. The Supreme Court found that all of the students, at that university at least, that were being forced into the student union had been forced in illegally—that, in fact, the university had no power to actually require membership of a student union as a condition of enrolment. And so, at that university at least—and it probably would have applied at any other campuses had it been challenged—the university had been unlawfully forcing people into a student organisation and unlawfully extracting money from them.

This raised the whole issue of what should be the principled position in relation to student organisations and student fees. Rather than making membership and voting compulsory, in 1979 I decided that voting should be voluntary and membership should be voluntary. I believed that rather than go down the compulsory path we should go down the voluntary path. The argument that I used then, and believe now, is that a student union is a lobby group. It lobbies the university on behalf of students. It lobbies the government on behalf of students and if you believe in that kind of lobbying activity—and many students do—then you should join it. But, if you do not, there should be no compulsion, just as there should be no compulsion on a returned serviceman to join the RSL. If you believe in the RSL—that it lobbies successfully for conditions for returned servicemen—then join it. Just as the NRMA lobbies on behalf of motorists, if you believe that it is doing a good job, join it and pay the fee. A student union will be lobbying the administration for student services or it might be lobbying the government for increases in Youth Allowance. If you believe that it is doing a good job or you want to support it in doing that, join it. Pay the money. But why should there be compulsory membership, or a compulsory fee paid, to what is essentially a lobby group?

The only argument that I have heard to try and defend the in-principle position is that a student organisation is somehow like a government. We all have to pay taxes to a government; therefore we all have to pay fees to a student union. I do not think it will take too much persuasion for the House to recognise that a government is qualitatively different to a student union or a student organisation. What characterises a government is sovereignty. The government has sovereignty within its area of constitutional responsibility. And, because it has sovereignty, it has a compulsory taxing power. A compulsory taxing power goes with the sovereignty. But a student union does not exercise sovereignty. It does not exercise sovereignty over people’s lives. It does not exercise sovereignty in a particular area of constitutional responsibility. It is a lobby group and, as a lobby group, it ought to be entirely voluntary. We have no choice whether or not to live under the Australian government or a state government, and it exercises a taxing power because it permits us no choice—quite properly. But a student union is not comparable in any material respect, and therefore membership ought to be voluntary. I have no objection to anybody who chooses to join. I would say: ‘Good on you. Get involved. If you think you can make a positive contribution, do so.’ But why should those students that do not intend to do so, and those students who never go near it, have to pay a fee? Why should they have their choice fettered in that particular way?

I do believe in fee for service—where students want to use a service that is provided by some kind of student organisation. Suppose they want to eat in a cafeteria; then they should pay for the cost of their meals to that student union. Suppose a student union provides sporting facilities and a student wants to use those sporting facilities or to join a sporting club; then they should pay a fee for the use of those sporting facilities or to join that sporting club. But, for the student who chooses not to exercise their right to buy the meal or not to exercise a right to join a club or not to go near the sporting facilities, they are receiving no service and they should not be charged a fee for service. A fee for service, as the phrase implies, is where you pay for the service that you receive. But why should those who do not receive the service—who exercise their freedom not to do so—pay a fee? What this bill is designed to do, of course, is to collect a fee from people who choose not to use a service, or who would otherwise choose not to pay a fee because they do not like the service. It imposes a fee on those who do not value the service or do not think the fee gives them value for that service. It takes away their freedom of choice. It takes away their power as a consumer. It takes away their right to join, or not join, the lobbying activities.

This is all about extracting fees from people who would not voluntarily choose to pay them. As such, it is most obviously a tax. I do not think there can be any argument other than that this bill is imposing a new tax on students. This parliament is being asked to give universities the power to tax students $250 a year from 2010 and rising thereafter. I assume that most, if not all, of the universities will impose that tax and they will therefore raise around $200 million of new taxation from students. Incidentally, the next time you hear the Labor Party say, ‘We are worried about the debt levels of students,’ just remember that the Labor Party is authorising a new tax on those students. Thankfully, we may say, they can add it to their HECS liabilities. So let us just remember that this parliament is being asked to authorise universities to impose a new tax which can be added to HECS-type liabilities of students throughout Australia.

Let me make this point: this new tax which is being imposed on students is entirely in breach of the ALP’s promises before the election. As the Parliamentary Library reports in its Bills Digest:

In the ALP’s white paper on education, shadow spokesperson, Jenny Macklin, proposed that the provision and funding of services would be formulated through … negotiations … and that ‘the financial imposition on students will not increase’.

Well, the financial imposition on students will increase. It will increase for every student enrolled at a university that takes up the taxing power of $250.

Stephen Smith, following the ALP national conference in May 2007, said:

The funding of those services has been a matter of conversation between me and the Universities. I believe that the Commonwealth, the Government of the day, has a responsibility, together with the Universities, to fund those services …

Who did he say would be funding it? He said it would be the Commonwealth together with the universities. There was no suggestion that there was going to be a compulsory tax and that the students would pay. In fact, Macklin explicitly promised that ‘the financial imposition on students will not increase’. We are hearing a lot about mandates in this parliament at the moment. I think the Labor Party won a mandate to not increase liabilities on students. And since the Labor Party is into the business of claiming mandates, where is its mandate for a new $250 tax on students? This is a breach of the promise that was made before the election. This is without any authorisation from the electorate. This is a new tax on students and it is forcing people to subsidise services that they do not want.

The government would have you believe that none of this money can be used for political purposes because it bans the use of this money being given to political parties or in campaigns to seek political office. How naive is that? You cannot give it directly to the Australian Labor Party, but can you give it to the Australian Labor Party supporters club at the university?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. You can’t.

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can’t. That is banned, is it? It cannot be given to the Australian Liberal Students Federation, which is a club at the university?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who’d want to?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that banned too? I think you ought to read the legislation very carefully. You will be getting up for the next speech, no doubt, Member for Kingston, and will take us to the section which prohibits any money being given to a student club on campus, I presume. You have alleged that it is banned. It is not. The ban is in relation to candidates sitting in political office or gifts to political parties.

What about the AUS resolution of 1975 to campaign against the Zionist aggressor? Would money be forbidden for use in that campaign? No, of course it would not. Would it be forbidden, for example, to organise a student demonstration against a G20 conference in Melbourne? We read in the papers today that the Prime Minister is going to go off to the G20 with his plan to save the world. Many people will remember that the G20 held its 2006 meeting in Melbourne. I was the chair of the G20 at the time, and an organisation known as Stop G20 was formed. It had its training days at the RMIT Student Union. It drew its activists from universities both in Sydney and in Melbourne. It engaged in violent demonstrations in the street against the G20, I know not why. In the course of those violent protests, Constable Kim Dixon of the Victoria Police was hit by a barricade thrown by student activist Julia Dehm. Constable Kim Dixon has subsequently had to retire from the Victoria Police force and Julia Dehm has been convicted and given a community service order. Another student on charges is awaiting trial: a man by the name of Akin Sari, who smashed a police vehicle. The student unions have given money to fund his defence.

I ask this question: is there anything in this bill that would prohibit the compulsory taxes levied on students being given in legal aid to demonstrators who demonstrate against the G20 or go to political demonstrations? Of course there is not. So it is quite feasible that these compulsory fees collected by way of a tax, which will be used for student services, which will be used for legal aid and which will be used for training days, could be used for demonstrations against the G20—where policewomen doing their duty are injured and where public property is vandalised. It is quite feasible. There is nothing at all in this legislation that could stop that. It does not even make a pretence of trying to stop that kind of activity, because, at the bottom of it, this is all about imposing a new tax to try and provide services for which people would not ordinarily want to pay.

The Howard government did actually provide some money after it brought in voluntary student unionism to provide, particularly in rural campuses, sporting facilities and activities. There is no reason at all why this government, if it really believed this was absolutely essential to education, could not provide finance for limited non-political services. The Howard government provided $100 million. If this government says, ‘Well, we are being careful with taxpayers’ money’, my view would be that it is a little late for the Labor Party to start getting worried about taxpayers’ money now. They have actually spent $52 billion in new discretionary spending since the budget. They have actually authorised $200 billion of new borrowings. After the Howard government got out of a net debt of $96 billion, it has all been re-borrowed in the last 12 months.

I would think of the taxpayers, but I would have thought of the taxpayers a little earlier than this legislation. Poor old Mr Tanner is lying awake at night worrying about the debt. The funny thing is that he did not have to lie awake and worry about the debt when he was elected. It is only since he was elected that the debt has been re-borrowed. Maybe he should have had a few sleepless nights before he borrowed it rather than after he borrowed it.

This is a new tax. It is a compulsory tax. It does not prohibit political activity, and it should not be introduced. The Labor Party does not have a mandate for it; it is in breach of assurances which they gave before the election and it should be defeated.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It was very interesting to hear the member for Higgins recount his university days. Fortunately, I am able to provide a more contemporary picture of what university campuses were like in the late nineties.

I was involved in the provision of services on campus as part of the Flinders University student union. We were a group of students, many not aligned to any political party, who were trying to do the best for their students and trying to provide the best services on campus. We heard the member for Higgins talk about how you cannot be compelled to join a lobby group. I put this question to the member for Higgins: when he was compelled to join the Law Society, did he organise and rally against that to make sure that was voluntary? I think the answer to that is ‘no’. We have heard many of the previous speakers, including the members for Mayo and Higgins, talk about this as a choice. We hear a lot about choice from the Liberal Party. The message I have for the Liberal Party is that you cannot just put the word ‘choice’ in a piece of legislation and expect people to buy it. Nothing says that more clearly than ‘Work Choices’.

The legislation in front of us today is very important in restoring basic services to university campuses. They are essential to support students while they study. Unlike what previous speakers on the other side have suggested—that we are just bringing back something—we are in fact fulfilling one of our election commitments, which is to provide a new way forward to ensure that basic services are provided on university campuses and that students have a voice in their education.

During my years at Flinders University I enjoyed a vibrant campus culture, but I also valued the very important services such as the Flinders Employment Service. Like many students, I had to work part-time jobs while studying to make ends meet. It was the Flinders Employment Service that helped me find many short-term jobs that fitted in with my uni break. They actually liaised with employers to make sure that they understood the requirements that my university course had on me as well as the requirements that the job would have on me. This was very important. Things like the employment service, child care, counselling and academic advocacy are all examples of services that have helped many students continue with their university studies when things are particularly tough. Voluntary student unionism, introduced by the previous government, has led to the decline in the availability of and access to these types of services—especially when students need them most.

It is not just the Labor Party, as the opposition would have you believe, that believes and has seen this. Consultations with students, universities and other stakeholders undertaken by the Minister for Youth painted a very dark picture indeed. Those consultations revealed just how devastating voluntary student unionism legislation has been to Australian universities. It is estimated that $170 million has been stripped from the funding of services such as health, counselling, employment, child care and welfare. These are services which are fundamental to the wellbeing of students and of vital importance to students to navigate their way through university. In addition, voluntary student unionism drastically undermined the opportunities for students to engage in sporting and cultural activities to the extent that the Australian Olympic Committee noted a direct negative impact that voluntary student unionism has had on sporting participation in this country.

Examples of how university life has been hurt have also been illustrated to me by my constituents. Aaron is one of my constituents who was studying at Flinders University before and after voluntary student unionism was introduced. Aaron commented to me that he has really noticed that there are fewer clubs and fewer societies. There is no discount food option, the child care centre has had to close and the student newspaper, with 40 years of history—the Empire Timeshas been forced to shut down. Many of those in the opposition have criticised this legislation before us today, but they did participate in a lot of the things that benefited from compulsory student unionism or the student union fee. They got to participate in and benefit from all these sorts of things, and now they are directly trying to stop others—new students—from also benefiting from these things.

Aaron does remember that it was hard to find money to pay his student fee at the beginning of the year, but he said that now he really has noticed that missing value. The impact of the dwindling services at university has been felt most acutely in outer suburban universities like Flinders University, near my electorate, and also on rural and regional campuses where many students have no alternative place to go for these basic services such as health services, and where university clubs were really the lifeblood of the community.

It is very disappointing that the Liberal Party still does not seem, with all this evidence, to understand the impact that the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation had on our universities. They continue to argue that the VSU system created a system where no-one had to pay for anything they did not use. However, they are blind to the evidence that the costs for these services have just been transferred onto the universities. This is clearly illustrated in the submission by Universities Australia, which shows that VSU forced universities to cross-subsidise these essential services from other parts of their already stretched budget and also remove money from teaching and research just to ensure that these basic services were funded. Therefore, every student, along with the Australian taxpayer, has been footing the bill for these services at universities.

In response to this accusation from the previous government, we are not skimping on our election commitment. We went to the election with very clear guidelines, and we are not reverting to the old compulsory student unionism. What we are saying is that universities will be allowed to set a service and amenities fee, capped at $250. Universities will have a choice of what fee they set and put to students. However, no student will be required to join any student organisation. Providing this flexibility to universities will provide a balanced and practical approach that ensures student services and representation are secured into the future but will not—unlike what the opposition would have us believe—compel any student to join an organisation they do not wish to join.

Importantly, under the legislation, universities for the first time will be required to implement national access to service benchmarks, as well as national student representation and advocacy protocols, to ensure that students do have a voice on campus. The national access to service benchmarks set standards for the provision of information on access to services such as welfare and are similar to the current requirements for international students. The representation and advocacy protocols provide a framework through which an independent voice of students in university governance can be assured. A mechanism to consult with students and provide structures that allow students to represent themselves will ensure that universities will provide services that students actually need. We all know that universities do their best to provide services that students need but, without listening to students directly, they will not necessarily get these services right. This will be very important to ensure that the services that universities provide are actually what students want and need.

Finally, on this point, I want to emphasise the inherent value of democratising our public institutions and how important it is that we reflect our democratic values by ensuring that people have an opportunity to participate in the decision making that affects them. This will be very important with these protocols. Although this bill is about supporting democracy in our community, what we are proposing is something that is very apolitical. The new provisions prohibit the fee being spent to support any candidate for any level of office. It will be clear in the guidelines limiting the purpose for which these fees can be used. In addition, the bill does not allow student service fees to support political parties through campaigns and activities on campus.

There have been very many legitimate concerns—and this is probably the only legitimate concern that the member for Higgins raised—about the up-front service fee being a barrier to students attending university. This is a legitimate concern. The Rudd government has made it clear that we want to make access to universities equitable. Therefore, the provision has been made for the first time that, if a university chooses to charge a student fee, eligible students will have the option to take out a HECS style loan which will allow students to defer this payment under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, thus ensuring that any up-front fee charged by the university will not be a financial barrier for students starting university.

This bill not just supports students on campus but also includes a number of other measures that include enhancing the privacy rights of Australians who apply to university, by ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of tertiary admission centres are recognised in the legislation. Currently tertiary admission centres are not referred to in the act. Some of the amendments before us today will make sure that admission centres—often students’ first contact with the tertiary education sector—are held to the same standards and duty of care as offices of higher education providers with regard to the processing of students’ personal information.

Another measure introduced by this bill is the provision for increased flexibility under the VET FEE-HELP scheme. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is this government that is committed to skilling our nation, and this is one of many measures that this government has committed to in order to increase skills and training around Australia. The Council of Australian Governments has set a target of doubling the number of diploma and advanced diploma completions by 2020. The legislation before us today will help us achieve this goal. This government is committed to skilling up the Australian workforce. While the previous government failed in so many ways, it is this government that is investing for the future.

Evidence of this government’s commitments was displayed just last week in my home state of South Australia, where the federal government delivered $40 million over four years to boost the skills and qualifications for around 12,000 South Australian jobseekers in key sectors that are needed in our economy, such as health, community services, agriculture, engineering, mineral exploration and defence.

These places are part of the Australian government’s Skilling Australia for the Future initiative, and this program is part of the Australian government’s commitment to provide an additional 711,000 places by mid-2012 to ensure that Australians develop the skills they need to be effective participants in, and contributors to, the modern labour market. In addition we are investing in higher education infrastructure, through the Education Investment Fund. The Rudd Labor government is committed to investing in and reforming the university sector rather than leaving it to wrack and ruin. Flinders University, in my electorate, has welcomed the injection of capital funding provided to them in the budget last year.

This bill is one of many initiatives that reflect the government’s continuing commitment to education. This bill ensures that higher education opportunities in this country are accessible to everyone, that training opportunities are not restricted due to cost and that universities have the services that students need. This bill presents a balanced and practical solution to the decline in student services at universities and in diploma and advanced diploma enrolments in the vocational education and training sector. The passage of this bill is central to the future of our universities and training programs. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I am disappointed that the member for Higgins has left the chamber. I note with some amusement that, having chosen not to speak on too many pieces of legislation, he chose to speak on this bill. He was quite noteworthy in previous times. He was a student at Monash University and served on the student association. Clearly on numerous occasions—including in print in the august journal Lot’s Wifehe has put forward the view that compulsory student unionism should be kept for the future. I am disappointed he is not here, so that we cannot ascertain why he has had this change of heart since he was a student—which, I admit, was a long time ago—and now sees compulsory student unionism as an issue.

Mind you, we are not arguing that this is about compulsory student unionism; this is about student services on campus. If we called student unions ‘Student Corporations Inc.’, the Liberal Party and the Nationals would never have an objection to it. A union is a group of people—how bad is that? There is overwhelming evidence that the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation has resulted in serious cultural and academic damage to Australia’s higher education sector. That is very evident in my electorate of Chisholm, which is home to two of the leading universities in Melbourne and in Australia—the Melbourne campus of Deakin University and the largest campus of Monash University, at Clayton. We also have one of Australia’s leading TAFEs, at Box Hill.

The VSU legislation was introduced by a government that was on an extreme ideological crusade. The VSU legislation was met with heavy criticism and opposition from universities and the ALP at the time of its introduction in 2005. You need only listen to the speeches of those opposite to know that they have an ideological bent on this. I sat through the speech by the member for Mayo. He indicated that student unionism is all about ‘Labor Party Inc’. I think they are just sore because the Liberal Party never succeeded on campus—but actually, when I was at Monash, the Liberal Party controlled the student union. So I think it is just sour grapes from the member for Mayo that he never managed to outdo the Labor Party on campus.

But that is not what student services are about. That completely and utterly misses the point of what these services provide. The student associations and staff at both Monash University and Deakin University in my electorate were involved in the national demonstrations against the introduction of VSU. These institutions are magnificent institutions that provide their students with first-class educational outcomes underpinned by strong student services. Only too aware of the dangers posed by VSU, both institutions opposed its introduction. The reasons for opposing this legislation have been played out on a practical level in the years since VSU became law.

A 2008 review of the impact of VSU found that the legislation has had a detrimental effect on essential student services at all Australian universities. VSU swiped $170 billion from universities, leading to a decline in—and, in some instances, the loss of—essential services such as child care, health care, employment and welfare services and independent advocacy in relation to academic matters. What has rubbed salt into the wounds of students is that, in an attempt to soften the impact of the legislation, universities have had to redirect funds from their research and teaching budgets to fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut. So, at the time the previous Howard government was slashing away funding from essential services at universities, the universities were again having to redirect much-needed funds from teaching and research into the provision of student services.

The quality of educational outcomes for students attending universities has suffered directly as a result of VSU. Speaking about the impact of VSU, the President of the National Tertiary Education Union, Dr Carolyn Allport, said:

The loss of student services in the university sector has been endemic, with essential health, welfare and academic advocacy services being reduced or abandoned in every university in the country. It is a fact that the introduction of VSU has seen the demise of a number of elected student organisations, with many only just surviving.

Dr Glenn Withers, the Chief Executive of Universities Australia, the peak body representing the Australian universities sector, is even more blunt in his assessment of VSU:

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

The negative impact of the government’s anti-student organisation legislation has been felt severely across universities in Victoria, particularly in my electorate. Deakin University is a relatively young university, having been established in the seventies, and its Melbourne campus is located at Burwood in my electorate. Deakin has one consolidated student association, the Deakin University Student Association, which will continue to operate as an independent student-controlled entity in the post-VSU environment. DUSA is a unique entity. It does not belong to the National Union of Students. It is proud of its independence and has struggled through this time to maintain it. Although it has managed to retain some of its independence, DUSA has become reliant on direct funding from the university to supplement its commercial revenue and the small income from voluntary contributions from students.

The NUS has found that Deakin University has been hit hard by VSU. Prior to VSU, Deakin was collecting $5.8 million from general service fees, with $4.8 million going to DUSA and $1 million kept by the university administration to run some core student services directly. After the passage of the VSU legislation, a voluntary fee of $40 per semester was collected in 2007 from 17 per cent of students, for a premium membership discount scheme. The university used its own revenue to provide in excess of $2 million of funding in 2006 and a further $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008.

DUSA has been forced to substantially reduce staffing levels as a result of the lost revenue since VSU. Staffing levels have been cut. This has led to a significant reduction in the professional support available to DUSA and its volunteer student representatives. Opportunities for students to obtain casual employment on campus with DUSA have also diminished.

DUSA’s academic rights advocacy services are now only available to the minority of students who have paid the voluntary membership fee. In all this debate, it has been overlooked that one of the vital services provided by these associations is assisting students through some of these academic processes. I was never involved in the student union when I was on campus, but I was the student representative on the arts faculty board for many years. This was the august institution that decided whether or not you were going to be expelled from the university. We sat through some horrible cases of students terrified and not knowing what to do or how to go about things. They would not let mum and dad come to their hearing because that would just be too embarrassing, but they did not know that they could get support and services. Often we would start the hearing and then find out that they had not had any support or services. We would then direct them to the wonderful assistance they could get through the student union to explain what academic process meant or to explain what plagiarism was. There were some kids who had got to uni and did not actually know what that was.

The support and services were really important. There were some kids who were going through some horrendous things in their personal lives and they needed that support and those services. A lot of times, if they got the support and services, it ensured that they were not excluded from university, they could resit subjects and they could continue with their academic life. I know of one case—and I will not mention the person’s name—where, if it had not been for these services, we might have missed out on having a fantastic researcher in this country because of a slip of the tongue. I think people overlook those vital services that are needed.

Funds have been allocated for basic maintenance of sporting and recreation facilities, but no major maintenance, upgrades or expansions have been possible since 2005, other than through grants won as part of the VSU Transition Fund. Most of those went to regional campuses, which was fair enough. So the Burwood campus severely lost out. Their sporting facilities were terrific and their sporting prowess was great. A lot of that has been lost.

Services and activities such as multicultural days or cultural events, legal advice, book subsidies, emergency loans, printing and binding services, tenancy advice, the international student family network program, the student leadership program, free or subsidised sporting equipment, elite athlete funding and the distance student support hotline have been terminated under VSU. Other services have been reduced, including student social and networking events, student magazines and newsletters, and financial and administrative support to clubs and societies.

Deakin has indicated that it perceives that the effectiveness of student representation under VSU has eroded to the extent that it is looking to hold its own elections among the student body to fill vacancies on some university committees rather than relying on DUSA representatives. The university knows it needs student reps on these things and it has actually said, ‘We will facilitate it because we want the voice of students heard.’

Monash University is one of Australia’s most respected tertiary education institutions. As a former student, I have spoken about it many times. I attended Monash University as an undergraduate and the University of Melbourne as a postgraduate. The member for Casey, when he gave his speech and I was in the chair, abused my position and verballed me on a couple of occasions about what I would perceive, as a former student at Monash. Then he talked about his wonderful experience at Melbourne. What he forgot to mention was that Monash University at Clayton is in the middle of nowhere. It is in a great big paddock in the middle of nowhere. It is not like Melbourne university or Sydney university—there are no shops down the road. There is nothing down the road but a great big freeway. Once you arrive at campus, you are there; you are hostage to the campus and hostage to the services on the campus. You cannot wander off to get a sausage roll down the road because you would have to catch two buses and a train or you would have to have a car and you would have to give up your car spot and maybe not get it back again. Not all campuses, even ones in metropolitan areas, are actually in the middle of services. You rely on what is available on campus. Most of you have probably been out to Clayton in various capacities. If you have not, you should go out there. The university is a huge edifice in the middle of nowhere. It does great things and provides great services, but it has to because there is literally nowhere else to go.

The structure of Monash is very complex, reflecting the original Clayton campus merger with several other major campuses in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The NUS has indicated that Monash, like Deakin, has had its student services and amenities deteriorate since the introduction of VSU. The pre-VSU revenue from the amenities fee was $13.5 million. Following VSU, the university set aside $4.55 million from its teaching and research funding to support core activities and amenities that its student services are now unable to support due to a lack of resources.

The university also increased many of its user-pays charges, such as those for parking permits, shuttle buses and academic record transcripts, in order to provide further subsidies for student services. The increase in parking fees at the Monash campus in Clayton caused uncontrolled anxiety. It is almost impossible to get to Monash by public transport. There is no major train service in and out. I have spoken on that on numerous occasions in this place. You are reliant on the bus service or driving. So it was a huge impost, not only on the students but also on the staff. The staff had to pay for parking permits too, and it became a huge impost upon everybody. It is ridiculous in this day and age that, by these means, we are actually taking away opportunities for higher education in this country. We are righting that wrong today, hopefully.

Students could opt to purchase a Monash community card to obtain a 20 per cent discount on these user-pays charges and other commercial services. These user-pays charges and the community card generated a further $2.1 million in 2007. The community card was discontinued in 2008. VSU has had a visible impact on students through the general reduction in services and representative activities. There has been a substantial increase in user-pays charges for parking permits and academic transcripts and the introduction of a fee for previously free intercampus shuttle bus services. This has actually seen people drop out of courses and discontinue.

Many full-time jobs have been reduced to part time, which has reduced the hours that some services are available to students. Orientation weeks in 2007 and 2008 were noticeably underresourced because student organisations simply lacked the financial capacity to offer new students the orientation experience of previous years. O weeks are vital to ensuring that first-years, who are coming onto a big campus where they might know no-one, are able to hook in with people. There is a big dropout rate from first year in university due to loneliness, because people just do not know anyone. The O weeks and those services and those support organisations ensured that students, coming from very different backgrounds, might meet somebody and actually have a friend. There is nothing worse than wandering round a place thinking, ‘Who am I going to have lunch with?’ O weeks provided a terrific service in that regard.

There have been serious shortfalls in the capital development and maintenance needed for Monash sport facilities and there has been a loss of staffing for the Transport Office, the Indigenous office and research and policy support at Monash-Clayton. The examples of Deakin and Monash are reflective of the wider impact VSU has had upon all universities right across Australia. They demonstrate that it has been students who have been forced to pay the price for the removal of government support for services and amenities on university campuses. That is why this government is committed to this amendment that is before the House today.

We are delivering on an election commitment to rebuild vital university student services and to ensure students have access to independent, democratic student representation. Since being elected in late 2007, the government has proven it is committed to introducing significant reform to the Australian education sector. This legislation signifies another important step towards the government commitment to revolutionising the Australian education system. This bill represents a government moving on from the past and advocating a balanced, practical and substantial solution to rebuilding student support services.

We will introduce national access to service benchmarks, which will relate to the provision of information on, and access to, services such as welfare and counselling services in line with current requirements for overseas students. Overseas students have been hit hard by the loss through VSU. There has been almost nothing to replace what was lost. Again, this is a group of students who are often isolated, do not have support and need that vital support that they got through the university sector—particularly in the area of housing but also in the areas of counselling, welfare and just emotional support.

These benchmarks and protocols will be supplemented by the provision of universities having the option of setting a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250. A rigorous set of guidelines will ensure that this fee can only be used on a specific set of services and amenities. Individual universities will decide whether they implement a fee and, if so, they will also determine the level of that fee up to $250. That is, universities themselves will have the final say as to whether there is a compulsory fee.

It is not a return to compulsory student unionism whereby a student must be a member of a student organisation. Instead, the focus of this bill is to allow universities to provide an adequate level of service and amenities to students—allowing access to student representatives that is independent of the university’s administration. Some may try to argue that this fee imposes an unfair burden on students—that those universities which choose to set a compulsory fee are being inconsiderate of the fact that those students have little disposable income. This is an illogical argument and is simply erroneous.

Included in this bill is a provision whereby eligible students have the option of taking out a loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program. This allows students to pay off their student amenities fees in a gradual fashion upon finding full-time employment at the completion of their studies. Aside from this, the introduction of VSU by the previous government has resulted in universities around Australia losing close to $170 million in funding. As I have stated, this means that students have already paid the cost of VSU with many university services and amenities being substantially reduced or cut.

Students have also been hit with increased prices for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sports and food. They have also suffered from indirect costs, with the universities redirecting funding of research and teaching budgets to fund services that otherwise would have been cut. The student amenities fee will therefore help to rebuild important student services and amenities.

An important component of this bill is the fact that it encompasses new provisions that prohibit the fee being spent on supporting a political party or candidate for election to a Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or to local government. I have actually been critical of student unions in this place before for inappropriately using their funds towards campaigns that were not supported by the student body at their universities. I have gone on the record and said that use of those funds in some of those cases was inappropriate. This legislation actually puts in place that that cannot happen. So, with respect to the hypocrisy coming from the other side about ‘Labor Inc.’ and our training ground, this is not the case. This is about vital support services on campus so that university is more than just an educational experience; it is a life experience. You want to go to university to actually experience everything it can have to offer. The reduction in these services means that you do not have that experience at all.

A higher education provider must also impose this prohibition on any person or organisation to which it pays any of the fee revenue. Under this strict provision, universities will have responsibility for ensuring these guidelines are adhered to. Any breaches result in serious consequences, including the option to revoke a university’s approval as a higher education provider.

The government has received an overwhelming positive response to this new legislation from those closely involved in the higher education sector. Tertiary institutions were significantly burdened by the imposition they faced as a result of VSU. This legislation seeks to address these problems by providing universities with greater choice in terms of how student organisations are resourced. The coalition of leading Australian universities, the Group of Eight, stated:

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.

The reforms I have spoken of today are part of the government’s commitment to ensuring that higher education is central to the development of Australia’s best and brightest. The government will continue to work with universities and student associations to foster a mutually beneficial relationship, resulting in better outcomes for all involved.

This bill takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to the issues of student representatives and services and amenities. It redresses the devastating effect of VSU on the cultural underpinnings of Australia’s higher education providers. It receives my full support and that of many within my community and my electorate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to make a contribution on this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I particularly want to focus on the constituency I represent in this place and the impact that this bill, if it passes both houses, would have on the children and the families of rural and remote Australia.

The aim of this bill is to allow universities to charge up to $250 per student prior to students being able to gain access to a course at university. I have had experience with this, with my children, who are all university educated. We had to pay those fees up front on behalf of our children. Because they did not live near the university, they had to leave home—we were more than 600 kilometres away from the university they attended. Unless they paid those fees, they could not commence their course. I repeat that: unless they paid those fees, they would not be given access to that course to which they had gained entry at university. This applies not just to my children but to many, many—in fact, all—students.

It is really just like the old union approach: no ticket, no start; no pay, no course. That is what it was like. That was the first fee you paid and then you got access to the university course to which you had gained access.

Quite clearly, this government is breaking a commitment that it gave to the people of Australia prior to the last federal election. There was no mention prior to the last federal election of this being a compulsory fee or of the reintroduction of a fee that would be charged to students. In fact, the government is breaking faith with the people of Australia. It did not give this commitment. It is a broken promise. It is a tax on students and it is a new tax. But we have come to see that with this government in the way it dealt with its commitments prior to the election and in the way it has governed in this place since the election.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact that this legislation would have on rural and remote students. My own children had to leave home to gain access to further education at a university which they had gained access to. I know from going to many speech days in my electorate, and from representations from families and meetings with people socially and in the street, how people struggle to gain the best access and opportunities for their children’s further education. I also know the pride that they have in their own children when they graduate from high school and go on to postsecondary education. People from all walks of life—from the professions to people in business, people on the land, single-income families and single mothers—come to me on this issue. I have spoken to these people and I know just how they struggle, whether they are professional families, small business families or single-income families, and how they work hard to support their children to gain access to education, which they have to leave home for, unless they are going to do it externally through distance education from the university.

I point out to the House that there are some 130,000 students who are studying externally at universities today. Often those students are doing one subject per semester, perhaps holding down a part-time job or a full-time job but wanting to better themselves. Those 130,000 students who do not walk through the gates of the university but who study externally will have to pay this tax.

We have heard from the other side of the House, from Madam Deputy Speaker Burke—and I have a lot of time for the Deputy Speaker; we share a lot in common, because we occupy the chair that you are now in, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, and we have responsibilities in that chair. We heard her talk about how her university seemed to be in the middle of nowhere. It is on the fringe of the city; it is not in the middle of nowhere. All of the students I represent have to leave home, and they are not from the middle of nowhere. They are from five to six kilometres up to 1,000 kilometres, or even further, away from the nearest university. In fact, from the east to the west of my electorate is some 1,800 kilometres. So students coming from the most remote communities have a long haul to get through the doors or the gates of a university. They have an added cost to get to university if they are going to leave home. There may be airfares, bus fares, train fares or whatever, but there are many costs for those families for their students—their children—to gain access to a university.

When you look at the participation rates in post-secondary education of children from families in rural and remote Australia, compared to the participation rate of those families who live in metropolitan Australia, you have to say it is almost a shame on this parliament. You ask: why is the participation rate in post-secondary education by students from rural and remote Australia so low, compared to the participation rate of students from families who live in our capital cities or in our regional towns where there are university campuses, where they can live at home with their families and study daily by travelling to the university? They may choose to live on site at a college or perhaps rent a flat nearby, but they have that choice, whereas students in my electorate and in rural and remote Australia do not have that choice. Currently, there are some 130,000 students from rural and remote Australia. Most of those who are studying externally will never see the benefit of the services that the so-called $250 per year amenities fee will, under this legislation, supposedly enable universities to provide.

I spoke a moment ago about people from rural and remote Australia. I want to spend a couple of minutes on that, because they are not wealthy people. Look at the socioeconomic barometer, if you like, of people living in rural and remote Australia—whether they are professionals, work for the local council or have a small business—compared to the median family income of those in our capital cities and regional cities where there are universities and you will see it stands in stark contrast. Students from a median family income background from rural and remote Australia who seek to go away to university are certainly at a socioeconomic disadvantage within their families before they start to gain access to postsecondary education.

I want to touch on the issue of postsecondary education in a broader context because the government seems to think that all students who leave high school will go on to university. What about those students who go on to TAFE college and, in the case of my electorate, to ag college? There is no such concern about their possible need for amenities at those ag colleges or TAFE colleges. This is targeted at universities. Why? The prior speaker spoke about the facilities that are provided on the university campus, which she described as ‘in the middle of nowhere’, and many on the other side have described some of the circumstances of universities in the capital cities and the seats they represent.

I visit ag colleges and TAFE colleges, and I do not see the students coming up to me there and saying, ‘We want to organise ourselves because we want to have a say in what is provided at this ag college.’ They do not complain to me about the fact that there is not public transport for the ag college at Dalby, for instance. They know there is not public transport there, but it is not an issue. They know that that is the circumstance of the access arrangements to the ag college there in Dalby, in Longreach or in Emerald or wherever there are pastoral and other agricultural colleges. These ag colleges and TAFE colleges stand in stark contrast to our universities when it comes to those basic amenities, but they seem to cope. It is not an issue for them. So why is it an issue for the universities? It is only because the Labor Party want to impose a new tax which they did not tell the Australian people about prior to the last election.

As I said, I visit ag colleges. They have sporting fields. They have sporting teams. That has been provided by the college. Maybe there is a fee to join voluntarily the local rugby club or another sporting activity that may be associated with the college, but it is a voluntary thing. If they do not have something and they want to add more facilities to a campus, be it a TAFE or an ag college, they go out and do a bit of fundraising. They might run chicken raffles. They run raffles of all sorts to raise some extra money to improve those sorts of amenities that might otherwise not have been provided by the TAFE college or the ag college. They seem to survive, but it is still voluntary. That is the fundamental point: it is voluntary.

What this bill will mean is that, before a student gains access to the course at university for which they have qualified, they will have to pay a tax. It is the old union movement at its best: no ticket, no start; no pay, no access to the course. My own children went through that. Until we abolished it under the Howard government, I know there were many single mothers in my electorate and people doing a subject per year, wanting to better their educational opportunities and their opportunities in life, studying externally, who had to pay that before they would even be sent the course notes. That is a disgrace, but that is what will happen if this legislation passes both houses. It will happen.

No matter how many times the government comes into this place and says, ‘No, there are going to be provisions for that not to happen,’ we know from past experience what operated before, and it will happen again. It will disadvantage the most disadvantaged in Australia, and those are the students from rural and remote Australia who have to leave home to gain access to full-time study. They have to leave home to gain access to the university, if that is where their education is taking them.

I want to touch on another element of the issues relating to rural Australia and remote Australia—that is, the assistance provided through the Commonwealth and state governments to geographically isolated students. I know this is not directly related, but it makes the point about access to education for those people who live away from places where the access is just down the road or in the city or is based on subsidised urban transport routes. It is about that word ‘access’. There are students out there who are gifted and talented, and those students do not get any additional assistance to help them because they are gifted and talented. These are students who have a capacity to go on to greater things merely because they are gifted and talented. I ask: why is it that these students are not receiving the same support as other students? We ought to acknowledge that those who are gifted and talented do need to be recognised and do need to get additional assistance to gain access to the support that will enable them to make the most of their gifts and talents.

I do not support this bill. I would support a grant program such as we had under the Howard government—after we abolished this dreadful student union fee that had been for so long hanging over the heads of students across Australia and particularly rural and remote Australia—that is targeted to meet the needs of universities where they can identify a need. In many ways, the parallel would be the IOS Program that we had as a government, which went to all schools. There was up to $150,000 per school to make an investment in the school, provided that you had the participation and support of the P&C—the involvement of parents and citizens, or parents and friends, in the decisions as to where that money should be spent.

So I would support a grant program and I think what we had in place was the right way to go. It was targeted and would meet the needs of universities, be they in regional Australia or capital cities. I support a grant program but I do not support a compulsory tax that would hit not only students from capital cities but also the most disadvantaged students in Australia, and it would be another tax on those families from rural and remote Australia who struggle so hard to save to ensure that their children can gain access to the best education they can afford. I oppose the bill and I look forward to seeing what the Senate will decide, because this is yet another broken promise and a new tax being introduced by this Labor government.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask: how did it come to this? I thought we had seen an end to compulsory up-front fees at universities. I thought we had embraced a user-pays attitude where if you want to use a service then you pay for it. Yet the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 will see a return to those days when the many subsidised the few users of these offers on campus. I know that university students would recall that in 2005, when the legislation supporting voluntary student unionism was being considered here, Labor fought to make sure that every student had to be a member of a student union. They wanted students to pay for the political activities of unions and they wanted students to subsidise a lot of services that those same students would never use. That legislation was passed and the removal of up-front fees did occur. Since then Labor in its 2007 election campaign was very clear on the matter. In May 2007 the then shadow minister for education stated that he was ‘not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee’. I will say that again: not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. Yet this bill before the House today has in its title ‘student services and amenities’. Perhaps the former shadow minister, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, would say that he never said anything about a student services and amenities fee. Nevertheless, it is clear that the current government took nothing to the election on this matter and therefore has no mandate for this legislation.

I go further to say that not only did the government deny that it had an agenda then but it misled the Australian people. In August 2008 a number of ministers were asked about this matter. The theme seemed to be that, in contrast to the pre-election position of no amenities fee, the post-election position was not to reintroduce compulsory student unionism. Some may say that there is a difference and that maybe the amenities and services fee is not the same as compulsory student unionism. But, as I will explain, you do not need a university education in animal husbandry to know that if it walks like a duck and it sounds like a duck then it is a duck. I will say this right at the start: this matter is about choice. On this side of the chamber it is about struggling students choosing whether or not to take up the option of using various amenities or services and paying for those services. On the government side it is about forcing struggling students to pay an up-front fee. It is about the government forcing tertiary students to subsidise services, a range of options that they will not use and do not wish to use. This is the difference between us: choice on our side, no choice on the other side; a Liberal Party on this side that took a burden away from students, and over there a Labor Party that will reimpose another tax on students at tertiary institutions.

While it was a long time ago, I do recall my time at university and I remember the compulsory student union fee that I never had a choice in paying. I never had anything to do with the union representatives and in fact did not know anyone who knew even a single student union representative. I never had anything to do with them. That being said, I did participate in intervarsity rowing. I remember paying a fee and costs for a very quick season of around four weeks. It was similar to my annual fees at my normal rowing club, so I do not recall any great subsidisation by the student union. I also say that the boats within the university rowing club were not as good as those of the outside rowing club. The point is that I really wonder where the money we used to pay then went and what it was actually spent on.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Political campaigns.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Political campaigns, I hear the interjection, and I am sure that was the case. I would also say that I have no objection to any student representative body. What I do think is worth remembering is that the voter turnout in student representative elections would demonstrate the true depth of interest and therefore the level of representation that actually exists.

There have also been suggestions that the priorities of some student unions have been misplaced, with funds being channelled away from services that have some validity and towards pet projects of the elites of the student unions. An example is the student union of RMIT, which favours funding its anticapitalist radio show Blazing Textbooks over an advocacy service. That student union would prefer to broadcast shows about teacher strikes in Puerto Rico and anarchist approaches to education rather than fund services that might actually have some value to the vast majority of students. It is little wonder that such a small proportion of students have any involvement in voting for these so-called representatives.

I turn to the issue of services that have apparently collapsed as a result of VSU. I found out on the 3CR radio station website that there are apparently only two student unions in the country that are self-funded: the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University, both in Western Australia. It should be remembered that students were supported with VSU by the former Liberal government in Western Australia, the Court government. That created an environment of self-sufficiency that appears to have endured. One can ask why the membership of the student union at UWA is one of the highest in the country at around 60 per cent and why it is also self-funded. Perhaps it is about relevancy and efficiency. When an inefficient organisation with questionable relevance struggles to exist without subsidy, they should firstly look to themselves for the fault. As Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar, ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.’

Maybe the student unions should be a little self critical before they look for others to blame. It is no wonder that the national union of socialists, or rather the National Union of Students, has such trouble with the user-pays principle. ‘Accountability’ seems to be a bit of a foreign term in some spheres. But this is not about ideology, at least not on this side; this is about value for money and, as I said before, choice. We should also consider information that appeared in the Monash University Annual Report of 2004. That report showed how the $428 amenity fee was disbursed. Maybe we should consider a picture of the average sort of university student: 19 or 20 years old, male or female, single and with no dependants. I think we can probably say that that is still the descriptor for the vast majority of our university students.

We know that students use the cafeteria or equivalent. I would say that there would not be a university student who has not gone into the university cafeteria at some point. It is important to look at that annual report from Monash University and at how much of the $428 went to food service and subsidies: 28c out of $428. Moving on, most students probably would not need child care, yet of that $428 $10.80 went to child care or childcare subsidies. That is not a whole lot of money there; it does not exactly have broad appeal, but it is not a huge slice of the overall $428 cake. I know that most of my university friends would have undertaken some form of sport. Of that $428, the annual report attributes just $22 to sport and $13.28 to clubs—again, not a big amount. But what is clearly of concern is the fact that well over half of that $428 compulsory amenity fee was for administration costs—$238. That represents a substantial amount of money for which there is no real explanation of how it was used and for which, certainly, any form of justification is not apparent.

I reiterate the point: of all the uses of a struggling student’s limited resources, why is the Rudd government imposing $250, to be indexed, rather than adopting a user-pays system? There is, of course, no consideration of a student’s capacity to pay or whether a student can even use the services, which is an issue for students such as distance education students or those who work during the day and attend evening classes. Of course, the Rudd government is willing to loan the struggling students the money, but, unlike course fees, the use of amenities does not help generate a capacity to achieve a higher income. It is possible to estimate that some $250 million could be generated by this tax imposition. While $250 per student may not seem a lot of money to the members opposite, it is significant for those struggling students. Again I say: if a student chooses to use a service, why not let the user pay? Let the service providers be competitive. Let them try to attract interest and users rather than just being given money under the legislation without basic competitive and effective operations.

I say again that this argument is not about ideology. If student unions or student representatives wish to protest about political matters, they should not be funded by struggling students to do so. They can attempt to raise funds themselves, but not with an imposed fee upon other students to help them. The reality is that there is nothing in this legislation that prevents the fees being diverted to a student union political activity. Yes, the government may say that it cannot be used to promote a candidate or party, but there is nothing about using money to promote causes which can be political in their nature. We all know that, for instance, left-wing, socialist groups pursue their agendas on campuses. Anyone who has been to a university knows that. Sometimes some of those agendas, unfortunately, even include anti-Semitic activity. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts may even find protests about his promise to take the Japanese whalers to court or perhaps about AFP raids on Sea Shepherd being funded by these amenity funds. I would like to see the rules which say that amenities fee money cannot be siphoned off for political campaigns, and I would like to see evidence of a robust regime that can guarantee that it does not happen or that, if it does, judicial action will be pursued.

I will conclude by saying that this bill should not have been brought before the House. It would not be here if we were to believe the member for Perth, who said in 2007 that there would be no amenities fee. Yet this bill now seeks to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for just such a compulsory student services and amenities fee. These are fees that will be imposed regardless of a student’s ability to pay. It does not seem to matter how you are studying—distance education, correspondence, part time or full time. Whether they are from a low socioeconomic background or otherwise, students will have no choice. It should be pay as you go for the services you want, require and do not mind paying for, rather than paying for everyone else’s use of services you do not require and for causes you do not support. Many students belong to various associations or organisations that are off campus, and they exercise a choice by paying a fee to belong to those clubs or groups. The fees that are going to be imposed as a result of this bill are supported by the Prime Minister, who once called the level of student debt in this country a ‘national disgrace’. Funny how things have changed now!

This $250 fee is an additional burden on students at this time, and they cannot afford it. Many students are already working multiple part-time jobs in order to meet their costs, and the answer is not to defer this fee and add to their HECS debt. Put quite simply, if students do not wish to provide their own time or money in support of a service or activity then it is wrong to compel them to do so. This removes choice on where students spend their money for the services that they are entitled to. I believe that this is $250 that could be better spent in other areas that have a direct benefit to students’ education itself rather than paying for someone else’s priorities. This bill signifies a broken promise by the Labor Party, this bill rejects the right of choice, this bill rejects our belief in freedom of association and this bill I reject.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. There are many differences between the two sides of the House in the area of education, but this is a particular area of difference. Our side of the House believes that the education experience is more than just sitting in classrooms and reading textbooks. At university, in particular, it is a much broader experience. In order to maximise the capacity of Australian students to enjoy that broader experience, the adventurism of the former government’s voluntary student unionism needs to be overturned, and this bill does quite that.

The Rudd government has a commitment to education that has not been seen in this parliament for many years. The core focus of the government is to build a stronger and fairer nation. We know that education is the best route to the empowerment of individuals, the broader community and our nation. We also know that we need a more skilled population to meet the competitive challenges that Australia will face in the future. The current climate that we are enduring makes that even more of an urgent priority than before the onset of the global financial crisis.

The education revolution has a very significant number of important facets and it is important, in setting out the context of this bill, to run through them quickly. One of the most pleasing aspects of our education revolution from my point of view is the focus on four-year-olds. We now know that the most important time for a human being’s brain development is the first five years. This government brings a focus to four-year-olds’ education and development that has never existed at the Commonwealth level, and I am very proud of that.

We are doing a range of things in order to improve the curriculum and make it more consistent, particularly for high school students but also for primary school students, and to lift the rate of maths and science education in this country. We have undertaken a range of primary and secondary school initiatives, including computers in our schools and, very pleasingly, the trades training centres. I was pleased to learn that, in addition to the Seaton High School trades training centre that was awarded in the first round of this program, Le Fevre High School, Ocean View College, Paralowie R-12 School and Parafield Gardens High School, all of which are in my electorate, have been awarded trades training centres under the second round of this incredibly important program.

There is massive infrastructure investment going on or starting under the Building the Education Revolution part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan which will revolutionise the infrastructure in many schools which have not had significant investment for many, many years. Most recently, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister’s response to the Bradley review, indicating quite clearly that this government believes that significant reform to our tertiary education sector, particularly the universities sector, is needed in order to provide a platform for that level of education well into the future.

As I said at the opening, this bill reflects our view that education is more than just a classroom and textbook experience, particularly at university. The key component of the bill that I want to address cleans up the mess left by the previous government’s adventurism in student services on university campuses. The quality of campus life—and this is a simple matter of fact—has been significantly degraded by the introduction of voluntary student unionism by the previous government.

We have seen—and I happened to turn the television on to watch the member for Higgins’s contribution to this debate—so many on the other side, including the previous speaker, fighting the fights of the past. There have been so many recitations of the bad old days, when the Australian Union of Students used to donate money to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or some other organisation overseas. That may or may not be the case—I was not around at the time; frankly, even when I was at university I did not participate in student unions, although I was happy to pay the fee—but it is simply an inadequate response to this government’s genuine attempt to deal with the mess left by voluntary student unionism on campuses and to deal with the needs of 21st century students, who have not been able to enjoy the sort of campus life that most members of parliament in this House were able to enjoy prior to VSU.

What are student unions? Student unions have a very proud history in this country. Many of the key student unions at the older universities predate the Commonwealth. The Sydney university union was founded in 1874, Melbourne’s was founded in 1884 and, in my city of Adelaide, the Adelaide University Union, of which I was a member for some years, was founded in 1895. They have a very proud history of providing support services, advocacy, cultural and sporting activities, as well as giving our educated youth a democratically elected voice on political issues, which seems to be the point that so grates the other side of this House. There may or may not have been controversies, particularly back in the seventies and early eighties, but for over 100 years it cannot be argued that this sector of the education community did not provide a very important platform for a well-rounded educational experience in universities.

Student union fees paid by students over that period of time enabled independent representation for academic matters, such as disciplinaries, enrolment issues, university structure, intellectual property and such like, to be provided to students. They enabled students to access services, including child care, academic counselling, financial counselling and international student services, which I will address in a few minutes. They enabled students to access cultural and sporting activities by involving themselves in clubs that very significantly enriched campus life. Perhaps most importantly but less tangibly, they enabled students in one discipline to network and interact with students in other disciplines, enabling them to broaden their minds and their campus experiences and to form friendships and networks with people from other professions and other disciplines. It fostered talent in the arts, without which we would not have had Monty Python. As I said earlier, there is a very significant body of evidence that sporting activities on our campuses play a very important part in making Australia the great sporting nation that it is.

All of that takes money. Without student services fees of the type that this bill contemplates, you need, as the previous speaker said, a user pays system. We reject the idea of a user pays system in this area. In some areas it is appropriate, but in this area of policy we reject that idea because we know that a user pays system, by definition, results in disadvantage for less financially secure students. An alternative to user pays, which we have seen a bit over the last several years, is that the university itself must find the money to provide those services and opportunities to students—which means redirecting funds which would otherwise be used in areas such as teaching or research. Otherwise, services simply cease to exist, and there is much evidence to show that significant ranges of services have ceased to exist since the adventurism of the previous government.

In about April of last year, DEEWR released a summary report on the impact of VSU on campuses around Australia. Over 160 written submissions were received by that review, as well as consultations occurring in all capital cities and a number of regional centres, particularly university regional centres including Ballarat, Armidale, Townsville and many more. Frankly, that report makes for very depressing reading. Those on the other side of the House, who, as I have said, by and large enjoyed a campus life that did have that rich array of services—and many of whom participated in the political activities underwritten by those fees as far back as the seventies and perhaps some of them even earlier—and who now oppose this bill, should hang their heads in shame in reading that report and in looking at the campus life that is presented to students under a VSU regime. The University of South Australia, which has a thriving campus in my own electorate of Port Adelaide, raised about $4½ million in fees from student union membership pre VSU—not just that campus but the university across South Australia, which is the largest university in that state. The funds contributed by the university since VSU amount to about $615,000. The evidence from that review showed that the services and representation that have been lost to students under VSU include student employment services, access to loans and accommodation, a childcare subsidy, accident insurance, legal advice, tax advice and many, many more.

At Adelaide University, which I attended for some years, money raised through student membership pre VSU was about $3½ million, compared with about $50,000 post VSU. Among the many impacts experienced at Adelaide University, we have seen a significant decrease in levels of engagement with the community, a loss of welfare and advocacy staff at the student union, and a report of increasing isolation among international students. This is a point I want to take up very briefly. One of the great success stories of Australia in recent years has been the significant uptake of Australia as the destination of choice of international students. I was very pleased to see a media release by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks that showed that in 2008, for the first time ever, Australia had over 500,000 international students enrolled in its education institutions. That is not just universities, but a very significant number of those students are studying at our universities, contributing significant funds to our university sector and significantly enriching the campus life and campus experience of Australian students as well. Over 100,000 of the students enrolled in Australian education institutions in 2008 came from China. This is a wonderful success story. One of the things that make Australia such an attractive destination of choice for overseas students, and for the families that sponsor them, is the rich campus life that we have had for over 100 years and which has been so shamefully attacked by the previous government.

Flinders University, the third university in South Australia, had to find $1 million to compensate for almost $3 million that was raised prior to VSU. Sixty clubs, and 11 sports and rec clubs, have shut down since VSU at that university. Student representative bodies—they previously numbered six—have been reduced to one. The union has lost education, research and advocacy officers as well as their international student support officer. They have had to close the occasional childcare centre. They have had to close the student newspaper—and I know many of the members of the press gallery started their journalistic careers in student newspapers. They have had to remove various honorariums that applied. Across Australia, Madam Deputy Speaker, the introduction of VSU—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should pull him up for that!

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Port Adelaide has the call.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise for reflecting on your feminine side, Mr Deputy Speaker! Across Australia, VSU has cost students at university campuses close to $170 million, and it is students over these years that have suffered that loss directly or indirectly.

I just want to talk, very briefly, about sport. The Australian Olympic Committee, in the review that I referred to earlier, talked about the impact on sports generally but cited rowing—which is a popular sport in this place—as an area where some 80 per cent of national rowers have a connection with a university club. Evidence in that review showed that there has been, since the introduction of the policy of VSU, a 17 per cent reduction in student participation in sport. There are 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university than was the case before VSU. The Olympic committee provided evidence to that review along these lines:

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.

I also want to address briefly the scare campaign being run by the other side about the reintroduction of compulsory student unionism. The government is not changing the prohibition in the Higher Education Support Act which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. New provisions prohibit the fee that universities are now able to charge being used by a higher education provider to support activities which support a political party or candidate for election to Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or local government.

Further, this prohibition must be imposed on any person or organisation to which the higher education provider pays any of that fee revenue. There is no freedom of association issue here, let us be clear about that. Rather, it is about a collective contribution for the provision of services which this side of the House see as being an inextricable part of higher education campus experiences. This is about a collective contribution that spreads the cost in an equitable manner and ensures the survival of those services. This is not a novel concept.

For the first time, this bill will ensure that higher education providers receiving funding for student places under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme must meet national benchmarks in relation to the national access to services and national student representation and advocacy protocols. Higher education providers must ensure that students are provided with information and access to basic support services of a non-academic nature. The providers must ensure that students have an opportunity to participate in university governance structures through democratic representation as well as access to independent advocacy services. Those benchmarks are to be developed in consultation not only with the university but also, importantly, with students.

To further improve the quality of these services and campus life generally the bill also permits universities, from 1 July this year, to implement compulsory student services and amenities fees capped at $250 per student per annum, which, as best my memory serves me, was about the union fee that I paid in the late 1980s. It is a fee, which is indexed annually, to provide services and amenities above and beyond the national benchmark standards that I just referred to.

There are specific services that that fee can—and can only—apply to: food and beverages, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care, housing, employment and financial services, visual arts, performing arts, debating, libraries and reading rooms, student media, academic support, personal accident insurance, orientation information and support services for overseas students. Those are the purposes to which that fee can be put and it can be put only to those services. It is hardly the basis for a socialist revolution.

Equitable access is a major focus of this government in education generally and in this area in particular. Eligible students will have the option of taking out a HECS style loan to cover this fee, to be called SA HELP. Guidelines under the provisions will also ensure that part-time students are not forced to bear more than their proper share. This is a practical, balanced approach to reinvigorating our campuses and ensuring that students have access to vital support services without terrifying those opposite, with their hysterical reaction to the ‘u-word’.

There are many, many third-party endorsements of this bill that range across higher education providers, student advocacy bodies and many more. I do not propose to go through all of them, but I have noted that the Group of Eight supports this bill, as do Universities Australia and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations. As I said earlier, the Australian Olympic Committee endorses it, as do Australian University Sport and many, many more.

David Barrow, a very talented young man who is now President of the National Union of Students, has urged Senate support. As he has explained it:

These guidelines rebuild and protect the life enriching experiences and crucial support services fundamental to a university experience … particularly at regional campuses.

This bill rights a significant wrong perpetrated by the previous government on young Australians, when most of the members of that government were able to enjoy the rich, full and diverse campus life that was underwritten by over 100 years of university unionism. This restores vital student services and will protect representation and advocacy rights in a fair and balanced manner that will benefit students without imposing a financial burden at a time that they cannot afford it. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 is very important legislation because it goes far further than just the simple issue of a services fee. It goes to the very heart of the ability of an individual to choose. It goes to the very heart of proper funding for universities, particularly regional universities. The coalition opposes this legislation for a number of reasons. It opposes this legislation because it is undemocratic, because it is nothing more than a tax on students and because it is the first step in returning down the rocky road to compulsory student unionism.

As members would be aware, the coalition introduced voluntary student unionism back in 2005. The voluntary student union legislation opposed the use of the higher education providers as fee collectors. It opposed a compulsory payment of a fee to a student union and it opposed the listing of items on which any fee could be spent. The 2005 reform provided students with the fundamental right to choose whether they wanted to be a member of a student body and, at the same time, it gave the student unions the opportunity to be more representative of the wider student community.

Just 15 months into the term of the Rudd government, we have now got the return down that rocky road to compulsory student unionism. It is important, when one considers the Labor Party, to look at what they do and pay very little attention to what they say. Prior to the 2007 election we had the then shadow minister for education, the member for Perth. He had a range of things to say about VSU. He said:

I am not considering a HECS style arrangement. I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

So there we had it from the then shadow minister for education. His words were: ‘I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.’ And what happens? Fifteen months into their term we have good old student unionism back on the agenda.

That was only in May 2007, so Labor went to the last election with no policy to abolish voluntary student unionism, no indication that hundreds of thousands of tertiary students were going to be slugged with a new student tax. Yet here are in early 2009 and compulsory fees are on their way back, the student unions are back in town and all of those things which they spend money on will be back in vogue very, very shortly.

This legislation attacks a fundamental right and that is the right to choose—to choose whether you wish to purchase a particular service and therefore pay a fee for that service, as opposed to Labor’s approach of levying students for services which they may not want and certainly do not wish to buy. The Rudd government wants to take us back to an era when you were compelled to pay a fee regardless of whether you used that service or not.

Importantly, these new fees will apply regardless of whether the individual has a capacity to pay. It is a tax which will hit low-income earning students, it is a tax which they will struggle to pay and it is a tax which has no place in our current system. As I said earlier, it is a matter of properly funding universities, not taxing students. In the 21st century, where human rights are front and centre of the daily news agenda, it is breathtaking that this government can legislate to make it compulsory for struggling university students to pay additional fees for services they probably do not need. Where is the consideration of student rights? I would have thought that a very basic right for a student who is gaining an education, who perhaps will become a leader in whichever field they choose to go into, is to at least be entrusted to make their own decisions on which services they want to buy and which services they do not. It is a fundamental right to choose, as opposed to press-ganging students into paying fees. None of this was on Kevin Rudd’s watch because we have a proposal before us today that comes from another era. It comes from bygone days, if you like—the bad old days where students were slugged a fee, money was diverted to student unions and it was used for many purposes with which those students did not agree. This is old Labor at its best.

Whilst it is appropriate for the House to debate the principle of compulsory fees, we should not forget the financial costs involved here. The government like to call these new charges a fee but really it is nothing more than a tax. We have a stark contrast between the opposition and the government: the opposition stands for lower taxes and the government stand for higher taxes. We see this new fee as just another Labor tax. Not only are they running up huge deficits before our very eyes, they are also increasing taxes on those who can least afford to pay. Since the Rudd government were elected in 2007 we have seen ministers sneakily increasing charges in a number of sectors. Diesel prices were increased on transport operators through the effective increase in the excise on fuel and the government increased charges on the tourism industry at a time when international tourism is collapsing. When regional areas, which are so very dependent on tourism income, most needed it, what did the government do? The government actually increased the taxes on the tourism industry. True to form, they are continuing that trend and are now going to increase the tax on students.

These charges amount to an extra impost on either individuals or the business sector. The government can call it whatever they choose—a charge, a duty—but, whatever they want to call it, it is a tax. No matter how they window-dress it, it is just more of Labor’s increased taxes. Student union fees are no different—they are an additional tax on students who do not have the capacity to pay. They will have to pay for it even if they study externally and even if they never actually put a foot on the campus. They will still have to pay the tax if they only attend night classes and have no need for the student services. Effectively, they will have to pay regardless of whether they have the capacity to pay.

Certainly, the students that I speak to from Southern Cross University in my electorate are very concerned at this additional burden. They are very concerned at the fact that it is difficult enough to raise the funds to get through a university course without being slugged for an additional $250 for services they may not wish to buy. This tax will hurt students with low incomes the hardest. Many students will struggle to pay their way, yet they are being lumped with this tax. As I said earlier, it is really about proper funding of universities. Let us fund the universities adequately to provide the services which are important, not tax the students for services they do not wish to buy.

Like so many things that the members opposite do, one should never listen to what they say but rather look at what they do. This certainly applies to this piece of legislation because this legislation provides that funds raised from the compulsory fee can be used for services which will be detailed in the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines. Furthermore, higher education providers will need to comply with the Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. The real concern here is that the detail of these guidelines will not be debated in this parliament. According to the legislation this will be finalised after the bill has been passed. So parliament will not get to scrutinise what these fees will be spent on. It will actually be done after this bill is passed.

Of equal concern is that the final guidelines will be determined by the federal Minister for Education. That is right, the federal Minister for Education—none other than the member for Lalor—will have the final determination as to what those fees can be used for. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The member for Lalor will be in charge of deciding how these compulsory fees can be used. She expects us to trust her that she will not allow these funds to be diverted to some ratbag student union organisations. She would have us believe this $250 tax on students will go towards providing ‘vital services’—that is what she would like us to believe.

We all know what the reality is here. If you look at the draft guidelines—and I emphasise the word ‘draft’—for these services, there is a long list of services: food and beverages, sport and recreation, health care and housing. There are in fact 17 uses in all that the original fee can be used for. But tucked away among these clauses are some very interesting items. One is student media. That is essential—to have our students paying for student media. What exactly is student media and how does that actually benefit students? You could understand that a student coming to a campus may enjoy visiting a cafeteria, but perhaps they may not necessarily agree with a production on the life and times of Karl Marx, or the benefits of communism or whatever it may be.

What does student media mean? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that that is the green light for distributing propaganda by the student union. Just above student media, on the list at No. 10, is ‘audio visual media’. One can only speculate that that would have a similar use. Student unions, in particular, have a poor record when it comes to truly representing the views of students. Usually the student union is hijacked by radical individuals who have their own political agenda. I am reminded that in the past the Australian Union of Students—as has been mentioned by other members—has had links to organisations such as the PLO and the Communist Party of Malaya. I know that they are really acting in the best interest of students by diverting funds in that direction!

It has also been brought to my attention that the current student union at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology produces a radio program on 3CR called Blazing Textbooks—a show which promotes itself as providing an ‘anticapitalist perspective on current issues’. I do not know how funding of such a program is actually benefiting many students who just want a cappuccino down at the union or just want to get a cheap meal. This is hardly a good use of funds. In a modern democracy such as Australia, how can the student union justify such an expense on Blazing Textbooks, talking about an anticapitalist perspective? How does that benefit students? The student may well think that the capitalist perspective is an appropriate perspective. I certainly agree with those students who do. How does this program benefit students? The answer is: not much.

It is quite clear that you could drive a horse and cart through the guidelines. They are vague. Whilst they seem quite reasonable on the surface, there is ample scope for student funds to be diverted for purposes which are certainly inappropriate—diverted for purposes which those who are paying the funds would not agree with.

In conclusion, when members consider this legislation, they should ask themselves: what type of message are we sending to our next generation by compelling people to pay fees for services they do not want and have no intention of using? We on this side of the House believe in the ability of markets to provide. We on this side of the House believe that, if a student union was to provide a quality service at the right price, students would of their own volition purchase those services. We do not believe that they should be compulsorily required to pay for them. We do not believe that they should be compelled to pay a particular fee so that the market has no place in the transaction. If student unions were providing what students wanted, they would have a large membership, they would have a strong membership and the various facilities that they offered would be well patronised. What we are seeing here is a failure of service delivery by the unions not meeting the needs of the people whom they are supposed to represent.

It is a principle very dear to this side of the House that, where there is a market in operation, that market allocates resources appropriately and that market would result in students being able to choose. We believe that students know how best to spend their money. We believe that students are the best people to decide where that money should go. We do not believe in Labor’s new student tax. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the 21st century. Certainly, I will be further voicing my strong opposition to these proposed changes.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, 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, and I thank the member for Cowper as we do not get too many laughs in this place. I have to say that this sort of parody that we have just seen—of communist values and reds under the beds, and student services and politics about to take over the whole of the nation—was somewhat amusing. This debate, to some extent, has been a bit of a parody of the different values held by different political parties. Listening to the speeches by the member for Higgins and also the member for Mayo, it seems to me that there are some battles from their student union days that those members are still fighting. I regret that they feel that they need to bring those battles into this place. The issue that we are facing here is a lot more complex than what happened in the 1970s or even what happened more recently in student politics. It is about what is happening to the life of regional campuses—in my own instance—and what is happening to student life across this country. It is a really important debate.

I also note with some irony that the very issues that are raised by the member for Higgins, which are about his student days when he had these huge fights within the student union movement at Monash University and how terrible they were, are the very things that probably have made him the person that he is today. The fact that he is here in this place able to debate, excited and interested in politics and passionate about ideas, is one of the very things he got from participating in a student union on the Monash campus. I find it ironic that those members who oppose Left ideas see that that is the very reason to be opposing student unionism.

Student unionism’s history comes very much from Oxford debating societies. They were about the contest of ideas. That is what student unionism is about across campuses in Australia. It is about the contest of ideas, providing people the opportunities in student life to debate, to think, to challenge, to be able to come up with their own solutions to problems, to participate in all sorts of things that they may never get the opportunity to do once they have finished university and they have happen to them what happens to many of us. We have mortgages and jobs that do not allow us to participate in the richness of those sorts of ideas as much as we would like to because unfortunately real life takes over. It is really disappointing that this debate to some extent has come down to a parody of Left versus Right ideals, because that is not what this debate is actually about. It is about the richness of student life, the provision of student services on university campuses and how we best go about doing that.

I have been a university student at a number of different campuses across the state of Victoria and also here in the ACT. Obviously the student union received part of the fee that I paid, although I was not part of the union. However, I never begrudged paying a fee, which I had to at all of the university campuses I was on, because, whilst I did not necessarily need to use all those services, I did acknowledge that there were students who did need access to advocacy, child care, legal services, accommodation services, assistance to work and welfare and counselling services. Whilst I may not have needed to access those particular services, I did not begrudge the many students in very different circumstances to me who did need to access those services. I did not at all begrudge paying for them.

This bill recognises the detrimental effect that the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism bill has had on university campuses across this country. The current bill reflects a balanced approach to delivering vital amenities and services to university students. During the 2007 election campaign, I committed to those in my electorate to being part of a government that recognised the importance of having access to vital services on university campuses. Through this bill, the government is delivering on that commitment.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for Adelaide for acting on this issue quickly and on the basis of broad consultation across the country. The Minister for Youth met with higher education stakeholder groups in my electorate back in February 2008 and she listened to views about how to fix the problem caused by the Howard government’s abolition of funding for student services. In my electorate, there was representation from the University of Ballarat, the Australian Catholic University, Aquinas Student Association, the Committee for Ballarat—a group of businesspeople in my electorate—the University of Ballarat Student Association and our local government, the City of Ballarat. The consultation with stakeholders found that both locally and nationally student services and amenities were eroding from campus to campus.

The review found that this impact was no more evident than in regional and rural Australia. People and communities from rural and regional Australia are of equal importance to our nation’s future and yet this current situation has depleted services on campuses in my own electorate to unsatisfactory levels. As part of the review, the University of Ballarat, which is home to the majority of higher education students in my electorate, stated in their submission:

While the current services appear to be at least marginally sustainable, the ongoing maintenance of these services is subject to a significant overhead subsidy from the University. If this position is continued—

which it has been—

the university community will suffer from an inability to provide new or enhanced services.

The Australian Catholic University, which has a regional campus in Ballarat, stated in their submission:

Student Association reserves and University funding have been used to maintain essential services in the short term. This model is not sustainable past 2008.

The Committee for Ballarat in their submission stated:

We are concerned that the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) has had a marked effect already on the provision of services, representation and amenities at the University of Ballarat’s regional campuses and the local regional campuses of ACU and UM—

the University of Melbourne. I reiterate that the Committee for Ballarat is a group of businesspeople in my community. The submission went on to say:

We are convinced that unless the present, early, damaging trends are arrested and reversed very soon, then longer lasting and deeper damage will be done. We urge that remedial action be taken as a priority, in consultation with these universities.

We have heard from many universities, student bodies and other stakeholders over the course of the minister’s consultation, and one thing is evident: student life and related communities are suffering from the Howard government’s determination to shut down student services. They are suffering because students today do not have the same basic services and amenities that they did in the past.

I spoke in this House in 2005 against the Howard government’s attack on vital student services. My position has not changed. I am glad to be part of a government that is making a commitment to reinvigorating university life in this country. Those members opposite did not listen to our warnings back in 2005 about what would happen to universities and university campuses across this country. Now universities across Australia have suffered for their ignorance. The previous government’s approach was to rip away those basic services that are of most importance to students. It is extremely apparent that they have achieved their expected outcome.

Students who attend regional universities predominantly come from regional and rural areas. These students have been hit hard. Regional universities and their broader communities have also been hit hard. At the University of Ballarat since the introduction of VSU these are some of the things that have happened. As of this year, the student association no longer provide legal services to students on campus. Instead, they have students who sacrifice time away from studying to support other students because this is the only support that exists. Independent student advocacy has gravely diminished due to the lack of funding and resources that were delivered to the student body. Advocacy and leadership at ACU is unfortunately heading in much the same direction. In their submission to the review, ACU stated:

Students have lost the capacity to fund staff to support their leadership, planning and management of student affairs. It is no longer possible to pay an allowance to student office bearers who frequently forgo part time work to make the contribution to student affairs. This has made the recruitment of office bearers more difficult.

Without adequate funding the voices of students are not being heard and they are not being represented on university bodies.

The majority of university students across my electorate are the first generation in their families to go to university. Many of them come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in rural areas and the big jump from secondary education to university life can be very daunting. In the past, student bodies have acted as the main point of contact, a friend to speak to, a support network and an overall body of representation for these students. At the University of Ballarat, the student body has closed the campus shop that assisted students by subsidising the cost of food, drinks and other essentials such as toiletries, stationery and other grocery items. Now students who are already on restricted budgets are spending an increased percentage of their weekly budget at the now university-run cafe. On-campus child care is no longer subsidised, which has forced prices to come into line with those commercial operators across the region. Financial services, such as emergency funding for students doing it tough, have also been stopped. Clubs and societies on campus have had funding dramatically restricted and they now receive only minimal administrative support.

In the past two years alone, the number of students involved in volunteering with clubs and societies at Ballarat campuses has more than halved and is continuing to disappear because they are not provided with the support they need. Even the number of volunteers participating in the student body as a whole has dramatically decreased. This is shifting university campuses into ghost towns. The student interaction is diminishing as students race off university campuses between lectures as the social community is almost nonexistent on campus.

Without clubs and societies, students find it increasingly difficult to network, find lifelong friends and, as a result, many become isolated during their studies. This is particularly the case with regional campuses, where a large number of students are attending university away from homes, often some distance away. To quote the University of Ballarat Student Association president, ‘It is now just a bare bones operation and it is only going to get worse under these circumstances.’ It is the intention of this bill to change this. This government wants to start the turnaround by rebuilding the spirit of university community and by having students involved in clubs and societies again. We want student bodies like the University of Ballarat Student Association to have the financial support they need to run services on campus. As I have signalled to the university’s vice-chancellor, it is certainly my hope and my expectation that the University of Ballarat Student Association be able to continue to operate on the campus.

The Rudd government is committed to ensuring students at university have access to vital amenities and services. As part of this government’s plan we seek to implement National Access to Services Benchmarks relating to the provision of information on and access to student support services such as health and welfare services. As part of our plan we also have moved to introduce national student representation and advocacy protocols, which I will touch on a little bit later. This bill also allows for higher education providers, from 1 July this year, to choose to implement the compulsory student services and amenities fee. This fee will go a long way to providing further quality services on top of the benchmarks and protocols. This fee, capped at $250 per student per annum, will go a long way to assisting in the provision of amenities and services. There are a number of things I would like to discuss in relation to this fee.

The first point I would like to make is that we on this side of the House understand that many higher education students are doing it tough. We do understand that the direct impact of the Howard government’s removal of funding of vital student services is that many costs for students on university campuses have actually risen. I think that is something that members of the opposition appear not to have taken into account in their opposition to this bill. Childcare costs are no longer subsidised and they have gone up. Textbooks are also putting pressure on students’ pockets. Getting involved in on-campus events and sporting activities is always assessed by students on the basis of how much money they have for any given week, and many of those clubs and societies are now no longer able to provide free entertainment or free services. Paying for food is also at the forefront of students’ minds on a daily basis. Let me not forget the indirect costs that have arisen from the Howard government’s VSU. Universities are taking money away from various operational budgets to fund the gap that exists because of VSU for vital services on campuses. We do recognise that many students are doing it tough. That is also why we provided in this legislation for eligible students to have the option to receive a loan for this fee. If students cannot afford to pay the student amenities fee they can choose to receive a loan, and this bill establishes a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program.

Secondly, we have announced the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines to give all stakeholders a very clear understanding about how this fee would be spent. The government wants this money spent on vital campus student services. We want to see the return of basic student services and amenities. Let me quickly go through those. They include food and drinks, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care and welfare, employment and career advice, financial services, and several others. Every one on this list is as important as the next. What are not on this list are political activities. They are not something that can be funded via the student amenities fee. I do note with some irony, however, that in its ham-fisted attempt to shut down anti-Howard government activity on student campuses—because that is what VSU really was about—the previous government managed to get many regional student associations in regional areas such as my own, not known for their radicalism, politically active for the first time. The student association at the University of Ballarat does not have a history of being politically active at all and now the former president is actually a member of my staff. He has never been involved in the Labor Party ever before. I am very grateful, because he is a terrific member of staff.

There has been talk from those opposite that this bill introduces compulsory student unionism, and that is simply not the case. Students still have the option of being a member of the campus student body. If students choose not to sign up then that is absolutely fine. That is something that they choose either to do or not to do. The government believes students should be given choice about membership of on-campus student bodies and this bill delivers on that belief. Section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act forbids universities from requiring students to become a member of student bodies. Through this bill there are no changes to this section of the act. We do not want students forced to join student bodies but we do want students to have adequate services and amenities. That is why with this bill universities that choose to implement the fee will be able to start charging $125 for the second half of 2009. This will deliver sustainability and structure to universities before campus services and amenities deteriorate any further. Now is the time for action and now is the opportunity for members of parliament to promote positive change and to reinvigorate the life of our universities.

Many of the members opposite seem to be stuck in the past and seem to be fighting some old student political debates. The proposal in this bill is not a return to the past; what it is is a balanced approach to try to make sure that university campuses are reinvigorated and that university life and university services are provided to students. I certainly invite those members in the other place who are going to be voting on this bill to think long and hard about what they intend to do.

As I mentioned earlier, without adequate funding, student voices are not being heard across university campuses. In this bill we have announced National Student Representation and Advocacy Protocols to provide a solution to this problem. Having independent advocacy in our society is part of the Australian way of life, yet only now do we have protocols that outline how higher education providers are to provide independent advocacy for students throughout our higher education system. I want to see a process to democratically elect student representatives on university campuses across Australia and I want to see a system that allows the elected representatives to establish advocacy services for all enrolled students.

There are also two other measures in this bill I want to briefly touch on. They include amendments to the act to ensure that tertiary admission centres conform to current legislative and privacy requirements. At present TACs do not have the same status and duty of care as other offices of higher education providers when handling students’ personal information. We have sought in this bill to ensure students’ privacy is maintained under the Higher Education Support Act by acknowledging the role of TACs and recognising their responsibilities in this legislation.

The final measure that I want to support in this bill is our proposal to support students wanting to study in the vocational education and training sector. In her second reading speech Minister Ellis outlined that student numbers in publicly funded diploma and advanced diploma courses have declined steadily across Australia since 2002. I would also like to note that, in my own state of Victoria, the number of students in publicly funded diploma and advanced diploma courses has declined from 64,800 to 58,900 in 2007—a drop of over nine per cent. Our measure removes a significant barrier to students wanting to study diploma and above qualifications in the VET sector. Prospective students can now access training for diploma and above qualifications without worrying about upfront fees.

If we are to move forward as a nation into the future, we need to invest in our human capital, and education is at the forefront of this investment. This bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to expand the VET FEE-HELP scheme and to subsequently significantly increase the number of Australians completing diploma and advanced diploma degrees. In supporting this bill, I am supporting a balanced approach to reinvigorating universities and to securing vital services and amenities. The bill supports students having access to independent and democratic representation and advocacy. I would like to reiterate the importance of the bill in assisting universities and students in regional university campuses like those in my electorate.

Finally, I want to reflect on a comment by the Committee for Ballarat. In their submission they say:

The more distance one is from a capital city, the less likely is completion of a degree or higher qualification. This is a major lost opportunity for regional and national development. VSU adds a serious other dimension to this issue. If there are already core issues damaging rural and regional students’ participation, then adding another damaging effect—the minimisation of amenities, services and representation—then participation and success rates for this group is even more vulnerable.

That is what the previous government did and we are reversing that trend. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Ballarat for her contribution to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I think she encapsulated some of the very real issues that are out there. On the point that she made about regional universities at the end of her speech, I was at a conference yesterday where that was discussed, and the vice-chancellor of the Ballarat university was one of the speakers. There are some very unique issues for regional universities and the various cost structures et cetera.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognise a staff member of mine who has been running my Tamworth office, at both a state and federal level, since 1991—Mr Leigh Tschirpig. He is not in this building very often but I thank him for the work that he has put in over all those years and I hope that he is with me for a few more.

As the member for Ballarat commented—and it has been quite extraordinary listening to this debate—a lot of people still seem to be at university even though they are in this parliament, and they are reliving some of the crimes that they committed during their student days. That is all very nice but after university you have to grow up a bit. In a parliament, particularly, we have to look at how services are provided to our young people. I listened to the member for Higgins and I have heard various comments on both sides of the parliament. It seems as though the old debates have never left them—the Rights and the Lefts and the indifferents. I was at university for four years and I was probably one of the indifferents who was not involved in student politics terribly much, but I appreciated the opportunities and some of the services that were there, that others were using and that I occasionally had to use.

One of the points that I would like to make concerns the voluntary student unionism issue that was raised a few years ago when the government abolished the mandatory student unionism arrangements. At that time, I moved an amendment that removed the capacity for political activities to be funded through the general fee. I have heard many members of the coalition, and some members of the government, saying today that they are in support of the general thrust of services being provided to students, but they are not in support of money being used to fund political activities. Neither side supported that amendment of mine in 2005 and, as I read this bill, it precludes the use of the general service fee for political activities, but most of the debate has been about old political activities. The member for Ballarat made a very important point in terms of the member for Higgins’s contribution about where he honed his skills in political debate because there was a capacity at university for people to have different views and to have the time and the capacity to debate those views and argue for their particular causes.

I do not have a problem, even if some of that money did happen to leak into that area, because universities really should be about not only learning how to be an engineer or a doctor, but learning other life skills as well. It should be about having the capacity to access various services if they are required. I have had two children go to university and hopefully another one will attend next year. Hopefully they will not need some of these services at university that may well help them with legal, housing or social problems that they may have difficulties with. But, if they did, I would be more than happy to make a contribution so that those services actually do exist in universities, particularly in our country universities where the students may well be many hundreds of kilometres away from their relatives.

So I do support the legislation today and I find it a bit odd that neither side supported essentially the same legislation by way of amendment back in 2005. I believed then that what the government was doing, because of members of the former government reliving some of their university days, was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They wanted to starve any political activity at university, which I would disagree with anyway—I think that is, as I said, part of what we should be doing at university. We need people to engage in the political process not starve their access to it. But, even given that issue, there was the capacity to ban the use of the general fee for political activities and still provide the other services that this legislation in fact brings back into play.

I would also like to congratulate those people who played a role during the 2005 debate. It was a very close debate and the numbers were very tight in the Senate. I would particularly like to recognise Tom O’Sullivan, Greg Harris, Steve Griffiths and, more recently, Don Knapp for their advocacy on behalf of student activities, particularly some of the student sporting activities, and particularly for their concern for the impact on country universities. I would like to single out Senator Barnaby Joyce as well. Even though he is going to be a candidate against me at the next election, I have to recognise good when good is seen to be done, and I congratulate Senator Joyce for the stance that he took when the voluntary student union debate was on. I know at the next election when we are head-to-head we will have some common ground in some of the issues that we have fought on in the past and I look forward to sharing that time with him and reminiscing about our camaraderie in some of the issues, this being one of them.

I was also interested to hear the member for Cowper, who, in his deliberations about people making their own choices—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an important issue, he says. He must be still supporting Work Choices. He made a statement which I found a little bit at odds with what actually happens on the ground—that university students can decide how best to spend their own money. In a lot of cases it is not their own money. But the alcohol industry does quite well out of quite a lot of them, I think, and in some cases we should have services there because quite often they will perhaps not have the money left over at the end of the week to access the services that they may not have thought that they would need. I think that is part of a caring society—to make sure that we look after the provision of services to those kids who may not have that capacity after a big weekend.

The other issue that I would like to raise briefly is the issue that the member for Cowper raised in relation to the guidelines in this legislation. I think he used the term: ‘You could drive a horse and cart through them.’ It reminded me of the Regional Partnerships arrangements that the member for Cowper was part of in this particular parliament. It was quite obvious that the guidelines that had been designed under that arrangement were designed to have a horse and cart driven through them. Members of the recent inquiry, and the minister for regional services, who is with us today, would be well aware of the issues in the Financial Management and Accountability Act—the breaches that actually took place and are recognised by the Audit Office. A coalition member starts criticising guidelines, when some of the breaches—of their own guidelines—occurred on their watch! Competitive and neutrality issues, a whole range of issues in terms of accountability, were breached. As I said earlier, even if there was some leakage into student activities of a political nature—and I do not think this legislation will actually allow it; maybe I am wrong—I would have thought that is something that we should actually encourage at university and make people think about the structures that are out there.

Yesterday I was with the vice-chancellor of the Ballarat university and members of the National Tertiary Education Union from all over Australia, who were representing some of the specific regional issues as they saw them. I should not let this opportunity go by without raising a couple of the issues that were raised. It is obvious that in country areas a much smaller percentage of country children go to university. The other figure that was quite revealing was that those who do come from the country and go to a country university tend to work in the country. From time to time we have heard the debate from those who have been educated in country areas about medical schools and the retention rate of doctors et cetera. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that, even though there are cost disadvantages not only to the students and the parents of children at country universities but to the administration, we must make sure that we maintain proper expenditure in those areas so that those young people will learn their skills in the country and return to the country with those skills in the future. I talked about the arrangements for doctors. We are very pleased that the University of New England has a medical school where you can see those very things happening as I speak.

One of the other issues raised—and I am pleased to see that the minister responsible for a lot of the training activities is here as well—which really does need to be looked at in terms of the future of young people at university is the youth allowance. Young people often do not go to university the year after school because their parents cannot afford it, in some sense, so they go out to work and then meet all the guidelines to be able to access the youth allowance. I am not suggesting that everybody should go to university straight after school but I think we are developing a framework that now makes that almost the norm rather than the exception. We have to have a close look at the way in which those guidelines are put together. One of the other things that were mentioned at yesterday’s conference was that to encourage people to go to country universities there may well be a need to reduce the HECS debts that are repaid on the conclusion of the degree.

I bring those few points to the debate and in conclusion say again that I support this legislation. I think what occurred in 2005 was unfortunate for student activities, particularly those in the country, and it was driven by an ideological perspective in that a lot of people who are still in this place were reliving their university days and settling old scores. That was unfortunate because they overlooked the very valuable services that were being provided. As I said then, and say again now, we all hope that some of these services are not needed by our children, but if those services are not there they cannot be accessed. I am more than happy to make a contribution for those people who may need those services into the future, particularly for those in regional universities where they may be many hundreds of kilometres from their families.

Debate (on motion by Mr Gray) adjourned.