Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give my support to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It is about time we were able to do so; it is a wonderful time to be able to do so. This is a very responsible policy approach from a government that is determined to restore integrity to student services in our universities. This legislation sounds the death knell for the Howard-Costello legislation which allowed the government to wield its ideology over common sense and provided tertiary institutions with very little choice and reduced their autonomy. Rather than good common sense and decency prevailing in our most important institutions—the universities of this country—they were made to slavishly follow an imposed ideology.

I am pleased to say that over the past 15 months we have heard the ringing of a few death knells, each signalling the end of that ideological legacy left over from the previous government. Work Choices was another one that was woven into the fabric of universities wherever it could be. Fortunately, it has found its place on the scrapheap. We do also hope that the era of our country ignoring the urgency of climate change will be over.

It is important that when we look at the Rudd government reforms we can feel some pride that our government’s approach to university services will replace one that caused great harm. The previous government’s approach caused a serious decline in, and in some instances the complete closure of, vital health counselling, employment, childcare and welfare support services. Unfortunately, these extremes, disguised as reform, took an ideological sledgehammer to universities that saw $170 million stripped from valuable student services, all because they suspected that universities were a hotbed of incubating dissent. I would hope so! I would hope they incubated challenge, inquiry and dissent. I think the previous government pursued the provision of student services in all the wrong ways. Instead of doing the hard yards of consulting with students, consulting with the sector itself, listening to student representatives and working to find a balanced and measured approach, they pushed on with legislation that was more to do with their own prejudices. But now common sense, decency and the future of this nation do dictate the legislation before the House.

The bill imposes requirements on higher education providers that receive funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. They are not requirements to be followed slavishly according to ideology. They are actually about goodwill and the needs of students. They are about ensuring that there is information on and access to basic student support services and that there is provision of student representation and advocacy. I am particularly impressed that for the first time universities are required to provide opportunities for democratic student representation and to take student views into account in institutional decision-making processes. How appropriate this is when revenue from student enrolments represents well over 50 per cent of the budget of all universities! It would seem to me to be very important that students’ voices are heard.

From 1 July 2009 higher education providers will be able to charge a compulsory student services and amenities fee. That fee will be capped at $250. It is negotiable—it can go down—and each university can set their own level. That fee is distinctly for helping to provide student services and amenities within the set guidelines of this legislation. The legislation will allow eligible students the option of a loan, should they not be able to afford that upfront fee, through the establishment of a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, which will be called the Services and Amenities-HELP—or SA-HELP—scheme.

These are important reforms and the students of Australia’s higher education institutions were certainly crying out for them. In fact, it was not just the students that felt the brunt. I know that during the process of consultation undertaken by the government last year there were strong indications that universities too were finding it difficult to adjust. Some universities indicated that they were having to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to support student services because they could see that without those funds, their students would not be as successful and certainly would not contribute what they were capable of. They did that to maintain their commitment to student services and student involvement in the running of their university. No doubt other universities found it convenient to look the other way. But most universities did not choose to do that; they did have to find funds to carry on with essential services for students. I am proud to say I have a daughter who was once a student president at the University of Newcastle. I remember debriefing her many times on the support she gave to students. They included fairly difficult cases of conflict resolution and social welfare. So I do know of the contribution that student representative organisations make to individual students and to the strength of the student body itself.

For those on the other side of the House who claim this legislation is indulgent, I would say that, if it indulges student services in a way that strengthens the ability of students to complete courses, that is a good thing. There is certainly an indication that the other side considers this some sort of quasi-compulsory student unionism. That is totally incorrect. These services are not indulgences; they are important. They help our students navigate their time at university and often, for many students, that is a time of personal challenge, particularly as most students today have to work as well as attend university. So these services provide for them systems of support and advocacy.

Our own universities have recognised this, with some redirecting their funding to support those services. In my own electorate of Newcastle, both the Newcastle University Students Association, NUSA, and the Newcastle University Postgraduate Students Association, NUPSA, secured service level agreements with the university, albeit at lower than previous levels. This was not the case at all universities and I am pleased that my university did support the student organisations. But there was no requirement for institutions to provide that financial support, and this invariably meant that either services were cut or charges were increased at the time. In the case of the University of Newcastle, both NUSA and NUPSA were able to continue providing services, but the funding that could be provided in that way was limited.

Whilst the cooperation and good faith negotiations between student associations and the University of Newcastle meant that some services could continue, services did suffer—so much so, in fact, that when the current Minister for Education visited my electorate early in 2008 I remember us being at the end of the student protest. Students chose to exercise their democratic right to protest and they certainly were concerned for all students. I think it was perhaps the first time the minister had ever experienced a student protest that she had not organised herself when she was a student representative, but she was at the receiving end and we found it a healthy thing for those discussions and that protest to be taking place.

The experience of student associations under the previous legislation was a genuinely difficult one. Student services lost included $300 emergency loans—and I know many students who had taken advantage of those. They lost vouchers for textbooks and food, and if you have ever attended a university on a day when the subsidised food was available you will know it was a good thing to see students being able to benefit. At our university, NUSA went from having seven full-time staff down to two. The former full-time grievance officer now works only a 14-hour week. Opus, the newspaper of the university students, decreased from seven issues to four and the printery was closed. The printery provided an at-cost service to students. It allowed them to print off their important theses et cetera, and that was a huge loss to students. The second-hand bookshop was also closed—again, what a waste of a wonderful resource for students. The director of NUsport at Newcastle University at the time of the service reduction said:

NUsport’s current position under VSU is that there has been a significant reduction in employment, less student representation especially women at University Games and in University Clubs, and most significantly, NUsport has had to freeze new infrastructure projects and without ongoing maintenance, our buildings are deteriorating.

Many cultural and artistic programs and festivals also suffered. Many student organisations subsidise the attendance of their students at these collaborative cultural festivals, and as a result the attendance and viability of those festivals suffered. Newcastle experienced that firsthand. We host the This is Not Art festival. It is the largest youth festival in Australia. It includes a youth writers festival and a digital arts festival. It is a great example of the coming together of talented artists, activists and other real talent, but attendance was subsidised by student unions at different universities all around the country, and I am very sorry to see that under the present system that has suffered tremendously. Universities are the incubators of leadership, the people of the future who are going to solve the problems of the world and those who are going to nurture and enrich the souls of their communities.

I would submit to the House that the human cost was too high for the sake of reform. I am pleased to see that the Rudd government is committed to responsible, considered and measured reform. This legislation is not a return to compulsory student unionism. It will ensure that universities provide vital services in health, child care, welfare, counselling and employment. In my office I try very hard to give relief work to students from the University of Newcastle. The Graduate School of Business and the School of Law are just across the road from me, and it has been very valuable to share firsthand with students their experiences at university. One case I am aware of is a couple raising their baby in the city without their families. I know how important those services were to them.

The Student Services and Amenity Fee Guidelines which are part of this legislation set the parameters for what sorts of services can be supported by the levy imposed by universities, and they were formulated through consultation with the sector. There are quite a few services. They cover employment, housing, health care and academic support. One would think that would be rather important. They also cover personal accident insurance for students—something they cannot normally afford or even contemplate. They cover the many clubs and societies that enrich the experience of university, such as sport and recreation and student media—that communication need that binds students together. Orientation information—a very important week in all universities—and support for overseas students are some of the other services that are covered.

Ensuring that the levy is spent on areas of genuine student need will require a commitment by universities and student bodies to negotiate in good faith. That is the expectation of this legislation.

The government are committed to ensuring that students have a voice in universities, and that is why we have introduced the National Student Representation and Advocacy Protocols. These protocols set out a framework that ensures that the voice of students is enshrined in universities. They will allow for the interests of students to be considered in institutional decision making and ensure that advocacy services are made available. I recollect my daughter being a student union representative on the university council. I remember how much work she put into representing her constituency with regard to student services and university decisions that were being made. I think it is very important that universities incorporate this into their governance. Students have a very valuable voice to contribute.

At the heart of this package, though, is the need for consultation. The government has ensured that student representation is enshrined and the consultation between individual institutions and their student bodies will now decide the success of this program. This is a chance for all those stakeholders with an interest in this issue to discuss the best framework for this policy. That includes, of course, university executives, government and student unions. I would like to think that in the future there will be a level of representation and participation that is genuine and inclusive and that training in governance is provided for students. It is a wonderful place for them to learn about democracy and board and management type responsibilities. I think it is really important to make sure that as many students as possible have these advocacy experiences.

As this consultation takes place, it is a good time to ask just what we do require from our higher education institutions. That, of course, is good governance procedures so that students see the best behaviours modelled. There is a strong role for student unions in protecting and advocating for the rights of students. I was very pleased, as were many of my colleagues, to meet David Barrow, the head of the student union movement at the moment. It is good to see that this generation is engaged, interested and keen to hold us all to account. The student union movement is keen to represent the interests of students. We should support that engagement and encourage it in every form.

As a government we should help to create and sustain a strong, transparent and responsive higher education sector that helps develop the future scientists, doctors, social scientists, teachers, leaders of this country, artists and performers.

I would also say that one of the things that this legislation says cannot be done is the funding of political campaigns. What is meant by that is party political campaigns. I hope there is never any need for us to distinguish in universities between students being involved in other sorts of political campaigns. I think of the human rights advocacy that student bodies have taken up, the work on social inclusion and the work on economic models—what a time to challenge economic models of the past. I can remember past protests on such issues. You think, ‘Gee, they may have been right in many of their social equity approaches.’ When we look at the times we live in—and, looking at the people in this room, we have experienced extreme change in the time we have lived in this world—it is important that student voices are listened to and that students are encouraged to analyse how this society works and how it can be improved.

I also note that there has been some concern expressed by members on the other side of the House regarding the cost to students of this fee. I say to you: that is a concern that I always share. Recent media coverage showed that about a third of the students of the University of Newcastle are drawn from the lowest level of economic advantage. They come from a low socioeconomic base. We have one of the highest ratios in the country. Perhaps that is a tribute to the university’s inclusiveness. It runs some of the best second-chance programs around the country. It also shows not just that these students may struggle to pay the fee but, more importantly, that they are students who will genuinely benefit the most and have the highest need for the services that these fees will provide. That is part of the dilemma that this legislation seeks to address. Students will be able to access a loan program, and universities will be able to set a fee, capped at $250. The benefits that will flow to students at the University of Newcastle, who are drawn from lower socioeconomic groups, will be extremely important, and they will certainly be of benefit to everyone.

I recommend this legislation to the House. I have been very happy to support it. It is a reform that has been very necessary. I hope it restores some autonomy to the student-university relationship, because that is a relationship that I think we should not interfere in too much except to protect the freedoms and democratic rights that we think are essential in any institution in this country.

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

I am pleased to join with my coalition colleagues in speaking, not surprisingly, against the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This bill seeks to introduce a compulsory levy on university students capped at $250 a year from 1 July 2009. Frankly, the purpose of this bill is to introduce compulsory student unionism by stealth by denying students their fundamental right to freedom of choice on campus. It will mean that students, irrespective of their wishes, will be forced to fund a student union they may fundamentally disagree with and pay for services that they may never use. This bill seeks to introduce a style of voluntary student representation, VSR, with the ability for payments to be deferred in a HECS type arrangement. However, as we can see from the experience in Victoria and more recently under the Gallop-Carpenter government in Western Australia, the VSR system has a number of fundamental flaws.

On the history of VSU, coming from Western Australia I have seen firsthand the benefits of voluntary student unionism as it was introduced by the Court government in 1994. Their legislation provided true choice to students by allowing them the right to decide whether or not to join or fund their student union, with no academic benefit being denied because a student was not a member of the student association. We believe in choice in most areas, unlike the other side. I was proud to be a part of the Howard government that introduced legislation to implement VSU across Australian campuses in 2005. That legislation was extremely similar to that introduced by the Court government and has ensured that students’ rights to freedom of association and choice are upheld on campus.

There is a fundamental right of choice. VSR as introduced in both WA and Victoria required the payment of a compulsory student service fee but allowed membership of the student union to be voluntary. This is not a real choice. Any form of compulsory fee on campus forces students to financially support political activities that they may not be comfortable with and fund activities that they may never use. It is my firm belief that students—and neither student unions nor the government—are in the best position to decide which services they wish to use on campus and determine their financial priorities. They are in the best position to determine whether they should fund their student unions, and by implementing this compulsory fee the government is denying them that fundamental right to choose.

Proponents of compulsory student unionism or voluntary student representation commonly argue that the declining membership numbers in our student guilds are evidence of the negative impact of VSU, arguing that the guild is an important element of the social and cultural experience of attending university. We have just heard this ad nauseam from the member for Newcastle, giving many little anecdotes along the way about which, if we were able to stand there and debate each point, I am sure we would have an interesting dialogue.

However, I believe this reflects the importance of keeping VSU. While it is obvious that student guilds have a role to play at universities, they are not for everyone, and in a VSU environment students are able to exercise their right not to fund student unionism. I suspect the member for Braddon, who has just arrived, will essentially disagree with everything I am saying in a passionate way and speak with all the fervour that we have heard him speak with in recent times.

Students are themselves weighing up the pros and cons of membership and deciding that membership does not give them value for money. In an article written by Hal Colebatch, a regular writer for the Australian, on 11 March headed ‘Daylight robbery’ the by-line says:

Compulsory student charges are a left-wing racket to create cadres …

In the article Mr Colebatch quite rightly points out that the fee is economically constraining. He says:

Some are supported by spouses or parents, some scrabble desperately for study time while juggling employment commitments.

I will refer to more of that article a bit later, but it is just not the nirvana that the other side would have you believe—that you just pay your $250 and you get this magnificent service that everyone is going to enjoy. A lot of people, particularly mature-age students, only attend the university briefly because they have another life to lead. They do not sit around in the guild bar or use the guild facilities and the sporting and other clubs that are provided. They are there for an education and they seldom get use from the union fees they pay.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

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

Of course, you would expect the left-wing ideology now being espoused by the member for Banks that it is only the rich kids. Most of my friends who went to university were not rich kids. I was never rich. I did not come from a well-off family, and all I can say is that, to get through university, we had day jobs and night jobs. In fact, Senator Johnston was telling me last night when we coming over here that when he went to the University of Western Australia to study law, he used to drive his taxi from 12 midnight to six in the morning and then he would go off—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the House can settle down!

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

He would then go and study after he had had a short rest after his knock-off time at six in the morning. That is how he got through university, because he did not come from a family of wealth or privilege, as those on the other side would have you believe of anybody who goes to university and objects to this compulsory fee.

Where does the money go? I touched on it earlier. It is important to note that under VSR students are forced to fund activities that they may personally object to or do not even want. Under the bill, the services which may be funded by the compulsory levied fee will be outlined in the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines, which will be tabled in the form of a disallowable instrument after this bill has been passed. So you are going to find out what these services and guidelines are after the bill goes through this place. How about that? The unbelievable thing is that you are being asked to sign a $250 cheque for something as yet unknown.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you get a disallowance.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I appeal to your good control of this chamber to deal with the member for Banks.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker will intervene to encourage both sides to stop encouraging each other to have a conversation. We are listening to the member speak.

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

I might be strident in my views, but it does not mean that the member for Banks is allowed to disrupt what has been a beautiful delivery.

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

The member for Canning will not encourage him again but will return to the speech.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re filibustering here, Don, and you know it.

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

Mr Sidebottom interjecting

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

That is enough now, please. The member for Canning has the call.

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

I am sure the member for Braddon appreciates me referring to him by his seat. By not providing this information—

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

Yes, he’s definitely filibustering now.

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

The member for Canning has the call.

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

I will wait in the chamber for a while now. By not providing this information prior to the introduction of the bill, the Minister for Youth and Sport is seeking parliament’s approval for a measure without even telling us where the money is going to go. The Labor government is holding students in contempt by introducing a bill without being up front with the students and giving them the full facts before this even goes through this place. They are treating them like mushrooms, basically.

In regard to political activities, without having further detail provided it is impossible to know where the students’ money will be going. Some student guilds across the country do not have a particularly strong track record in using students’ money in an appropriate manner. There are numerous examples. For instance, in the past student unions have donated money to the PLO and the Communist Party of Malaya, as it was in those days. In 1999—I wish the member for Newcastle were still here—the University of Newcastle Students Union decided that only stalls displaying anti-VSU materials were allowed on orientation day.

The minister has given her assurance that the legislation will prohibit money being spent for political purposes. However, this is confined to the support of political parties or government bodies, leaving a wide variety of highly political activities such as those that I have previously mentioned still possible. The legislation potentially allows for the funding of campaigns against political parties and the direct funding of other organisations not registered as political parties, such as trade unions.

Even if these other activities were put in the disallowable instrument, this would not fix the problem, as was highlighted in Victoria when the distinction between allowed and non-allowed services became simply an accounting tool. Under VSU, student unions were able to effectively cross-subsidise activities for which direct funding was disallowed. It was concluded by the University of Melbourne Student Union that, in reality, the allowable matters on which compulsory funds could be spent would still allow for the full funding of everything except elections. Under VSU in Western Australia, and more recently when it was introduced across Australia, guilds continued to be involved in political activities, running a variety of campaigns and holding national days of action. The simple difference is that under VSU students who do not want to be involved in such issues are not forced to fund them and, in doing so, fund an organisation they may disagree with.

In addition to being used for political activities, funds may also be used for activities that students do not want or need or services that are better left to other organisations. It has been argued by some guilds that compulsory fees need to be introduced because of the declining number of services caused by VSU. However, evidence of simple reduction in services should not be taken as evidence of declining standards in student guilds. The services that will be maintained are those that students want and need and that are the reason they paid their membership fees in the first place. Whether it be half-price coffee, access to emergency loans or assistance with appeals, if that is what students want and are willing to join their student union to protect then they are services that will continue to be provided by members. I repeat: if they are the sorts of services they want, they can join the guild and get those services. They do not have to do so by coercion.

Additionally, this bill will force Australia’s over 1,300 external students to fund services that they will clearly never have an opportunity to use, as I have pointed out before. What middle-aged student wants to join the rugby club or the Australian rules football club? They might want to join as a social member, but, as much as I have played Australian rules football, I do not think that if I went as a mature age student I would be that competitive these days. Ultimately, compulsory funding models make student unions less accountable and force students to fund services they do not want. By guaranteeing a constant source of income, the Labor government is encouraging inefficiencies in student unions, a fact noted by a former president of the Australian National University Students Association, who stated:

… organisations which depend on the funds—

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

Mr Sidebottom interjecting

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

I will start again because I am sure the member for Braddon did not hear.

… organisations which depend on the funds of people who are there, by virtue of compulsion, tend to become lethargic … It is almost invariably tied up with security in the source of funding—the knowledge that, no matter how badly they do, there will still be a pay cheque there for people who run the organisation ...

This was in a report to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, as a footnote.

Labor’s broken promise on this issue is almost unbelievable. It is yet another broken promise by the Labor government. The previous shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith, the member for Perth, said this in May 2007 when questioned:

... I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

So there he went, on the record. The Labor Party said this before the election but did something else afterwards.

Other members opposite, such as the member for Wills and the member for Melbourne concurred, stating that they would not be increasing the financial burden of our students. This bill does the complete opposite. It seeks to introduce a compulsory payment for non-academic services through the imposition of a deferred fee. Imposing an extra burden on the students at a time of economic uncertainty is surely not in the best interests of Australian students.

In conclusion, I say that the purpose of this bill is simply to introduce compulsory student unionism by stealth, by denying students their fundamental right to freedom of choice on campus. As I have said before, it is the students—not the government, universities nor student unions—who are in the best position to determine their financial priorities. This bill will deny students a real choice on campus and will force them to fund activities which they may not need or want. I will return to Hal Colebatch’s article. In his last paragraph he says:

The ALP and the Left would not have fought so hard against voluntary student membership and pushed so hard for compulsory fees to be restored if they did not believe that their ideological allies on campus would benefit very substantially and student guilds would revert to their former roles as cadre-generating institutions for the Left.

It is a very succinct point which I am sure those opposite will not agree with.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in speaking against this bill. I want to dedicate my contribution on this bill to Jess Finlay and her colleagues, who have gone through the universities of Western Australia and fought hard for many years to see freedom of choice in universities and freedom of association. This bill is a reversion to the dark old days of compulsion, coercion and the ability to garnish favour with students on universities. I recall that there is a song—I wish I could remember its name—that starts, ‘throwing stones at the embassy’. I wish I could remember the rest of the title because it really explains what these activities are trying to generate in the universities of Australia.

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

It is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the member for Canning. I know that if those opposite are citing the Australian newspaper on any legislation that we are putting up then we are on a winner. I am very pleased indeed to speak on what is a hoary ideological chestnut for many opposite in this House. A number of them have memories that flow way back to the 1970s and 1980s—particularly the member for Higgins and the younger acolyte, the member for Indi. It is surely a hoary ideological chestnut for them.

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

Mr Randall interjecting

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

Is he asking for something? Like nearly all our legislation, this important bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, is the result of an election commitment, and I rise to speak in support of it. Like so many other pieces of legislation before the current parliament, it seeks to restore a balance, a balance between what was taken away during the Howard era and what existed before, but seeks to do this in a contemporary way. This time we are putting some balance back into the tertiary education system, and accompanying services, after it was hacked at by the previous government in what was really a poorly disguised attack on what they perceived as a political threat to their future on campuses around Australia. What made it doubly troublesome was that this was combined with attempts to stifle the ability of the young to vote in the last election, in the form of the electoral integrity legislation. Through their attack on student unions and the introduction of voluntary student unionism they threw the baby out with the bath water—as they so often did. We want to restore the balance.

Contrary to what the member for Canning said before me, the evidence suggests that the past legislation stripped nearly $170 million from university funding and left universities struggling to cover many valuable and vital services to the students whom the previous government claimed to represent. I would like to share some of those examples that were so conveniently omitted by the member for Canning. For instance, dental services at La Trobe University and Southern Cross University were closed down completely. The University of Technology, Sydney, La Trobe University and James Cook University had to close their legal services. In the case of the University of Technology, Sydney, this affected not only the students but also the local community, who were also able to access the service. The emergency loans scheme once offered at the University of Sydney has now closed, and at least three universities shut down their Centrelink advice services. Nine universities, I understand, shut down their student legal and/or taxation advice services, childcare fees at La Trobe University rose by $800 a year and direct funding for sporting clubs was cut by something like 40 per cent—and so on; the examples go on.

This is not about forcing the hand of students but about providing better services for them across the board in their student days. The ultimate aim is to allow them to complete their studies and become productive and valued members of our society with the knowledge they gain during that time.

But students are more than just in-class, in-lecture consumers. They require services to support and complement their studies, particularly those who come from regional areas. While it is a few years since I graced the halls as a full-time student—I must admit it was only two years ago that I was doing off-campus study for two years—I do have some more intimate knowledge, as I know those opposite have as well, of current student life, with my two sons both engaged in university studies. Through their experiences in recent years, it has become more evident to me just how vital support services are for the student of today, contrary to the claims of those opposite. We are not talking about glamorous and extravagant services but about crucial support such as health, counselling, employment, child care and welfare support. Due to the heavy-handed nature of the former government, some of these have been in decline or even closed, as I just mentioned.

Contrary to what the member for Canning said, this bill allows higher education providers to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee capped at $250 per student, indexed annually, to help provide student services and amenities. I reiterate: it allows higher education providers to choose to implement such a fee. It does not say they must do so—contrary to the mischievous comments by the member for Canning.

Contrary to the claims of those opposite, the changes introduced with voluntary student unionism have not reduced costs; they have merely shifted those costs at universities. Evidence demonstrates that students have been hit with increased costs for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport, food and so on. They are also indirectly affecting academic achievements, with a number of universities forced to redirect, on their own account, funding out of research and teaching budgets to cross-subsidise and fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut.

The new fee, if introduced—and I reiterate ‘if introduced’—comes with some room to move. So as not to introduce a financial barrier, eligible students will have the option of a HECS style loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP. The fee will be indexed along with other loan programs. As is currently the case, international full-fee-paying students will have to pay for services and amenities as part of accessing the courses they require, should that be introduced by the campus they are studying at.

Allowance will also be made for students who are not studying on a full-time basis. The bill will also help to address the skills crisis with the VET FEE-HELP scheme, which I have not heard mentioned by many opposite at all. It will help to turn around the sharp decline in students studying for diplomas and advanced diplomas in the public system. The number of students in these types of courses fell from 197,300 in 2002 to 165,900 in 2007. That is something we just cannot afford when skills shortages still prove to be, even in our declining economic circumstances, one of the biggest impediments to business in so many sectors. The system will help to assist students who may not be able to study at this level due to upfront fees, allowing them to defer the fees until they are able to pay. The amendment provides more flexibility to reduce the loan fee for particular students and streamline credit transfer requirements for a range of students.

Contrary to the comments from many opposite, and particularly the member for Canning, this bill is not about a return to compulsory student unionism. Section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which prohibits a provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation, is unchanged. I reiterate: it is unchanged. We knew that there would be scaremongering about support for political activities on campus, but the amendment is very clear on this point. I find this interesting, given that the member for Indi, not unsurprisingly, has carried out a scare campaign in relation to this legislation, mainly driven by ideological motivations. I do not know what happened to the member for Indi at university, but her campaign has been to the point of obsession, matched only by the member for Higgins.

I would like to reiterate that the new provisions prohibit the fee from being spent by a higher education provider on support for a political party or a candidate for election to the Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments or local government. This restriction also applies to any person or organisation which receives any of the fee revenue. So we are not harking back to the old days when, as the member for Canning reminded us, there was tremendous warfare on the campuses, with support for the PLO. I remember all that. They were my university days. Universities are very different today. I do not think that they are ideologically driven mad by causes like that. Nor do I expect to see these fees, if they are implemented, used for anything like that. That is prohibited under the legislation. So I do not know what this ideological madness is all about. I think that was the first speech made by the member for Higgins on legislation in this parliament since he was re-elected. I suppose if you were ideologically mad in the past something could stir that, and that is what drove him to his feet. None of us were any more edified when he had finished.

I note that the National Tertiary Education Union has welcomed the bill as the first step in the vital process of rebuilding student culture on university campuses. I notice the mumbling over on the other side. As soon as you mention a union they say, ‘Well, what do you expect? They’re going to get their hands on it and crush any right-wing movement that could occur at that campus, particularly the Liberals and the Nationals.’ But, anyway, back to common sense and reality, the National Tertiary Education Union, which actually does represent many thousands of students, has welcomed the bill as:

… the first step in the vital process of rebuilding student culture on university campuses, devastated by the effects of the former Coalition Government’s Voluntary Student Union (VSU) legislation.

The NTEU president, Dr Carolyn Allport, said recently:

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 almost every university in the country.

If we take that at face value, that is a pretty sad legacy from the former government’s legislation—a pretty sad legacy. Dr Allport also said:

It is a fact that the introduction of VSU has seen the demise of a number of elected student organisations, with many others only just surviving. As a result, many universities have been forced to redirect funding from their core duties of teaching and research to help support student services, often at a reduced level.

And she further stated:

We welcome measures that will not only guarantee the appropriate and equitable funding of these services, but also ensure university students have democratically elected representative bodies that participate in the governance and provision of student-oriented services and activities at our universities.

The protocols and guidelines that will accompany this legislation as a legislative instrument, which will be presented to this parliament soon, are an attempt to be more prescriptive about how student services and amenities fees are to be used and also more prescriptive about delivering national access and service benchmarks on services and information that is going to be presented to students. They will also outline a guideline or protocol for representation and advocacy by students. So this is not willy-nilly stuff, a carte blanche use of fees for whatever purposes. There is no compulsion for people to join a union, and the protocols will be clearly set out in the legislation to follow as a disallowable instrument.

The member for Canning again mischievously asked how one could take the government on face value or trust the government with this. Well, it is a disallowable instrument; it will be discussed in the parliament. Those opposite, as should be the case, will have the right to debate it and vote against it or for it—whatever the case may be. I have a feeling it may be against. I do not know why I have that feeling, because I am not a born cynic, but anyway, these things happen—I can see them having some ideological problem with it somewhere. Going back to Dr Allport, if I may, she said:

NTEU looks forward to working closely with Minister Ellis—

and I do congratulate her on this balanced legislation—

in her consultation with the sector over the important Guidelines and Protocols—

which I just mentioned—

that will ensure independent student representation, participation and student services are returned to all university campuses—

if they avail themselves of the opportunity to present to their students these fees.

Universities Australia, the peak body for the university sector, has also backed the move, and late last year was looking towards a positive future. I know that those opposite would like me to share some of those comments with them. Universities Australia chief executive, Dr Glenn Withers, said:

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

Dr Withers said:

Universities are facing an uncertain year, where many transition arrangements are in place or expected, and investment and international revenue sources are under challenge, so this announcement comes at a time when all Australian universities require greater certainty about how they plan expenditure for 2009. Knowing how student services and amenities can be funded will contribute to financial planning.

Dr Withers went on to say:

Universities Australia supports the move to allow Australian universities to make the choice—

and I reiterate ‘to make the choice’—

… to levy students for a service and amenities fee, and at what level within the indexed cap, and will seek in consultation with the Government to ensure that universities have the flexibility to tailor those services and amenities to best match individual missions, and the needs of their particular student profile.

So, if I may, I would like to reinforce a few points. This legislation is balanced legislation. It is something that we promised in the election campaign and, as with most of the legislation that we have introduced into this House, we are honouring that election commitment. This legislation gives the universities the opportunity to introduce a capped fee—not a willy-nilly fee, but a capped fee—to introduce important student amenities and services. It will be complemented by a legislative instrument which sets out protocols and guidelines in terms of advocacy, representation, student services and amenities and which also benchmarks those services and information services that universities will be required to give if they are receiving taxpayers’ funds for their students.

It is designed absolutely to support students, to make services available to them and to better service them at a very important time in their learning experiences. Contrary to the statements made by the member for Indi in her ideological diatribe against this very balanced legislation, this is not reimposing a compulsory fee, and her claim that the legislation will allow the funds to be used for student representation and thus for political activities of student unions, funded by all students whether they like it or not, is exactly the opposite not only of what this legislation intends but of what is clearly set out—and I find it disturbing that when trying to have a debate in this House you have absolute, deliberate distortion of the intention of a bill by the member for Indi in particular and, of course, by the member for Higgins.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

It being approximately 6.40 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.