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

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth. What are the consequences of the Senate’s decision on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. As the House would be aware, yesterday the Senate vote on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 was tied at 34 votes apiece, ensuring, of course, the defeat of the bill.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As those opposite, as if on cue, show the sort of ideological extremism that we have seen from them all through this debate, I remind the House that this debate was not about a continuation of the battles of the past that those opposite have engaged in for so long. This was about providing a practical, balanced and new way forward to ensure that our students had the services and representation that they needed and that our higher education sector was well supported. Whilst those opposite get all excited, I think we should all reflect on the fact that there are serious consequences of yesterday’s decision.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Michael Spence, described yesterday’s outcome as ‘a major blow which will have a devastating effect on students’. As a consequence of yesterday’s decision, we will see the further demise of critical university services, including child care, counselling, health and sport. As University Australia chief, Dr Glenn Withers, said yesterday—and those opposite might want to listen to this:

Students most in need will suffer the most from the failure of this legislation to pass the Senate. Without proper support for student-sensitive services such as advocacy, counselling, health, and legal support, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable to dropping out of university studies should they face significant up-front costs in accessing these services …

We also know that as a consequence of this decision some universities will struggle to provide the support services which are necessary to both attract and retain the overseas students that we know are so vital to our higher education sector and our broader economy.

We will also see the continued movement of funds out of teaching and research budgets and into propping up student services which are vital to the university. This is a point made not just by me and not just by government members but by the Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, Professor Ian Chubb, and Professor Stephen Parker, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra. They said yesterday that without the vital cash injection this legislation proposes, Australian universities will continue to face an impossible choice between putting money into labs and classrooms or into sports fields and health facilities. While those opposite might choose to celebrate this devastation of our university sector—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While those opposite might find it funny, the one thing that we can say for the Liberal Party on this is that they have been consistent. The Liberal Party have been consistent in being completely blinded, all through this debate, by the sort of extremism that brought about Work Choices. We have seen that. But what is particularly interesting about this debate, and what I think we should focus on today, is the role that the National Party have played in this—in blatantly selling out the interests of the bush once more. It is particularly interesting on a day when we have seen them rise in this place and claim to care about the plight of regional students. Let us consider this. It is well established that regional campuses have been the hardest hit by this legislation. We know this. I refer to Professor Sandra Harding, Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University, who said that the current approach has ‘hit regional campuses particularly hard, as there is no metropolitan area providing readily available alternative services’.

We also know that the support services offered at regional universities create much-needed jobs. But it is not just the vice-chancellors and it is not just the government who say that it is regional universities that are being hit the hardest; it is the National Party themselves. Perhaps I should quote the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, who said on this matter as recently as November, ‘VSU has been a fiasco for regional universities.’ So I say to those opposite: you like to stand up in here, you like to talk and move motions in the morning, but yesterday you had your chance to stand up for regional students and you squibbed it. Yesterday we saw that the Liberal Party were once again guided by their extreme ideology. The National Party once again said one thing in the bush and did another thing when they were here in the parliament. But I can assure everyone that we on this side, we in the government, remain absolutely committed to restoring services and amenities to our campuses to ensure that we have world-class universities that are capable of attracting overseas students, and we will continue to find a way forward for our higher education sector.