Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I join my colleagues in rising to address the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. I welcome the opportunity to speak about something that I feel so strongly about. This attempt by the Gillard government to restore compulsory student union fees simply cannot be supported and should be condemned. It is a restriction on the freedom of Australia's one million university students and typical of many a bill introduced into this parliament by this government. It is not in the interests of all students and does not truly consider the universities themselves. It is a blatant attempt to reimpose a pointless tax on those who can least afford it. It is an imposition on students entirely in breach of the ALP's pre-election promise—yet another broken promise. This tax would raise about $250 million across 38 Australian universities.

Students have the right to keep their money and the right to choose how they spend it. The government does not have the right to dictate to students how they should spend their money and it should not abuse a right to take away the freedom of choice that students all should have. The bill is not in the interests of all students, nor are all students interested in this bill. Medical and counselling services are available in some form at nearly every university and yet they are services that we have heard about quite frequently during this debate. Nearly all medical services offer bulk-billing, while counselling is typically free at universities. Universities are part of the community—and, in many ways, they are the community in which these students enjoy and live their lives. They provide an opportunity for students to enjoy sporting facilities, to participate in social clubs, to develop networks of friends—if they choose to do so. But their purpose, their reason for being, is to be institutions of education. They are not social clubs. They are not unions. They do not exist to provide social services that should be provided to all members of the community. They do not exist to be a source of funds for the Australian Labor Party—shock, horror! No, they are not there as a source of funds for the ALP. Shouldn't the vital services of child care, health care, counselling and sporting facilities be available for the entire community, not specialised services for university students?

We have heard from senators on the other side of the chamber that, in some cases, services have collapsed. If they have collapsed then it does beg the question: why have they done so? Is it because they are unwanted or poorly managed by the compulsory student unions? Or have they been replaced by the public sector, university or the government? Where are these students who are asking for their money to be forcibly taken from them? I have not met one student who wants to see the reintroduction of mandated taxes on students—not one.

The government may be shocked to learn that my constituents are capable of handling their own funds, of choosing how to spend their own money; but I can assure the government that they wish to have the opportunity to do just that. Their concerns are more about making 20 bucks last a weekend, how to manage one or more jobs and juggle them with their studies. They are not asking for their money to be taken away from them.

In the Liberal Party we strongly believe in freedom of association. In fact, it is a fundamental core belief of our party and a vital part of our party platform. Freedom of association is integral to forming the next generation. It is the role of government to guide this formation, not to dictate from ivory towers far away from the realities of university life. Sadly, the latter is exactly what the government hoped to do. It is on an ideological page where this issue stands. This is a government with only two fundamental beliefs, and we have seen them played out since the election last year: taxes and unions. The people of Australia are fed up with it, and we on this side of the chamber intend to hold the government, those sitting on the other side of the chamber, to account on it.

Australia's love affair with the union movement, if it ever existed, is over. We have only recently seen how members of the Health Services Union have either left or threatened to leave the union because they are sick and tired of their grocery money being spent by the management. Students long ago recognised that they were the best people to decide how to spend their own money and how to spend their $250. It is not the role of government to rip that money from the pockets of the poorest members of society and to throw it away on committees, clubs, social events, Labor party funding and heaven knows what else. In fact, Australians are not asking for more taxes. They are not asking for higher taxes. They are not asking for more government interference. They want to know that their money is theirs and that they have a right and a reasonable expectation that they can determine how to spend it.

But this government seems to be increasingly obsessed with stealing hard-earned money away from the public. This government's idea of managing the economy is really pretty simple: to increase taxes, to introduce new taxes and to reintroduce old taxes to pay for their incompetence, be it the carbon tax, the mining tax or student union fees. We should just call it what it is: a student tax. Let's not call them student union fees: it is a student tax, a tax on students. This government is addicted to spending other people's money. And now that its coffers are empty it can only see one solution, and that is to tax Australians to oblivion. What will be the next tax that this government announces? Will it be a tax on pensioners, children or the homeless? If Senator Brown had his way we know that we would have a death tax, and if Senator Rhiannon had her way we know that there would be the introduction of a wealth tax.

On Thursday, 21 August 2008 former part-time education minister Julia Gillard said that the government was considering how it should tackle the problem of declining student services—'but compulsory union fees are not on the agenda,' she said. Ms Gillard said in a statement:

The Rudd government is committed to ensuring university students have access to vital campus services, including child care, healthcare, counselling and sporting facilities …

She concluded:

… but we are not considering a return to compulsory student union fees—

Only three months after these comments the then Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis, announced that the former Rudd government would introduce a bill to charge university students a compulsory fee, to a maximum of $250.

The arguments against this bill, which was defeated in 2008, have not changed. The coalition, unlike the government, do not change their position on these things; they do not take one position to an election and change their minds afterwards. The Gillard government has learnt nothing from its previous defeats: the defeat of compulsory student unionism and the defeat of its reintroduction. There is no public appetite for compulsory unions or more taxes—in particular, a tax on students.

So what does a student tax mean in real terms? To some members the sum of $250 may seem inconsequential. But I can assure the Senate that to some students it can mean the difference between three decent meals a day or one. So students who can little afford the essentials are being compelled to pay for others. And what about those students who are studying off campus or online at significant distances from university campuses? What about those students who will not use services such as child care or counselling? Why should they have to subsidise others?