Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could just recap the long debate on this bill thus far. I know the minister will be very helpful as we traverse these important issues. You will recall that earlier today my colleagues canvassed an issue in relation to the phrase 'welfare of students' in subsection (4) of section 19-38—that is, whether in fact money spent on the welfare of students could include a political cause. The reason this debate commenced more than 35 years ago, in the mid-seventies, was that student unions said they were acting on behalf of the welfare of students. You may recall that they used student money to fund all sorts of activities under the guise of the welfare of students.

And it was not just about the health of students. In those days it even involved direct political activity. I know that has been banned by this bill; I accept what the minister said earlier today. But, as far as I can tell, it does not stop the advocacy of a political cause under the rubric of 'welfare of students'. One example might be my rights at work. Another might be a campaign to stop the carbon tax. Again, that could be debated and money could be spent under the rubric of 'welfare of students'.

This entire debate, since the mid-1970s, has caused so much tension. As my friend Senator Cormann said earlier today, as indeed did Senator Ronaldson, we have no objection to political causes being debated on campus—none at all. None of us in the opposition has any problems with that. What we object to strenuously is the money of students being used to advocate political causes that those students do not believe in. That is what we argue about. We will argue about it today, tomorrow, next week and forever, because we do not believe it is appropriate.

Back in the early 1980s, when I was at university, the problem I had was that my money was used by student unions to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation. That clearly is not a political party per se, but it is an organisation that even then, in my tender years, I could not support. I loathed the fact that student bodies at the Australian National University, where I was a student, were supporting the PLO. I objected to that so strongly then, and I still do now. Indeed, it was one of the major reasons I joined the Liberal club on campus. It made me into the fearsome right winger I am today. If it had not been for people spending my money supporting the PLO, who knows what would have happened? And I would not be wearing a pink shirt today!

I objected strongly, and that is a matter of principle. In fact, for all coalition senators who have spoken on this bill it is a matter of principle. Sure, the $250 is difficult for some students; that is true. But it is about more than just the money. Senator Ryan spoke about this eloquently, as always. It is a matter of principle and freedom of association. We on this side simply do not believe our money should be spent on political causes we do not believe in. The PLO was the one I objected to so strongly 30 years ago. So my question to the minister is very clear. Is it possible that, under the rubric of welfare of students, a political cause could be promoted by student bodies? That is a question I would like a direct answer to.

Progress reported.