Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3047:

(1) Schedule 2, page 29 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A At the end of subsection 19-38(1)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

1B At the end of subsection 19-38(2)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

I want to make a couple of important points. The coalition did seek to remove from the bill the requirement that 40 per cent of the student support and amenities fee be allocated to student led organisations. We did seek to remove that from the bill, and that was not successful. We would ask the Senate to support this amendment because we are proposing, with this amendment, an important safeguard to prohibit the use of student support and amenities fee funds, SSAF funds, for student elections, student protests or protest related activities, because what we want to ensure is that these very valuable resources directly benefit student welfare and essential services.

I am concerned that the government may vote against this amendment, and I really do not understand the basis for that, because this is very much an ideologically driven provision in the first place. It also overlooks critical concerns of the universities about not just the misuse of funds but also the incapacity of some student led organisations to appropriately deliver critical services to students. Without this amendment being passed by the Senate, without these important safeguards, we face a situation where these funds could be used for improper purposes.

We have seen on university campuses, since 7 October 2023, horrific levels of antisemitism, shocking protests and shocking behaviour. The thought that moneys from students were being directed to student led organisations for the purposes of improper activities, including antisemitic activities, is frankly abhorrent. We don't believe that this should be permitted, and not just in relation to antisemitism but in relation to any sort of protest activity. These funds need to be safeguarded for the important purpose for which they are being paid by all students, and that is to ensure that student needs are properly supported—important needs like health care, mental health support, legal support and other services on campus that students will call upon.

I do want to add, in relation to this provision in the bill generally, that Universities Australia recommended that 'changes to how the SAFF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by UA members'. Charles Sturt University indicated that it could not support the SAFF changes without further amendments and argued that the model 'may not be workable for regional and/or multicampus institutions, or those with a high proportion of part-time or online students'.

The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton said:

The general issue raised by a fixed allocation of funds to third-party organisations is how this intersects with the legal obligations of universities regarding services of a non-academic nature. Specifically, if the university relies on student-run organisations over which it has limited direct control, is it risking non-compliance with other statutory requirements?

Let's not forget that we're talking about a very substantial amount of money here. In 2023, more than $278 million in student services and amenities fees funds were collected by 44 providers, and the Department of Education's submission to our inquiry into this bill noted that more than $110 million of this amount was allocated by providers to student led organisations.

The issue is that universities are being robbed of the ability to ensure that these funds are directed appropriately so that, if some of these funds are provided to student led organisations, they have the capacity to provide these services. I do note that, for smaller and regional unis, this is a particular challenge. They don't have very large student led unions and other organisations like the bigger universities. But, then again, this is not surprising from the government, because we've seen the government, in the ESOS bill, back-in the big end of town and back-in the G8 universities at the expense of the regional and smaller universities. Now the threats that the government is making in relation to the ongoing use of Ministerial Direction 107 will compound that shocking unfairness and disadvantage. We know what happened this year as a result of MD 107 and how much regional universities suffered.

As I say, this is an important and sensible amendment. It safeguards the funds for the purposes for which they are intended. It doesn't fuel or fund any sort of protest activity on campus, and, as we have seen, the coalition is deeply concerned about the gross mismanagement of antisemitic protests on university campuses since October 2023 and, frankly, the weakness of leadership we have seen from this government. We call on the Senate to back this amendment.