Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 for the following purposes: to allow higher education providers to impose an annual capped compulsory student services and amenities fee of $250 from 1 July 2009, and to establish the Higher Education Loan Program to enable eligible students to access a loan for the fee and for a range of associated issues. One might say, when looking at that purpose, that it is fairly innocuous at first glance. However, having studied the bill and listened to the Labor rhetoric surrounding the bill, two questions immediately come to mind. The first is: when is a tax not a tax? That is when it is introduced by the Labor Party. And the second is: when is a promise not a promise? Once again, when it is made by the Labor Party, particularly in the context of the 2007 election.

At the 2007 election the Labor Party told the people of Australia a number of things. One of the things that it told the people of Australia was that it would not—I repeat: would not—introduce what it likes to refer as an amenities fee but what is a compulsory student tax by any other name. What did the then shadow minister for education and now Minister for Foreign Affairs say?

I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach.

Then he went on to reconfirm:

So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

That was in May 2007, five months prior to the election being called. What was it? It was a clear and unambiguous Labor promise not to introduce a compulsory amenities fee. This, of course, has been the Labor Party’s position for many, many years now. If we go back to 2003 what do we have? The now Minister for Finance and Deregulation referring to the disincentive effect of individual economic burdens—that is, amenities fees and compulsory student taxes—being imposed on university students. What did he say back then?

People from poorer backgrounds, people from country Australia and people less able to finance their own education and to take risks for their future will be deterred.

But it does not stop there. In August 2008, 12 months ago, we had the Deputy Prime Minister saying to the people of Australia:

We promised before the election that we would not return to compulsory student unionism …

What do we have, once again, with this legislation? Labor is again proving to the people of Australia that it is prepared to tell them one thing to win an election but, when it comes time to actually introducing the legislation, it does something entirely different. The statements that I have referred to are quite simply broken promises on the part of the Labor Party to the people of Australia. Why? Because Mr Tanner, Mr Smith and the Deputy Prime Minister, despite their very strong on-the-record statements, have now voted along with the rest of the Labor Party to impose this insidious and inequitable tax on students. The funny thing is that the Labor Party actually recognises that this is a financial burden on students, so much so that it has been forced to create an additional loan facility in the HECS system so that students can actually afford to pay the tax. To quote the then Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport in her speech in reply in the second reading debate on this bill:

To ensure that the fee is not a financial barrier, any university introducing the fee must also provide eligible students with the option of taking a HECS style loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program …

What the minister is actually saying to the students they are about to tax is: ‘Actually, it is a financial barrier and we recognise that you actually have to go into further debt to pay this tax, so will set up a system whereby you can take a loan to pay off the debt that we are making you incur.’ The list goes on when it comes to Labor rhetoric. Back in 2003 the member for Wills said:

But there is good news, because Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students and their families.

There is no good news in this bill. It is a tax slug on students of $250. Despite what all of the Labor members promised in the past, all of them voted to place this additional tax burden on students. The Labor Party can describe it any way it likes—as a compulsory fee or an amenities fee—but when it comes down to it, it is a tax on students, nothing more, nothing less. It is more spin over substance. The spin, of course, started long ago prior to the 2007 election. What we had then was the Labor Party standing up and feeding to the people of Australia the line that it was not going to impose on students a compulsory amenities fee. But the facts now evidenced in writing by this bill—it is in the legislation before us—is that the Labor Party, despite its promise, always intended to slug students with a $250 tax. This bill represents just another broken promise by the Labor Party.

One of the most disappointing statements I have read in a long time is Kevin Rudd labelling the level of student debt in this country ‘a national disgrace’. Yet he is the one who has let one of his ministers off the leash to actually impose this tax on students. Then again, you expect nothing less from the Prime Minister of Australia because, after all, he told the people of Australia he was an economic conservative.

The coalition oppose this bill for a number of reasons, one of them being that we do not believe that students should be forced to pay for services which they just will not be able to use. Changing demographics and culture mean that students today basically just do not have the time, the inclination or even the opportunity to use the services offered. The Bradley review commissioned by the government said at page 49:

In 2006 nearly 71 per cent of full-time domestic undergraduate students reported working during semester. On average these students were working about 15 hours per week. One in six of the full-time undergraduate students who was working during the semester were working more than 20 hours per week.

Despite the findings of the Bradley review, this government still refuses to see reason. What we are presented with in this legislation is a situation whereby every one of the one million Australian students will be forced to pay $250 regardless of their ability to pay and regardless of their ability to actually utilise the services the fees will be financing. But that is not the most insidious part of this bill. Perhaps the most insidious part of this legislation is that it is compulsory student unionism by stealth. Taxing students is bad enough, but to take away their freedom not to join an association is an absolute disgrace.

Regardless of what those on the other side say, when you bother to sit down and analyse this legislation you will see that this bill in effect attempts to reintroduce a compulsory fee, which would in turn fund the activities of student unions. In introducing this legislation into the other place, the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, in her second reading speech, said, ‘This bill is not compulsory student unionism.’ This is wherein the problem lies. The Labor Party have a history of saying one thing on this matter and then doing the complete opposite. The people of Australia, the students of Australia, should therefore be very concerned when the relevant minister says, ‘This bill is not compulsory student unionism.’ Based on the Labor Party’s history in this matter, and having regard to the tricky and devious way they use semantics to shroud their real intentions, it is very likely that, if nothing else, this bill represents a Clayton’s form of compulsory student unionism.

On the face of it, there is nothing remarkable about this bill. It provides universities with the option to implement a services fee from 1 July 2009, capped at $250 per year, to invest in quality support and advocacy services in consultation with the students at the higher education facility. Guidelines to limit what the funds may be spent on, a HECS style loan facility for students to fund the legislation and a clause preventing the funds being spent on political parties or election campaigns all seem to be reasonable provisions at first instance.

However, as with much of the legislation put forward by the Rudd Labor government, the devil is in the detail. On closer examination of this piece of legislation, the provisions fail even the most cursory test of impartiality and accountability. Take, for example, the student services and amenity fee guidelines. These are the guidelines which actually set out what the tax can be used to fund. The explanatory memorandum on this bill states that the guidelines are made by the minister under a section of the act. This effectively means that the Deputy Prime Minister, a committed advocate of compulsory student unionism and a former President of the National Union of Students, will be the sole decision maker of what student services and amenities these funds can be spent on. That is not impartiality. So much for parliamentary scrutiny of the actual detail of the legislation. In reality, Labor is really getting the parliament to agree with a broad head of power which has a broad scope and then, once the bill becomes an act, the Deputy Prime Minister, the committed advocate of compulsory student unionism, has the capacity to determine whatever guidelines she deems appropriate within the scope of the new act.

The second provision, a HECS style loan facility for students, does appear at first to be reasonable. Unfortunately for the students of Australia, this provision actually admits by omission that the new fees are predicted to require students to seek additional borrowings to cover this substantial new tax slug. Quite simply, if this tax slug—this so-called amenities fee—was not going to have an effect on students, you would not have to introduce a HECS style loan fee.

Finally, we come to the most cunning and perhaps the most insidious aspect of this legislation, new section 19(1), which in the words of the explanatory memorandum:

…prevents a provider from spending an amount paid to them to support a political party or the election of a person as a member of the legislature of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or a local government body.

Once again, at face value, this statement seems to put to bed the common complaints about student guilds using compulsorily levied fees to fund political action—one might even say ‘sound policy’. It would be if it bore any relevance to the actual political actions that student unions take, a fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Ellis know well. Student guilds or unions, for those who do not know how they behave, target individual issues and run politically motivated campaigns against parties or groups. Nothing in this legislation prevents them from still doing this. In fact, if we look at the revised student services and amenities fee guidelines from May 2009, there are some distinct areas of grey. It states:

Allowable uses of the fee in relation to services and amenities may include the categories listed below. In all cases the purposes would include but not be limited to ...

What does ‘but not be limited to’ mean? It states:

... but not be limited to the direct provision of the service or amenity.

Then we have a look at some of the prescribed items: ‘visual arts, performing arts and audio visual media’. It states:

Relating to support for student visual and performing arts and audio visual media activities.

What does that mean? I will tell you what it means. It means that this could include a full media campaign, including radio, television, newspaper and internet advertising, to push an agenda which the majority of students do not agree with. Certainly, some would argue that the campaign for compulsory student unionism would fall into that category. What is worse is that there appears to be nothing in this legislation preventing student unions from using the fees, for example, in an approved way under these guidelines—say, to fund the university cafeteria but then using the profits gained from running the cafeteria to fund activities explicitly disallowed by this legislation. Call it what you will—a form of political trickery, money-laundering and a loophole which the minister is completely aware of—but I highly doubt the Rudd government is going to change.

The coalition opposes this legislation. The Australian people and Australian students are not fools, despite the fact that the Rudd government treats them as if they are. They have in place before them a bill which Minister Ellis swears is not compulsory student unionism but which is entirely reliant on universities and student unions—both in favour of compulsory unionism. It is a bill which has guidelines that will be solely determined by a minister who is a committed advocate of compulsory student unionism. The legislation has, for all intents and purposes, a fee structure which, much like previous versions of similar legislation, looks exactly like compulsory student unionism.

This legislation is compulsory student unionism by another name. Perhaps that is why the Deputy Prime Minister, the cabinet minister responsible for education, did not bring the legislation on, herself, in the other place. Perhaps she would have had a hard time keeping a straight face when she said that this bill is not a return to compulsory student unionism.

Unlike those on the other side, the Liberal Party will continue to stand up for the rights of university students and expose the hypocrisy of the Rudd government, which is yet again breaking an election promise to the people of Australia. Freedom of association, including the freedom not to join an association, remains one of the Liberal Party’s core beliefs. The Liberal Party wants university students to succeed, because when our students succeed we as a country succeed in this competitive global environment. The last thing that students need in this economic environment is an additional financial burden being imposed on them.

It is acknowledged by those on the other side—it is acknowledged in this legislation—that this is an additional financial burden. I say to those on the other side, ‘Do not crucify our students to advance your own cheap political agenda.’ Unnecessarily taxing students is bad policy. It is bad for this country. The bill should be opposed.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In opening my comments on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 I might indicate to the Senate and particularly to the speakers following that I intend to be mercifully brief. Given the hoarseness of my voice, I am intent on preserving it for debates at a later hour. So, having flagged that, I hope the following speakers will be ready.

I would like to cut to the chase. The primary purpose of this bill is to charge students $250 more every year they are at university; it is to charge them $250 more every year for services that they may not want, need nor ever access. There are, it is estimated, 130,000 external students who will be required to pay $250 more, every year of their university education, for facilities and services that they cannot access because they are external students.

It beggars belief that this can be described in any other way than compulsory unionism—because that is precisely what it is. It is a return to the dark old days where everyone had to pay for the indulgence of the unions on campus. It is an indulgence that students simply cannot afford any longer. It is an indulgence that the coalition and the Howard government removed because students did not want it. They could not afford it and it was of no meaningful benefit to campus life.

How can I say that? Well, I spend a fair bit of time on university campuses talking to young people about their future directions, hopefully trying to explain to them the benefits of our democratic system and why they should get involved in it. When I say ‘hopefully’ I mean that I hope that they get some benefit out of it. I have asked students on the Left, the Right and in the middle of the political spectrum and I have asked people who have no political affiliation at all whether campus life has suffered since they have not been forced to pay a student fee. The answer has always been: ‘No, it hasn’t. If we want to participate in a particular endeavour, if we want to join a club or a society, we are asked to pay a participation fee.’ It seems eminently sensible and fair. It seems to have worked particularly well.

Of course, there will be people that will say that my interpretation of this is incorrect. They would say that because they are the people who support compulsory student unionism and compulsory student amenities fees—which is just compulsory unionism dressed up under another name. I am yet to hear a university student say, ‘I’m not going to attend university because they do not have the social and creative outlets that I want there.’ A university is meant to be a place of higher learning. It is meant to be a place where you broaden your experiences and you learn to become an independent adult operating in the world. It is not necessarily a place just for slush funds to divert money in support of non-conservative governments or to support left-wing student unionists. That is not what it is about. Sure, we accept that there is a hotbed of socialism in some of our universities, which many of us reject, but we should not be paying for them to pursue their left-wing tendencies. That is just commonsense. Of course the leftists amongst us have a different point of view.

What is of concern? A number of things are of concern, but one concern that I would like to specifically raise is that this is an imposition on students not just immediately but also later. Students, who are already struggling financially, have to tack this fee, which they cannot reject, onto their HECS. This flies in the face of the promises that were made by the Labor Party before they were in government. Like so many other promises that were misleading or have subsequently been denied, this is one that is going to have an impact on people’s lives for many, many years. I say that because in my office I have had the pleasure of working with a number of graduates from some of our university systems—clearly the ones that did not get infected with a dose of leftist politics. They have come along and worked, and each of them has talked to me about how difficult it is to pay back their HECS fees. They say, ‘Gee, we’d like to get a better start.’

I am one of the people that actually supported HECS when I was at university. It was introduced when I was at university and I supported it, and I still think it is a very important system for us. But to add an additional imposition is really beyond the pale, given how tough so many students are doing it. If you choose not to pay this money up-front, it will go onto your HECS debt and accumulate interest costs, and you will repay it when you graduate and you earn some money.

The question you have to ask is: what are students actually getting for that? What are they getting for incurring more long-term debt—debt that they will have to repay? The answer is: not much more than what they are getting now. So I have considered why Mr Rudd and the minister would be pursuing this if not only for ideological reasons. The conclusion I have to come to is that they probably want to claw back some of the cash that they splashed around earlier this year. On one hand, they are giving students $900, $1,800, $2,700 or however much money they can get according to their circumstances, and on the other hand they are saying, ‘Now you’ve got to give it back to us.’ This is called ‘churn’ in any language, and it is what this Labor government seem to be specialists in. They bask in the adoration they get for giving out free cash and then they try and take it back through sleazy, underhanded methods like this.

It is a great concern in an economy that is still in decline and where we have university students who are continuing to struggle—as they do, quite frankly, and have done for many, many years, but there are particular new pressures on them now. There is the declining availability of employment, the increasing household cost pressures and, of course, the increasing day-to-day living costs. And now there are, thanks to the Rudd Labor government, increasing costs attached to their education. This is an up-front bill that every student will have to pay. If they do not pay for it up-front, they will be paying for it every year for years after.

Frankly, this bill beggars belief in that it suspends common sense. Common sense would suggest that, where someone wants to use a facility or a service, they should pay a cost towards the requirements or the provision of that service. I think that would be reasonable to any normal, regular-thinking adult. But somehow it has been lost in the drafting of this bill. The Labor Party wants you to pay for services whether you use them or not. That is okay in some areas—we all pay through taxes for our defence forces and for our police, because we all get a community benefit from that. But I was always at a loss when I was at university as to the purpose of the Days of Our Lives club, which was funded by the university union, or some of the political organisations on campus, which were funded by the university union. There were a great many questions raised which still have not been answered.

Sure, the sporting organisations that made and continue to make such a big contribution to campus life were funded by the university fees. But, interestingly, in South Australia, the people I have spoken to are still participating in the Adelaide university rowing club, the Adelaide University Football Club and all manner of sporting organisation that go on around campus. Has there been a change in the way these services are delivered? Possibly, yes. Are they still in existence? The answer is yes. If they are popular, if people want to go to them, use them and participate in them, they continue to thrive. If people do not want to use them, why are you propping them up and putting that burden on every other student, whether they want to use it or not? These are the simple questions that the Labor Party have thus far been unable to answer.

I can see Senator Wortley gesturing that she is concerned about my throat. Senator Wortley, you know, some things are worth taking a bit of personal pain for to get the point across, and I have a great deal more to say about many other bills! But I will spare you any further pain and torture from your end, Senator Wortley.

In conclusion, I am concerned because this is compulsory unionism—I think that much is clear. It breaks very clearly the election promises made by the Rudd Labor government. How they can stand up and say with a straight face, ‘No, it doesn’t break our election commitments,’ is beyond me and, I am sure, beyond the pale for most sensible Australians. But it also attacks the very heart of people choosing what to do with their money. I do not actually believe in more taxes. I do not believe in government mandating that students have to participate in a particular thing or pay a particular levy for services that they may not ever use. Surely we live in a country where people can make the best possible choices about what to do with their money—particularly students, with the limited amount of funds available to them. Clearly the government does not think so, but I, and I know the coalition, think that in this instance, and in many other instances, the government has got it wrong.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my voice to those already heard on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This bill delivers on Labor’s commitment, made prior to the last election, to restore important services to those attending our universities, to ensure that their voices will be heard and to ensure that students have representation on campus. In delivering on this commitment, the Rudd Labor government will return fairness and confidence to the tertiary education sector—confidence that so markedly deteriorated under our predecessors, who neglected, downgraded and defunded this vital component of our national life and, indeed, of our economic and social future.

Before I look to that future and discuss the bill before us, I draw attention to the OECD’s report on higher education, released just one month before the last election. The OECD found that Australia’s spending on higher education remained well below the levels of other developed countries. And while spending from all sources in our universities was just above the OECD average, most came from private funds. Only Russia, Italy, Korea, Brazil and Chile spent less in public funds as a proportion of economic output on their institutions than Australia. It remains the case that in the decade from 1995 Australia was the only OECD country to effectively disinvest in the tertiary sector. Consider this: in its last term in office, the Howard government—clearly fuelled by ideological zeal—ripped $170 million from the tertiary level of our education system. This $170 million was ripped away from funding for student services and amenities.

Education is of paramount importance. As I have said in this place previously, a strong and appropriately resourced education sector is vital to Australia’s future, both locally and in terms of our international competitiveness. One of the cornerstones of our future wellbeing as a community and of our economic security now and in an increasingly uncertain global environment is undoubtedly investment in education. This government wants to see all students having access to the best all-round education we can provide. We want them to have access to services that will help them adjust to university life and succeed in their chosen career. We want them to have the opportunity to participate in the multitude of activities and to have access to resources such as employment, welfare and counselling services; child care; sporting clubs; cultural activities; social events; and many others. This is the opportunity that many of us in this place enjoyed at university. It is the opportunity to enable them to participate fully in the university community.

Introducing the bill in the other place, Minister Kate Ellis spoke of the very thorough consultations with students and their institutions that took place in 2008. Those consultations revealed very clearly that universities had to divert funds from budgets intended for research and teaching, shed services or staff, or restructure so as to provide essential services that would otherwise have been discontinued as a result of the changes. In many cases, regrettably, they were discontinued. Universities Australia, the peak body representing the university sector, submitted these very telling remarks:

Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation … to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s … Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation.

I draw your attention to the phrases ‘redress the damage’ and ‘essential services’. Many universities provided individual submissions on these matters. Many pointed to the fact that students were now less represented on committees and other governance structures, that their voices were no longer being heard and that the quality of their university experience was being compromised. This, combined with the significant loss of student services, had added significantly to the loss of community on university campuses.

The Australian Olympic Committee also made submissions, pointing out that, since the advent of VSU, fewer students were participating in campus sport, particularly women. As a consequence, the maintenance of facilities and the retention of world-class coaches were directly and negatively impacted; no doubt it has negative health consequences as well. In their remarks on the impact of VSU, Australian University Sport and the Australian Campus Union Managers Association said:

Prices charged to students for use of services and facilities have in general increased materially since the on-set of VSU…

These prices are outstripping, in most cases, the CPI. It has also placed greater financial pressure on students. In its summary report in April 2008, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations noted:

Most submissions concluded that the abolition of upfront compulsory student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and campuses.

The bill before us has a number of purposes. It is a bill to support students and their centres of learning and to set about repairing the damage that has been caused by the actions of the former coalition government. It requires universities to put into place national access-to-service benchmarks for all domestic students. It introduces national student representation and advocacy protocols that will make sure students have an opportunity to get involved in boards and committees that will make their views known. This is their democratic right. As well, the bill gives universities the option to put in place a fee of a maximum of $250 to allocate to high-quality student support and advocacy services. Students will be able to access a loan to meet this fee. The bill also acknowledges the role and the value of tertiary admissions centres and will give these centres a status and duty of care commensurate with that of higher education providers with regard to the processing of personal information.

One of the foundations upon which our economy is built is the skills base provided over many years by the vocational education and training sector. We all know that under the former government this sector was downgraded and neglected. In fact, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research tells us that the number of students training in this area fell by 16 per cent between 2002 and 2007. This is an indictment of the policies of the previous government and we bear the consequences by way of skills shortages. This bill will make sure that students looking towards courses at diploma level and above in VET institutions will be able to obtain that training without the worry of paying fees at the point of enrolment. The relevant amendments will permit the expansion of the VET FEE-HELP program to provide loans for all tuition costs or a component of these. Loans will not be liable to income or asset tests and repayments will commence once a graduate’s income exceeds a prescribed amount.

The Minister for Education has spoken recently about the need to make a new commitment to the knowledge and skills so fundamental to the prosperity of the individual and of our nation, warning that national participation and attainment in higher education is too low. The augmentation of VET FEE-HELP is projected to be a significant element in meeting the target set by the Council of Australian Governments—that is, to double by 2020 the diplomas and advanced diplomas completed.

The bill before us today does not repeal section 19-37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, because it is the universities that will be able to levy the student amenities and fees and it is universities that will be held accountable for how those fees are spent. What we are doing is working in partnership with students and their institutions to ensure that there is democratic, independent student representation. The government aims to reverse the ransacking of this crucial sector by the former government. The Rudd Labor government is determined to act on this country’s needs now and into the future, and the measures outlined in the bill puts that determination into achievable form. Supporting this bill and ensuring its progress through this place will see services and representation reinstated and restored across our country, at large city campuses and at smaller and regional centres of learning. I commend the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill to the Senate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It should come as no surprise that the opposition has taken a very strong and principled stand in relation to this legislation, in particular as it relates to compulsory student unionism at our tertiary institutions. This has been a battle that students have been fighting in this country for well over a generation, for well over 30 years. The Howard government then legislated to abolish compulsory student union fees. So popular was the move that Mr Rudd, as Leader of the Opposition, promised to keep it. That is the reality. He then broke his election promise. Once again, what Mr Garrett said is coming home to be the truth. He said he had been verballed at the time. But, during the last election campaign, when trying to placate somebody, he said, ‘Don’t listen to what we say; look at what we are actually going to do when we get into government.’ This is another classic case of selling one message whilst in opposition and having a completely different intention once government is obtained. That is now quite clear in this area as well. A promise was made because Mr Rudd and the Australian Labor Party knew that compulsory student unionism was anathema to students. They objected to their right to a tertiary education being predicated on joining a student union. Students actually felt offended and patronised by that attitude pedalled so hard by the left wing and the vice-chancellors on campus.

I still recall, when we promoted this, at a time when the Senate was not minded to pass voluntary student unionism, that we had a Senate inquiry. I recall the chairman of the vice-chancellors association coming before the Senate committee. And he gave very powerful evidence of the importance of students being involved in sports, in societies, in reading the newspaper, in the cultural life of the cafeteria—and the list went on and on. One senator had the presence of mind to ask vice-chancellor: ‘To get your university degree, do you have to play sport?’ Answer: ‘No.’ ‘Do you have to be a member of a society?’ Answer: ‘No.’ ‘Do you have to be involved in an extracurricular activity to get your degree?’ Answer: ‘No.’ ‘Do you have to read the student newspaper to get your degree?’ Answer: ‘No.’ ‘Do you have to go to social functions to get your degree?’ Answer: ‘No.’ Do you have to go to the cafeteria to dine?’ Answer: ‘No.’ Everything was responded to in the negative. And, might I add, you did not have to vote at student elections. You did not have to get involved in any way, shape or form, to cut a long story short, in extracurricular activities on campus. So what was the only requirement that the vice-chancellor demanded at the end of the day? It was the payment of the fee. That is how hollow and intellectually dishonest the campaign had been for compulsory student unionism. This is the high-sounding story that the vice-chancellor tried to put on behalf of other vice-chancellors—the rhetoric of the importance of extracurricular activities—but there was no requirement. The only requirement was that you paid the fee. That exposed the hollowness of the argument.

I recall in my own instance, many years ago now at the University of Tasmania, being told that if I did not pay my student union fee my results would be withheld. I recall a dean’s-prize-winning first year science student at the University of Tasmania being told, ‘You will not be allowed to re-enrol for your second year unless you pay the compulsory student union fee.’ We hear all of these mighty stories about Labor’s commitment to skills training, up-skilling our workforce and encouraging people into the tertiary sector, but it is all predicated on paying a compulsory union fee. If he had not paid his compulsory union free, prize-winning student Daniel Muggeridge would have been denied his tertiary education and all the benefits that have flown to the Australian economy since. So this right to a tertiary education is no right, according to Labor. It is predicated on the payment of a compulsory fee. That is their main entry point in relation to tertiary education. I say that you cannot maintain that argument on principle in any way, shape or form.

We now see that in this legislation we are talking about a services and amenities fee. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and compulsory student unionism, dressed up as a services and amenities fee, still stinks. It does not matter how you try to dress it up; it is an infringement on individuals’ rights and liberties, especially the right to a tertiary education. To be denied the right to a tertiary education because you do not want to pay a student union fee, now dressed up as an amenities fee, is abhorrent to every instinct within me.

We were told that if voluntary student unionism were ever to be introduced there would be huge problems in the quality of the tertiary education that Australian students would obtain. Indeed, the hapless then vice-chancellor—not the current one but one or two ago—of the University of Tasmania made the assertion that one of the things that was attracting students from overseas to the University of Tasmania was student union services and that the compulsory student union fee was not objected to by the students in any way, shape or form—and they welcomed all the services. I asked certain people to do a study, and guess what? The number of overseas student enrolments in that time at the University of Tasmania actually declined in comparison to—and Senator Judith Adams would be interested in this—Western Australia, where the state government had in fact introduced voluntary student unionism under state legislation. In Western Australia there was a surge of overseas students participating in tertiary education. So if the argument is that somehow you get a lower form of education, why is it that where the market forces can be in play—not that people live in a particular state with mum and dad there and their friends there and therefore they do not want to move—when overseas students had a choice between Western Australia and Tasmania, the numbers declined in Tasmania, with compulsory student unionism, and increased in Western Australia. So that argument, on evidence, is thrown out and completely and utterly debunked.

Can anybody get up in this chamber and honestly say that, since the introduction of voluntary student unionism in Australia, the students that graduate are no longer as worthy as those who used to have to bear—unwillingly—the burden of compulsory student unionism? Has anybody actually made out that argument? Is there any evidence in any way, shape or form that says that there was a lower form of education as a result of the students not being compelled to pay a compulsory fee. Of course, no argument can be made out.

If universities were genuine about this argument they would not allow the correspondence courses that people can now undertake, where information is emailed backwards and forwards, where you have got video linkups and students do not actually have to appear on campus to get their university education. But, guess what? They have got to pay the compulsory fee. But they are not on campus to enjoy the benefit of it. How dare these universities allow these people to graduate without having been part and parcel of the wonderful fabric of extracurricular life on campus!

Because they are anxious to get more and more enrolments, the universities—and good on them—have now made study more available and more accessible through the internet, video conferencing and the like, meaning that many students do not even have to set foot on campus to get their university education and graduate. Once again the modern world has overtaken the nonsense arguments that have been put forward over the years in support of compulsory student unionism.

I will deal with a few other analogies that have been used from time to time. I remember it was put forward that paying a student union fee is a bit like being part of a local government regime where you have to pay your rates. No, that analogy is wrong. The analogy falls down because it would be the local government body saying, ‘You cannot live in our district unless you join up to the local ratepayers association.’ That is the analogy. Thank goodness that not a single local government institution in this country has come up with such a preposterous suggestion. But guess what? Our universities have. They say, ‘If you do not want to join the so-called representative body—the student union—we will deny you the right to get your results or to re-enrol in the following year.’

Others tell me that student unions deliver a great social benefit. I am willing to accept that at face value, but why can’t students decide that? There are many organisations in Australia that provide a great social benefit that we do not compel people to join, such as the Salvation Army or the Red Cross. Indeed, even the Australian Labor Party has now accepted that compulsory trade unionism is no longer acceptable and that people ought to have the choice about that. I think there is a stronger argument—albeit a very, very weak one; you are coming from a very low base—to be made out for compulsory trade unionism than for compulsory student unionism and compulsory fees.

These university students are old enough and mature enough to be told that they can decide, within certain parameters, all sorts of things: what sort of course of study they want to undertake; where they want to live; who they associate with; what sort of car they might want to drive; what rental arrangements they want to enter into—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is something called freedom.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Birmingham, you are absolutely right. Students are seen as being mature enough for all these things apart from one: whether or not they want to contribute to the student body in a circumstance where students are—in general terms—free to make all other decisions, as, might I add, they should be.

I come back to where I started, and that is that this is a breach, yet again, of another Labor election promise. Mr Rudd was so desperate to go to the electorate at the last election and say: ‘Basically, I am a John Howard lite. Compulsory student unionism is not on the agenda with me. I’m really an economic conservative at heart. In relation to that, I don’t support compulsory student unionism’ and on you go. But Peter Garrett did let the cat out of the bag when, in an unguarded moment, he spoke the truth. He said, ‘Don’t listen to what we say; look to what we will actually do when we get into government.’ This is a classic case that bears out, in a bizarre way, the integrity of what Mr Garrett said. But the integrity of it showed that what he was saying at the time was, in fact—unfortunately—the truth. It is a very adverse reflection on this government that they are now going back on a very strong commitment that they gave before the last election on students and compulsory student unionism.

I hope and I trust that this Senate will have the courage to again refuse the repeal of this legislation—in other words, have the courage to give students the right of freedom of choice on campus. It is a bizarre thing when you reflect on it: universities ought to be the hotbed of diversity, of individual thought and of individual action. But here we are saying: ‘We won’t allow you through the gate of the university unless you are willing to be marked like sheep, all with your university union tag. We will put the tag of your student union membership in your ear. Sure, we have dressed it up as a services and amenities fee, which the university is going to collect and determine how it is going to be administered.’ Does anybody honestly believe that the student union body will not have a say in its administration and how that money is going to be spent? Of course not.

In the past, the vice-chancellors of this country, much to their great shame, acted as the most highly paid shop stewards in this country. They were the enforcers of compulsory student unionism. The student union had no power to enforce it; it was the vice-chancellors, acting as shop stewards, who forced the students to pay. If the union could not convince you to join, the vice-chancellors stepped in and said: ‘Sorry, sonny or girlie, no degree for you. Your results are withheld until you pay that fee.’ That has been a blot on our universities for generations now. I pay respect to the Court government in Western Australia, who removed it first. It took the courage of the Liberal Court government and then the Liberal Howard government to have that changed and have it removed. It was a blot that was removed without any diminution or denigration of the intellectual standards of our universities and without any denigration or diminution of the integrity of the degrees that were produced. Our students have not been disadvantaged on the world market where the quality of their degrees is concerned. This has been one of those terrible sweetheart deals where big institutions deal with a big student body and trample the rights of individual students. When it comes to those issues, we on this side will always stand unashamedly on the side of the individual students, and that is why we will be opposing these measures

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It is a pleasure to speak after Senator Abetz on this issue. Senator Abetz has a long and distinguished track record of opposing compulsion in the payment of student fees. He once again today set out a clear position, which I hope the Senate and Australian parliament will heed and take note of. On behalf of all those who have followed Senator Abetz in his fight on campuses against student fees over the years, I want to pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in this regard.

There are few principles as fundamentally important as that of freedom of association for any true free and democratic society. Freedom of association must stand as one of those core tenets that we hold dear, not just on this side of the house as Liberals but any person who is committed to a true parliamentary democracy and to a true democratic arrangement in a country like Australia. That is why we must be very cautious about any move that brings in compulsion and does so unnecessarily, particularly a compulsion of association in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, this bill, despite its toned-down sounding name like so many bills nowadays, moves towards a form of compulsion through compulsory student unionism. It is simply dressed up under a bland title and has a few claimed safeguards that in the end will prove to be ineffective. We will see, once again, the funnelling of students’ hard-earned money for purposes that the bulk of them would not wish to see their money spent on.

There are many reasons. particularly the principled ones that I just introduced my comments with, as to why this bill should be opposed. As Senator Abetz indicated, this is, as much as anything else, a clear and fundamental breach of promise by the government. The government went to the last election and was very clear in its comments. The then shadow minister for education and training, Stephen Smith, was quite explicit on 22 May 2007 when he said:

I’m not considering a compulsory HECS-style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

What do we have before us today? Lo and behold, we have a compulsory amenities fee. That is right—a compulsory amenities fee! So much for the voluntary approach; so much for the government’s word on this matter when they went to the people. Like so many other issues they said what they had to say to get themselves elected and have simply backed down and backflipped since then. That was not the only time the government made that promise. Indeed, since the election government officials have even tried to say this would still be a voluntary approach. As they worked out their way to backflip on their promise they continued to pretend this would all be about the voluntary approach. In Senate estimates on 20 February 2008 I posed a question to Ms Paul from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations:

So, Ms Paul, if a HECS-style loan scheme for union fees was introduced, that would be a voluntary fee?

Ms Paul’s answer was:

The minister in her media release said that there would not be a return to compulsory student fees.

Even after they were elected, even after they had bluffed their way into government by misleading the public, government officials were still fronting up and saying there would not be a return to compulsory student fees. We had this sham of a consultation process that the then Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth undertook. She skirted around different campuses in Australia and met with a whole bunch of predetermined organisations, who, I am sure, she knew wanted the reintroduction of compulsory student fees. And lo and behold, we have a review that suddenly says that, yes, we should have the reintroduction of compulsory student fees. What a surprise! It was one of those Yes, Minister style episodes where the minister sets up a review knowing full well what the outcome she wants is. And, of course, it is all structured to achieve that outcome. We are not going to be fooled with this sham of a review, nor are we going to be fooled by the code words used in the legislation, in the explanatory memorandum or in the speeches that are coming from the other side that this is somehow like a services fee of council type origins. Senator Abetz made the point very clearly that this is more like making people join their local ratepayers association than making them actually pay their council rates.

All of us pay money in different forms of taxes to a whole variety of organisations—to local government, state government and federal government—under the guise of many different taxes, levies, charges et cetera. Frankly, way too much of it is wasted at every level. Student unions and student organisations are no different in that sense. We know that they will manage to waste money just as effectively as so many other areas of government sadly do. However, there is a difference and that is that students going to universities already pay for their essential services. Do you know why they go to universities? They go to universities for an education, for a qualification. They go to universities to get the essentials, which would be the teaching and the learning, and for the facilities that go with that of libraries, computers and the strong research environs. These are the things that our universities must and should be investing in. They are the essentials and they are what students pay for day in and day out through the fees they already pay. They do not need to be paying additional fees for services that for each student may well be—and quite often and usually are—non-essential.

Aside from the facts that they may not individually need those services and do not need to be forced to pay those fees, universities do not exist in isolation. Last time I checked, no university existed somewhere out there in the outback deserts of South Australia or the Northern Territory. There was no university detached from a city or town and having no services around it. University campuses exist in cities and towns and there are services all around those communities. The non-essential services of those communities can and do build up to respond to the demands of the campuses that exist in those cities and towns. That is the nature of the economy. If there is a need for catering services, catering services will be provided. If there is a need for child care, childcare services will be provided—indeed, with all of the support that the federal government provides, notwithstanding some of the questions about the likely rises in childcare fees that we see. That is a different, but very important, matter for the government to tackle. So universities are surrounded by all of the resources necessary to provide all of the types of services that the government claims need to be provided through the funding of compulsory fees. What rubbish! All the things that provide those services to students already exist.

Also, we hope universities are full of rather bright people who, if they want to organise a sporting club, some type of social activity or any type of communal event, service or amenity, have the wit and capacity to do so as a collective. That is what I would think and hope we have in our universities—people who themselves can achieve these things if they want to or need to. They do not need a government imposing a compulsory fee and a compulsory structure that will only serve to take money out of students’ pockets to fund things that they did not want in the first place.

What did compulsory student unionism give us the last time we had it? That, sadly, was not all that long ago. It took a long time to get rid of compulsory student unionism. What did it give us the last time we had it? Firstly, it gave us plentiful waste. I want to talk about services and amenities, as the bill is nebulously named. In 2004, the budget for the Monash University union had an amenities fee—note we have a bill about amenities now—of $428. Two hundred and thirty-eight dollars of that, comfortably more than half, went to administration. That would be the nebulous term for funnelling money to attend NUS conferences and all sorts of other ridiculous outlets. Thirty dollars went to building services. Just $22 went to sport—something that many people like to talk about—so only a small portion went to sport. Thirteen dollars went to clubs and societies, $5.40 went to childcare services and a fabulous 59c went to other student services. What a great use of students’ hard-earned money! So last time we had compulsory student unionism we very clearly had waste.

We also had the support of extremism. That same student association in 2007 contributed $1,500 towards the legal defence of convicted and jailed G20 rioter Akin Sari. It is also the same student organisation that produced stickers in 2003 that read ‘Bomb the White House’. What a responsible use of student money! More recently, the Melbourne university student union funded legal costs for a man accused of assaulting police officers and damaging a police station during a riot on Palm Island in Queensland. Whatever you think of that incident in Queensland, it is an outrageous and ridiculous use of students’ hard-earned money. So we have seen waste and we have seen extremism.

The other thing we see coming out of compulsory student unionism is blatant leftist partisanship—quite clearly partisanship that has run rampant. During the 2004 election, the National Union of Students spent—and remember this was all collected under compulsory levies on campuses across Australia—$75,000 on broadcasting electoral advertisements, $40,000 on a print campaign, $50,000 on how-to-vote posters and pamphlets and $90,000 on direct mail. That was more than a quarter of a million dollars collected in a compulsory manner from students around Australia.

I have a bit of personal experience of that. I do not want it to be suggested that I harbour a grudge in any way over this, but during that 2004 campaign I happened to be a candidate in a key marginal seat. Lo and behold, in the marginal seat in which I was running landed brochures funded and distributed by the National Union of Students. So that quarter of a million dollars of students’ money was lobbed into the letterboxes of the electorate I was running in, with the message: ‘Don’t let Simon Birmingham and John Howard take away our future.’ What a lovely message that was to receive in the letterboxes of the constituents of Hindmarsh! Of course, what a future the Howard government was providing—one of near full employment and growing wages. A great future was being provided and yet the NUS wanted to run a campaign arguing: ‘Don’t let Simon Birmingham and John Howard take away our future.’

The irony of the situation was that not only had I previously been a student paying compulsory student fees but also the following year, having lost that seat, I fronted up and re-enrolled at uni to undertake an MBA—and found myself paying compulsory student fees that were being funnelled off to the same National Union of Students that had campaigned against me just the year before. The irony of it all! I was refilling their coffers from the campaign they had run against me. But did I have a choice in the matter? No, no choice whatsoever.

What do those postgrad students actually get for their compulsory fees? We can talk about all different types of students, but let’s focus on those many postgraduate students who often work full time, squeezing their studies into the hours that they can—either during their working day or after hours—and dashing in and out of campus. Frankly I have to say that, when I returned to campus, I could see little more value for money than perhaps the discounted can of Coke that I got in the vending machine down the corridor from where my lectures were held. Honestly, I would rather have not had to part with the few hundred dollars to get a discounted can of Coke, because I was never going to drink that much Coke. I could never have managed to achieve a return on the money that I was paying—nor could most of those mature age students and postgrad students, nor the many undergrad students who also work very hard along the way to earn an income to support their studies.

Last time we had compulsory student unionism we got waste, we got extremism and we got partisanship. What awaits us if this proposal passes? I have no doubt it will end up being more of the same—more of the same where we will quite likely see students, all students, having to fork out money. If the maximum fee is levied, they will find themselves—if they are working hard in a part-time job somewhere—potentially having to work another 17½ hours to pay off the levy that they are being slugged. They will find themselves having to work an extra few days just to pay the levy that they are being slugged. That is what awaits us if this goes through.

Never mind those who will never access the resources or the services; they will have to pay it too. It will be utilised by a small minority who wish to take up the opportunity to engage themselves in campus life. Good luck to them, but let them fund it themselves and organise it themselves. The system in place has been, and is, working. There has been no enormous collapse of student life out there. Our universities are still functioning quite happily and quite normally. We see students still engaged in activities as they were before. Yes, sometimes, perhaps those who are seeking out those activities might have to pay a little bit more for it themselves because they are not being subsidised by others. But is that such a bad thing?

What we do not see any more is that political waste of money and that partisanship from student unions across the country that served to so damage the reputation of their own institutions. That is what it did. It hurt them and it ensured there was a strong desire and a strong kickback against it. Nobody likes to see their money used for purposes that they do not actually get any benefit from, but people get particularly annoyed when they see their hard earned money being used for things that they totally oppose. That especially includes the political campaigning.

I wanted to close with a quote from the representative from the University of Queensland Union who appeared before the Senate inquiry into this. He made it clear that the system is working. He said, in short:

…instead of shrivelling and dying, as was predicted by those with vested interests, we have actually increased the services that we offer and are flourishing under a VSU environment… More importantly, it is also in the interests of students, because they have the opportunity to enjoy a vibrant campus culture as well as representation without the need to be slugged $250 for it.

I say ‘hear, hear!’ to those remarks. They demonstrate well and truly that the system in place is working, has the potential to deliver for students and gives them the freedom that they deserve. I would urge the Senate to remember that fundamental principle—the importance of freedom of association—and, when it considers this bill, to vote for freedom of association and defeat this bill on its merits.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Rudd government’s attempt to rebuild important university services through the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The impact that the Howard government’s regressive voluntary student unionism has had on universities has been devastating, particularly on regional campuses. It has been devastating for students right around the country and undermined the quality of student support services across campuses. While the Greens are indeed supportive of moves to administer a levy to breathe much needed life back into campus culture, we remain concerned that student representation, in the true sense of the word, will not be fully restored under this bill.

Student advocacy services are traditionally regarded by universities as a very important part of the provision of campus culture and student life, particularly in ensuring there are adequate transparency processes in place when dealing with university appeals. We know that, today, students are paying more than ever for their higher education. We know that the fees under both the HELP system and for full fee-paying students, whether domestic or international, are much bigger than they have ever been before. Yet the all-round, true educational experience of studying on a university campus is just not the same and has been diminished under the current VSU legislation. The loss of advocacy services following the implementation of the abolition of compulsory upfront student union fees in 2005 highlighted the devastating affect that this had on campus culture and advocacy services, particularly for those least able to advocate for themselves in matters relating to university rules and decisions that have adversely affected them.

Following the Australia-wide consultation process undertaken by Minister Ellis last year as part of the government’s election promise to restore campus amenities, services and representation, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations concluded in its summary report:

… the abolition of upfront compulsory student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and campuses.

Despite the comments made just now by Senator Birmingham, we know the devastating effects that this has had on campuses are real. We know the devastating impact that VSU has had on campus culture. In my own state of South Australia, the home state of the minister responsible for this legislation, the member for Adelaide, we have seen the devastating impact that VSU has had on our three universities. The University of Adelaide, of which I was student president in 2003, has seen the dissolution of the students association and the postgraduate students association. And while the sports association, clubs association and overseas students association have continued, they exist with a loss of resources and capacity, particularly in their professional, administrative and policy support.

Some of the tangible impacts that this has had on Adelaide university students has been the diminished capacity for effective representation on university decision-making bodies, making student representation basically void; increased social isolation experienced by international students; a 40 per cent drop out in participation of sporting clubs; and the closure of the arts and crafts centre. Flinders University, arguably the hardest hit by VSU in South Australia, has seen the dissolution of six student controlled organisations, including the students association, the sports association, the clubs and societies association, the international students association and the postgraduate students association. There is no true student representation now at Flinders University.

The services that have been affected by the former government’s regressive policies have been the closure of quality and affordable childcare services; the collapse of the international students association, which has obviously increased the social isolation experienced by international students—an issue that we hear more and more about as a result; the loss of student media; higher sports club membership fees and higher costs for venue fees for those students who are able to gather and play sport together as part of their extracurricular activities, expanding on their entire educational experience; and that the employment service is now a user pays service, which seems a little harsh if you do not have a job.

Finally, the University of South Australia, which is home to the largest tertiary international student population in the state, has seen a diminished capacity to pay affiliation fees to maintain state and federal coordination and representative structures, and the loss of the professional international student adviser position. Again, the impact on international students due to the current state of VSU has had negative effects, and we are starting to see the repercussions of that time and time again. We hear reports of the isolation of international students and the lack of appropriate services, information, advice, representation and advocacy—all of these young people have suffered because the appropriate services are not delivered for them. Some universities have offered these, others have not. We know that in the past they were run by their student organisations and funded from the student services fees so that they were truly a representative body.

The loss of services experienced by universities in South Australia that I have touched on are only just a handful of examples of the devastating effects this policy has had on welfare and support for students—as I said, students who are paying more than ever for their education. Let me also point out that there are many people in this chamber and in the other place who got their education for free. Students now are paying more than ever and yet the entire experience—along with the support to actually get through that education and maximise those opportunities—is diminished every day because we do not have well-funded student support and representative services on campuses. We have seen the collapse not just of student organisations but also of essential services such as child care and effective representation on university decision-making boards so that students can actually point out, ‘Hey, things aren’t right here,’ or, ‘We need to change this,’ or, ‘Could you please look at this,’ or, ‘We’re a bunch of international students and we don’t feel that we’ve got the support we need to finish our course.’ None of those support services are guaranteed at the moment and, unfortunately, under this current legislation it is not guaranteed either.

The introduction of VSU has had a devastating effect on services and life on campus. It is completely ludicrous and ignorant for the coalition to espouse otherwise. A 2007 VSU impact study published by the Australian University Sport and the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association reported that, amongst other things, the campuses across Australia have seen an overall 30 per cent reduction in employment in the campus services sector, involving the loss of more than 370 full-time and 1,300 part-time jobs nationally. One hundred sporting and 261 student union services have been lost nationally. There has been a 17 per cent reduction in the number of students in sporting clubs, from 72,000 to 60,000 students, and a 14 per cent reduction in the number of social and cultural clubs. The direct funding for sporting clubs has been cut by 40 per cent and interuniversity sport activities has been cut by 50 per cent. The participation of women in sporting clubs has dropped significantly and has been far harder hit than the participation of men in sporting clubs. This has always been the case. We know that university sporting clubs have always helped to facilitate the participation of women in sport. Many of our elite athletes, particularly women, have come through their university sporting sectors and yet we know that the encouragement and participation and facilitation of women in sport have been detrimentally affected under this legislation.

Surely, when the effect of VSU has been so widespread and has hit so many different services, it is obvious that this is a policy that has had a negative overall impact on the campus culture and quality of the education experience. We should be moving to restore the services that many of us here today were fortunate enough to receive when we attended university. In fact, many of us in this chamber, in the other place and even in the press gallery cut our teeth in politics, in journalism or in advocating for our communities and would not, I would argue, be here if we did not have access to that hands-on experience. We know that student media has offered so much to the Australian journalist sector. We know that that practical, hands-on experience has been able to give those students the edge and put them above other students because they do not just have a bit of paper; they also have the practical experience and the networks to drive them further.

As a former student politician I find it bizarre that we are debating the need to restore essential student services to university campuses where many of us here today, on all sides of the political spectrum, caught the political bug during our university days. This is on all sides of politics. This is not just about the Rudd Labor government versus the coalition; there are a politicians across all the benches here who participated and benefited from the services, the experiences and the opportunities that were delivered under well-funded student services and representative bodies.

In relation to my fellow South Australian colleagues, the minister responsible for this legislation, the member for Adelaide, was general secretary of the students association at Flinders University. The opposition spokesperson for education, the member for Sturt, was vice president of the students association at my university, the University of Adelaide. Senator Penny Wong was the National Union of Students national executive delegate. Senator Nick Xenophon was the editor of the student newspaper, On Dit, at Adelaide University. This is just to name a few.

The fact that many of our past and present politicians have participated in and enjoyed campus life previously suggests that we should perhaps be promoting and fighting for quality student services rather than trying to cut them down—not least to ensure that our universities remain attractive destinations for prospective students, particularly those from overseas. If we are serious about promoting ourselves as a world-class higher education system, we need to be clear that our world-class higher education system supports students with the best quality services and the best types of representation. That must be part of our overall goal.

While the Greens are indeed supportive of restoring campus amenity services and representation, we are concerned that this bill as it stands falls short of ensuring true independent student representation and that it is not fully realised under this current proposed legislation. We agree that service delivery and the representative role that student organisations play in campus life is essential, yet there seems to be no real guaranteed direction that students will actually get some say in how the $250 that they will pay will be spent. Under the current rules it is simply at the goodwill of the university that students will be able to have their say. This is just not good enough for the Greens. We need to make sure that students actually do have a say in how their money is going to be spent—that they do have the opportunity to voice their concerns and have the advocacy they deserve. The Greens believe that student representation and academic advocacy can only be effective when it is truly independent. It is clear that this cannot occur where the university simply collects and has discretionary control over the proposed fee. We will be moving amendments later in the committee stage to reflect this.

The student representative body from Flinders University in my home state of South Australia, the university of which the minister herself was active, wrote to me outlining their support for the intention of the bill but highlighted their concerns over how the bill will be rolled out. The Flinders Campus Community Services stated:

While we do support the introduction of this fee there are elements of the proposal, which do concern us. Our first concern is the prospect of this funding being handed over to the University Administration with few mechanisms for student input. Our fear is that under the current proposal student support services, which are considered appropriate and demanded by students, may not be delivered … Any proposed fee must, at the least, include provisions for student input at both a governance level and a management level.

We need to ensure that, if students are going to be paying an extra $250 to restore essential services we know need to be there, they have some say in being able to direct and deliver those services. We need to ensure that they can advocate whether those services are what they want or perhaps there are other areas of concern that need to be dealt with. It should not just be left up to the goodwill of university administration and management. Students need to be inherently involved in knowing how their money is being spent and advocating for themselves.

Given the current guidelines only require that it is up to the individual higher education provider to determine where and how the student levy will be spent after consulting with individual student bodies—where they exist, I may add—the Greens believe a compliance mechanism must be established to oversee how the proposed $250 university levy is actually spent. Specifically, we would like to see a reporting mechanism implemented to look at how the proposed student levy is being spent and, secondly, the level of engagement between individual higher education providers and their student representative bodies. We would like to see all fees levied in support of the restoration of student services open to scrutiny, accountability and transparency to ensure that funds are being appropriately managed and directed, whether that be by the student organisations or by the universities themselves.

While the Greens support the notion that no student money should fund activities or campaigns of individual political parties, we believe that guidelines must be amended to allow effective student advocacy and representation to universities and various levels of government on issues that concern the quality of education and student welfare. We, of course, do not want student services fees to be funnelled into contributing to Liberal, Labor, Independent or Green political campaigns for the upcoming elections, but we do want to make sure that students are supported and resourced in being able to advocate for their needs to their various levels of government and to their university management. It is absolutely imperative that we give students the resources to advocate for themselves effectively.

I come back again to the case of international students. If there were a well-funded student organisation on each campus that could advocate for the needs of their international students, I do not believe we would be in the mess that we are today with the international student sector.

We would also like to see all fees levied in support of the restoration of student services open to scrutiny, accountability and transparency, as I have said. The Greens support the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations’ concerns that item (n) of the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines, entitled ‘Academic Support’, does not adequately provide the full range of academic and professional development activities postgraduates currently have access to on many campuses. Specifically, we would like to see the guidelines broadened to include academic support services, including advocacy and advice on academic issues and other academic support services.

As I was saying, if student bodies were allocated funding through the proposed student services fee or, at the very least, identified and guaranteed representation through the proposed guidelines, they could properly represent the interests of their members, whether they be undergraduate, postgraduate or international students. Currently, the legislation does not guarantee that students have a say in how their money is going to be spent. We need to ensure there is a guaranteed student voice if this bill passes the Senate.

It is clear from the recent issues surrounding international students in Australia that the need for effective advocacy and representation has been lost under the current system of voluntary student unionism, with students increasingly finding it more difficult to know their rights, to voice their concern and to indicate their need for certain services. The Greens have a proud tradition of supporting accessible, affordable higher education and, in principle, support the move to remove the Howard government’s draconian VSU provisions to allow universities to again ensure that they offer a wide range of services and facilities, offering students a holistic educational experience where they can maximise the opportunities they are given.

I welcome the constructive negotiations we have had with Minister Ellis and her office over the past few months. I hope the Greens will be able to come to some agreement to ensure that students have the right to effective advocacy and the right to quality education, student welfare and support services through both access to and support on university boards and in various levels of government. In particular, I will seek assurances from the government when this bill reaches the committee stage that, at a minimum, there are appropriate safeguards and transparency in the administration of the fee guidelines and that the fees are collected and directed through student services for undergraduate, postgraduate and international students respectively. As I flagged before, I will be moving amendments to address these concerns. Currently, the legislation does not ensure that the $250 that a student will pay will go to their advocacy; it is up to the goodwill of the university. That is simply not a good enough guarantee.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A vibrant and vigorous higher education sector is vital to the health and welfare of any society and plays a key role in our democracy. This vitality goes beyond sheer economics. A strong sector is central to Australia competing in the global economy. Young and not-so-young Australians need to be developing skills and fostering careers that will keep us at the forefront of research, innovation and learning. We need to be utilising these skills internationally so that we might prosper as a nation. We also need to be facilitating careers that take world-leading ideas to the world so that we can compete in the global marketplace. Of course, we need the revenue that a high-quality higher education injects in our domestic economy not only through the important revenue that international students provide but also through an appropriately skilled professional workforce to support the needs of businesses.

However, there are other important contributions by the higher education sector that are vital to a democracy. We all benefit from the broader world view and critical analysis skills that higher level learning can contribute to informed and engaged democratic citizens. We also benefit from the independent and alternative views that academics can bring forth in the public domain. Sometimes, such awkward or contrary views are not welcomed by government, ministers or departments, but we as a democracy are made all the stronger by the rigorous debate around competing ideas.

There is also a benefit that comes from the production of high-quality research. In my work, I often rely on the research expertise of publicly engaged academics such as Professor Mike Young, from the University of Adelaide, who is a world renowned expert on water and water economics, and Associate Professor Frank Zumbo, from the Australian School of Business at the University of New South Wales, who is a leading expert on competition law in this country and a great consumer advocate. It is important to hear from people like that to inform my response to public policy proposals.

However, the situation facing students today has changed a great deal from the one I and others of my generation experienced. When I was at university, it was a lot cheaper to be a student. Tertiary education, for me, was free as a result of moves by the Whitlam government a couple of years before I got in to university. With the introduction of HECS and its steady increase over recent years—something, I note, that has had bipartisan support—students are no longer spending their spare time around university until they find their vocation. They just cannot afford to.

For many university students, balancing work and study is not an optional, added challenge; it is a necessity for survival. So the imposition of a new fee, even if delayed by a loan-style deferral, is no small matter. Another difference is that, when I was at university, uni life and student services were much more politicised. I disclosed in my first speech, and again last week during the CPRS debate, my youthful indiscretion of being involved with the Adelaide University Liberal Club and Liberal politics.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Shame!’ says Senator Stephens, but she says it with a smile on her face. That included being involved in litigation against compulsory student fees at a time when student politics was polarised and highly politicised. There were genuine concerns over the transparency and accountability of how those fees were spent. While the contributions of some senators to this debate seem to indicate that they think university life is still like it was when they were at university, frankly, it is not. The introduction of voluntary student unionism dramatically changed the university landscape.

While I acknowledge that student fees should not be used to fund overtly political activity or ‘beer appreciation societies’, as I think Senator Mason has stated, the VSU was a very blunt instrument that, I believe, cut too deep. It is going too far when orientation programs are dropped, student academic advocacy is stalled, regional students are disadvantaged and counselling services cancelled. This, as I am reliably informed, is what is happening in Australian universities today. I wish to make it clear that I do not support the continuation of voluntary student unionism. However, ending the VSU is not a solution in itself. The question remains: is the government’s plan the best way to end VSU?

If students are going to be asked to pay, will they be assured that what they pay goes into student services, not university coffers? If they pay, will they be guaranteed transparency and value for money? And will the services they receive be fairly and appropriately distributed? These are the key principles in considering this bill.

Briefly, this bill is part of the government’s broader higher education reform effort, and one of a number of bills soon to come before the Senate in response to the Bradley review into higher education. Schedule 1 of this bill provides for universities to levy an annual services and amenities fee which is capped at $250 but then indexed according to parts 5 and 6 of the bill. Students who cannot afford this fee can access a loan through a new component of the higher education loan program called SA-HELP.

Schedule 2 amends the VET-FEE HELP scheme provisions to broaden guideline-making powers, while schedule 3 addresses safeguards in the processing of students’ information by tertiary information centres. I believe it is fair to say that these latter two schedules are largely uncontroversial. However, schedule 1 of the bill has been the subject of interest by a number of groups with whom my office has consulted. For instance, David Barrow from the National Union of Students expressed concern that university bureaucracy might prevent students getting best value for money for services. NUS argued that although universities may collect the revenue there needs to be transparency in how it is spent, because universities do not always fully understand the needs and interests of students.

This is a point reaffirmed in communication from Flinders University Campus Community Services, who provided a number of recent examples where there had been some misunderstanding between what the university bureaucracy was doing and student needs. They, too, called for more student input into how services were provided.

Further, Professor Alan Robson, chair of the Group of Eight universities, drew to my office’s attention a concern that had been raised with the minister over the lack of provision for student representation at a national level. I also received a useful submission from the Adelaide University Union, which outlined very clearly the impact of VSU on student services. It also advocated a funding mix, where a university would provide non-essential services, government would provide essential services and student unions would provide advocacy services. They also advocated greater auditing and transparency.

There are two further conversations that I feel I should also note in relation to the importance of service provision not disadvantaging any group. Firstly, the Deakin University Students Association clearly articulated the challenges facing regional campuses in their attempts to provide quality services. This is an issue that I know is of shared concern by colleagues. In particular, Senator Joyce has previously raised these concerns. Secondly, Nigel Palmer from the Council of Australian Postgraduates Association highlighted that the unique needs of postgraduate students—those who will be our researchers and experts in the near future—can be overlooked by first-year focused university bureaucracies. Put succinctly, he argued that there should not be new revenue without new accountabilities.

It was with these matters in mind that my office started discussions with the minister’s office early this year. I am grateful to Brenton Prosser from my office who met with representatives of the minister in early March this year.

I would like to say from the outset that the efforts made by the minister for youth and sport and her staff were an example of how good consultation by government should occur. Over the following two months the communication between our offices centred on a number of central themes: firstly, the accountability measures placed in universities to ensure that this revenue is spent on appropriate student services; secondly, that information will be made publicly available and that there be independent auditing processes; thirdly, that any changes in relation to political activity would not impede legitimate advocacy on behalf of students; and, fourthly, that there be appropriate future review.

The minister responded to these concerns by a letter—it happens to be undated but it was received by my office in May of this year—through which the government offered, firstly, to monitor compliance in the context of its power to revoke the university body’s approval; secondly, to publish fee revenue and expenditure in the annual reports of the department; thirdly, to provide transparency by requiring each university to issue an annual compliance certificate that will stipulate the revenue raised and the specific services on which it is spent; and fourthly, have DEEWR monitor and report information on fee revenue and expenditure. I will later seek leave to tender a copy of the letter from the honourable Kate Ellis, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport, together with a two-page annexure headed, ‘Monitoring compliance with the proposed student services amenities fee provision of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and guidelines arising from the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009.

This response from the minister was considered in the context of submissions made to my office by universities, including the Australian Technology Network. I do not believe that this requirement to report on how services are provided is onerous. It is far less onerous that the establishment of, and reporting to, a separate complaints body, about which the ATN expressed concern. Consequently, I indicated to the minister that I believed that these commitments go much of the way to addressing the concerns raised with me, and I indicated that I would give the government my provisional support. My support is provisional on the minister responsible in this chamber detailing, or at least confirming, this commitment to the Senate in the context of what Minister Ellis has put to me in relation to these ‘accountability’ provisions. With this in mind, I indicate that I will be supporting this bill at the second reading stage, but I will reserve my final position until I have had an opportunity to consider the arguments put forward by my fellow senators in support of their amendments to this bill.

I believe that the future of our students, of our universities and of our nation deserves nothing less than a vibrant and vigorous higher education sector, and I believe the end of VSU is a positive step in this direction. I am not sure whether the coalition is in a position to consent to the document I referred to, being tabled. If there is still some uncertainty in relation to that, I am more than happy just to read—I think I have enough time—the letter from the minister. I seek leave to table the letter and annexure.

Leave granted.

That saves me reading the entire document, which would take up another eight minutes. Thank you.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept, indeed I even respect, Senator Xenophon’s approach to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 bill, in an attempt to put forward amendments to clean up the government’s true intent. The true intent is to return compulsory student unionism to universities. I will leave it to the shadows to study and scrutinise the amendments, as you invited us to, Senator Xenophon; I will leave it to more authoritative persons to speak to you about that, but as I heard them—and you have been around a long time—you were seeking nothing short of Labor Party commitments. I did not think there was anything written into the legislation for what you were seeking. You sought commitments, but there was a commitment at the election to not even introduce this legislation—to maintain the VSU, voluntary student unionism, as passed in 2004 by the previous government. That was a commitment and it was overturned, as so many of Labor’s election commitments are overturned.

So, Senator Xenophon, I warn you—I feel I must because even you need jolting from time to time—do not fall for commitments. You need more than a commitment, because the intent of this legislation is clear. Every one of my colleagues that stood up—and there has been a long list of speakers—came to the same point. We have debated the fundamental principle in this bill, and that is: should there be freedom of association or compulsory association? That is the guts, if you like, of this bill. We have debated it. We have set out our beliefs—there is no secret to them. Not one speaker from the other side—and I have been listening intently, boring and laborious as many of them have been, and most reading off the same script—has come to the fundamental principle of this bill: freedom of association versus compulsory association.

That is a pretty basic principle in our society. It has a cascading effect in just about everything we do. If you cannot get it right at the universities, if you enforce association at universities, if you deny individual choice at universities, what else does that mean? Well, of course, for the Labor Party, it is a basic cornerstone belief. They would like to see it—if they thought they could get away with it with the adults—in the union movement itself.

So I come to this debate, like all of my colleagues, to reject it out of hand. The $250 per year, amounting to over $1,000 for a degree, is nothing short of compulsory payment—all dressed up, of course, in new terminology, such as ‘amenity fee’. We are to believe that, under the cover of this legislation, it will be raised, collected and controlled by the university administrations. The university vice-chancellors would have us believe that they will responsibly administer the tens of millions of dollars that the universities will raise, that they will allocate it to sporting clubs and other campus activities as they see fit, whilst maintaining an audit control over it all. That is what they would have us believe. The truth is that that will not happen. It has never happened in the past—why would it change?

It is quite clear where the vice-chancellors stand on this matter of principle. There is no misunderstanding what vice-chancellors have said before, at every Senate committee, the most recent one in 2009. At the committee when we had our own VSU legislation, in 2004, we had vice-chancellor after vice-chancellor come before us saying that compulsory student unionism is necessary. The vice-chancellors have always had a bent for compulsory student unionism, and have always allowed the union to run amok because there have been no checks and balances. As the vice-chancellors would put it: ‘That’s university life, isn’t it?’

Where were they, what were they saying, when the Melbourne university travel club collapsed twice and students lost their money? What were the vice-chancellors saying when hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent in the 2004 campaign? I just happen to have with me the third party return of electoral expenditure of the National Union of Students, just to verify my claim, and the claim of so many others, that they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in electioneering campaigns against the coalition, with a political bias to have Labor elected into government. The address of the National Union of Students might interest people: suite 64 Trades Hall, Victoria Street, Carlton—right in the depths of Trades Hall, free rent, no doubt, so they can be even further cultivated by the union movement. This is what they spent in the 2004 election : broadcasting electoral advertisements, $77,371; publishing electoral advertisements, $40,758.20; production of campaign materials, $49,199; and direct mailing, $87,979. That was just the 2004 election.

The track record of university administrations in overseeing the good governance of student unions is, quite frankly, negligent. Did we ever hear university administrations call for responsible and accountable expenditure of union funds? What we heard from the university administrators was, as I said before, ‘Well, that’s all just part of university life.’ My colleague here, Senator Fifield, might remember because he sat on the committee in 2004. In that committee hearing there was a vice-chancellor famously quoted that compulsory student unionism was required because the students were too immature to make their own choices. I also note that in the current report the student union is quite concerned that the administration will not be fair on them and that they ought to be independent. The University of Sydney Union said:

We would like the Government to ensure that Universities refrain from micromanagement of these funds to avoid a culture of bureaucracy …

I bet they would. But they have not got too much trouble. The vice-chancellors will pretty much do that and, if they do not, we know the intent of the legislation. It says in the committee report by the majority of government senators that the intent of the government is that students should be formally involved in all decision making. Drop the facade on the other side, with whatever speakers you have left. This is an overturning of VSU and a return to compulsory student unionism.

You have been trying to grapple with the rationale of it all, trying to cover it all up, but it all comes back to just that: the old ideological debate. What you promised in the election, you have not kept. My colleagues have properly quoted the then shadow minister for education, Mr Stephen Smith. I was just going to comment on his current performances as foreign minister. Who would want to be foreign minister with that Prime Minister? When asked a question, ‘Are you considering a compulsory amenities fee on students?’ he said:

No, well, firstly I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

Could the breaking of that promise and the dishonesty in this legislation be any clearer? Probably everything Mr Garrett said during the election—that you were going to change everything once you got in—was right. He was right; you have, and this is a classic example. We on this side never doubted that you would revisit this issue. We know that this is an icon issue for the Labor Party, particularly from the deep Left of the Labor Party. We know that this is where the Left’s beliefs hit the road and what their very ideology is built on.

Compulsory student unionism is probably the last remnant of the Left’s decaying system of beliefs. Consider this as one of their foundation stones: they believe intensely that people ought to be forced to join unions. This is what they basically build the whole structure of the Left around. This is their idea of liberty and of human rights. There is only one reason that they seek to dictate membership: they are very well aware that these student unions are inevitably controlled and occupied by the Left. It is where the Left basically hatch their young. It is all on other people’s money, of course. It is where they learn to live on the abuse of other people’s money, which holds them in good stead for entering the Labor Party in years to come. They are always dealing with other people’s money and thinking about where they can get their hands on other people’s money.

For the Liberal party this is very much a touchstone issue too, as the list of speakers and their passion has verified. This is a touchstone belief for the conservative side of politics and our belief is really quite rational and quite pure in its form. It is based on the belief that the choice of the individual student—the choice of whether you join a union or whether you do not join a union—ought to be respected. It is a very pure piece of ideology. Our belief is about stopping the decades and decades of student unions’ corruption, incompetence and misappropriation and replacing it with accountability, choice and values.

It is $250 in the first year—and every year—and you can be sure that will go up. It should not be compulsory. Students should pay for the amenity that they seek to use. The amenity needs to operate effectively so as to attract the students. Frankly, this is a battle of ideology. It is a battle of ideology—and to the death. When we return to government, we will revisit this and we will overturn this—rest assured and mark those words. We are not letting go any more than the Left will let go of this issue. We are going to revisit the hatcheries of the Left—for the greater welfare of Australia, of course.

I have heard many of the previous speakers talk about the need to preserve the universities’ culture and lifestyle. The way to do this, of course, is through this legislation—to enforce compulsory unionism. The amenities are there to deepen the education and experience of students. If this could be achieved through the student unions then it may well be acceptable, even desirable, but it has never been and it will never be. It is fantasy land; it is dreamland. I am sorry, Senator Joyce; I heard your speech and it was commendable. But, while you were walking around idealising and developing your character at university, you were being robbed by the student unions. I am glad you got through university without noticing that they were robbing you blind all the time that you were there.

Take, for example, Monash University. Talking about Monash University, I see in the report of the Senate committee inquiry into this bill that the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University called the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation, and the principle of voluntary student unionism, a ‘disgrace’. No, it was worse, for those connoisseurs of the English language—he called it ‘outrageous’. That is the current Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, a man who will really stand up for the principles of human rights and liberty—he describes voluntary student unionism, the principle and the legislation, ‘outrageous’. Did that particular vice-chancellor notice that at his university, back in 2004—and probably every year prior to the voluntary student unionism legislation—students were paying compulsory fees of about $428 a year and more than half of that, $238, went to student union administration? It outlines where half of it went—$13 for clubs and societies, $22 for sports, $5.40 for child care, 28c for food and services; but the other half went to the student union, to their campaigning and to their national body, and probably overseas to all sorts of political organisations. Did that vice-chancellor notice that? Had any of the vice-chancellors noticed that? Are we to believe that things are going to change under this legislation? Hardly.

This idealising university life as though it were the fields of Eton, while the left just rip off the students, ought to be exposed. It is all about raw politics and money. That is what it is about for the student unions. That is what they want to get their hands on. They want to play politics with it—and, of course, they are aided and abetted by the government, because they know they will all grow up one day and come in here. It is full of them—that is where they learn to milk the purse; they do not stop when they come in here. This is an issue that goes to the highest levels. It is debated in the state parliament, it is debated in the federal parliament and it will continue to be debated. It is a base ideological debate for both sides of the parliament and we will not rest when we get into government. You can say it is your turn at the moment, should Senator Xenophon support you, but rest assured we will hang onto our principle and we will revisit this issue.

There was a clear reason, beyond the principle of compulsory unionism, why we set out to overturn the legislation when we were in government—because post-2004 it all worked. Everything the doomsayers said did not occur; there was not a mad collapse. What did collapse were certain unions here in the ACT that were completely out of control, but you did not see Western Australia or any of the Melbourne university unions collapse. You saw some amenities pared back because they were overindulged anyway, but you saw the value of the real amenities come forward. You saw them working—and so they do. So we are just returning to the bad old days.

I have heard the other speakers say that once the VSU legislation came in there was disaster—childcare centres shut down et cetera. But it did not occur. Look a lot closer than that. What did occur, which you are using as the rule, were certain exceptions. Anyway, talking about childcare centres and amenities: speak to the students. University childcare centres are no cheaper. There was the perfect example given of the University of Technology Sydney. This was given some years ago, but it would not have changed much. The Magic Pudding Child Care Centre was no cheaper than the private childcare centre down the road. What sort of subsidy is that? Walk into a student gymnasium. You will notice that the fee to join is not too cheap at all. So there is a bit of a fallacy here. I guess they are not too cheap because half of the fees used to go into union administration.

Like all my colleagues I call upon the Senate to reject this legislation. I particularly call upon Senator Xenophon not to accept any lousy commitment from the other side.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a contribution to this debate as well. I have heard senators opposite in recent days proclaiming very proudly, with a certain coo in their voice, how much the government is delivering on its promises. They talk about delivering on the things they said they would do—Fair Work Australia and other measures—and proclaim the pride with which they are living up to the promises they made to the Australian people at the 2007 election. In some ways, however, the real test of a government’s faith with the community that elected it should not be how many promises it keeps but how many it breaks. With the introduction of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 this government has broken, in spectacular fashion, a promise it solemnly made to the Australian people in 2007.

Let us go back to the circumstances of that promise. Senator McGauran has touched on that already in his remarks. Mr Smith, the then shadow education minister, was asked whether there was an intention by the then federal opposition to bring forward legislation to reintroduce compulsory student unionism. The shadow minister made it very clear that there was no such intention. Why did Mr Smith make that commitment at that time, I wonder. What was his motivation in making such a commitment? He made reference to the pressure under which students were operating at that time. That of course came on top of a long campaign that the Australian Labor Party had run about the size of the HECS debts that students were facing and the other pressures on Australian students.

Now wind forward to August 2009. What has changed between now and then about the environment that students find themselves in? The answer is, of course, very little indeed. In fact, if anything the environment that students face dealing with the pressure of working and studying for a degree is even more onerous than it was at that time. Students still have very substantial HECS debts; students have to deal with the added complication of it being more difficult to access Youth Allowance, thanks to the so-called reforms of this government; and students will now as well have to face the prospect of a $250 annual payment for the privilege of attending an Australian university and studying at that university. That indicates the depth of this government’s betrayal of students, because nothing has changed to plausibly alter the environment in which that promise was made by Stephen Smith in the middle of 2007.

We can only conclude that the promise made at that time was a cynical ploy to hide the fact that the then government-in-waiting knew that it would be unpopular to promise the Australian community that it would restore compulsory student unionism, knowing that most students had embraced and welcomed the fact that under the Howard government they were no longer compelled to pay fees for services that in many cases they never used or they used to an extent that did not justify the size of the fees they were paying. They knew that. They knew the students did not want to pay those fees. They knew that students were very happy to have the choice available to them to decide whether or not they would purchase those services and belong to the unions. The cynical exercise we had from this government, when in opposition, saying, ‘We will not reimpose those fees because we know they are unpopular,’ and then, by subterfuge, imposing them once they got back into government is just breathtaking. So, I do not want to hear members opposite telling us how well they have kept their promises, because in this respect they have betrayed in spectacular style the spirit of honour of the promises they made to the Australian people.

This legislation enables the imposition of a fee of $250 per year on about one million Australian tertiary students irrespective of their ability to pay and irrespective of their interest in or ability to access the services that the fees pay for. As previous speakers in this debate have indicated, it disconnects the payment of the fee to a role in student organisations and a capacity to influence the way in which they are spent. Also, it amounts to a new tax on those people who choose to take up a university education. It imposes a new tax at a time when there is enormous pressure on Australian families and there is absolutely a need to try to relieve the pressure that students have to study and work under. This government has decided to increase the burden on students for reasons that can only be to do with some kind of pact that the government has made with those student organisations that have so generously supported the Australian Labor Party and this government in the past. It is a tawdry deal to pay back a debt that was created by virtue of the election of this government in 2007.

At the heart of this legislation is the principle that this government does not trust the judgment of students. At the heart of the legislation is the idea that the government should make a decision on behalf of students as to what is in those students’ best interests when it comes to the purchase of services in relation to their university education. This is ironic because we accept into our universities the most talented and brightest people in that age cohort. They are the people who will become the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists, the lawyers, the engineers, the foresters and the teachers of our society. They are the people we want to lead our society in the future. They are the people we expect, on a day to day basis as professionals a few years hence from the beginning of their university degrees, to be the leaders of our society in so many different ways—in a professional sense and in a more broad social sense. We will trust these people to make important decisions about our welfare as our doctors, as our lawyers, as the engineers of our roads, bridges and aircraft, as our accountants or in any other of a variety of ways. We expect these people to exercise great judgment on behalf of the whole community, but we say to these same people: ‘Sorry, you do not know what is best for you. You cannot make your own decision about whether or not you should belong to a student union. You do not have the capacity to discern whether a service provided by an organisation on your campus is or is not worth paying for.’ That is the contemptible attitude that this government has towards the opinions and judgment of Australian students.

If I have mischaracterised this in some way perhaps the government can enlighten me. Why do we need to tell students that they must pay this fee for student services? Why can’t the best and brightest of our society discern what is in their best interests when they go onto a campus and decide what course they want to do and how they want to balance study and work? Why can’t they make that decision about what is in their best interests? Why can’t they discern what services a particular organisation provides and then decide whether or not to purchase them? Clearly, they can, but it is not in the interests of this government to give them that choice.

Some people have said to me that compulsory student fees are warranted because people, at least those who are studying full-time or coming onto campus regularly—and of course that does not include many tens of thousands of Australian students these days, but let us put that argument to one side for a moment—are likely to want to use those services and, because there is a need for all students to be involved in the organisations concerned to make them work well, they need to belong to them. It is argued that they are more effective when everybody belongs to those organisations, or at least puts their dollars into their operation. The argument could well be put that if I lived in the particular part of my community in which there was a sports club—a golf club, or a tennis club or something of that kind—and I get a letter in the mail saying: ‘This facility is very important to the people who choose to use it. You live in this community and therefore you too should pay to belong to this organisation or to get the benefit of that service.’ At the end of the day, what is the difference between those two scenarios? We do not compel people to belong to organisations in our community; we do not compel them to belong to a bowling club, or a sports club, or the P&C or any organisation in our community. Even in the workplace in this day and age, membership of the trade union is not compulsory, to the best of my knowledge. So why alone, among all the ways in which people might live in contemporary society, do we expect them, in effect, to belong to one particular organisation, that being a student union?

I appreciate that the government has disconnected membership of the organisation from payment of the fee to that organisation, but that is a subterfuge. It is a device to get around the fact that it is effectively forcing people to belong to student organisations. Why do we expect that to happen in the case only of university campuses and nowhere else in our society? It is simply not logical. I have some knowledge of these matters; I am not speaking in a vacuum of experience. I myself was president of a student organisation—I was the president of the students association at Australia’s premier university, the Australian National University—and I had great pleasure attempting to connect the organisation to which I belonged to the students who went to that university. I thought it was a substantial achievement—and indeed it was, comparatively speaking, in those days—to get student elections happening where one in every five students would cast a vote. By the standards of university elections in those days, and I think even more so today, that was quite an achievement.

But I acknowledged that the biggest obstacle I faced in attempting to run a good student organisation which delivered services that students on my campus wanted was the fact that there was such a serious disconnection between those people who, under compulsion, paid the fees to the university for the purpose of payment to the student organisations and the involvement of those students in those organisations in making decisions about how they spent that money. There was a constant problem of students being uninterested—even disinterested—in the activities of those organisations and being unable or unwilling to connect with the process of working out what they wanted because, no matter what they wanted, they would still have to pay the compulsory fee. There was no sense of market mechanisms and no responses expected from those who paid the dollars. Student organisations did as they pleased because they could behave in any way imaginable and they would still receive the same amount of money from the students who were compelled to belong to them. That undermined and destroyed enormous amounts of innovation and reform in student organisations for decades. They had no impulse from their constituencies—their marketplace, if you like—to which they had to respond when designing and running their services.

That has changed in some parts of Australia. We have heard about the experience of the University of Western Australia. It changed after 2005, when the voluntary student unionism legislation of the Howard government was passed. Although the student unions themselves have complained bitterly about those new circumstances, I think it is in fact easy to discern that substantial improvements have been made in the way that student unions have been run and have responded to the needs of their membership. The fact is that student campuses are very different to the sorts of places that they were back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when I was on campus. There are many more students these days who are external, who study part time, who cannot or in a practical sense are not able to use student services on campus and who just do not get value from money from the sorts of fees that you have to pay to belong to a full-time organisation. Indeed, many students do not view life on a university campus in the way that they did back in, say, the 1970s. The experience of being at a university, being an undergrad and doing all the things on campus and so forth is a relevant concept for fewer and fewer students. That should mean that the nature of student organisations and the services they provide should change. But they will not change if we do not build in a mechanism to allow what students want and what they get from their student organisations to be linked.

I have no doubt that most students do not support the legislation which this government is putting through the parliament at the moment. I have no doubt at all that when students moved away from paying student union fees after the passage of the 2005 legislation they were acting in a conscious, well-informed and rational way. They were saying, ‘I am making a decision about what I can afford and what I think is necessary for my welfare and the quality of my degree by saying that I will not join this particular organisation.’ The Australian Democrats conducted a survey some time ago in which they found that 59 per cent of students were against compulsory fees. That was reflected in the fact that in recent years something like five per cent of students only ever take part in elections on campus for student organisations. The only way to fix that lack of identification with the work of student unions is to require those unions to appeal to their members, to say to their members: ‘Here’s what we offer. Here is what we want to do with your money. If you belong to us we will deliver these services to you.’ They should do this in the same way that any organisation any of us in this place belong to does in order to win our support and our dollars. It is extremely sad and very damaging for the quality of student services that, with this legislation, the government will again cut that nexus between the requirements and expectations of students and the money that they pay to student organisations.

Let me conclude by saying that universities in this day and age are expected to be institutions of freedom—freedom of thought and freedom of action. Yet what we see with this legislation is the singling out of Australian university students and saying to them that they are almost unique in our society as being people to whom we will say, ‘You do not have the freedom to decide whether you belong to or financially support particular organisations connected with an activity with which you are involved, in this case your education. You can choose to belong to a social club, to your union when you go to work, to a sporting organisation, to a political party or to a P&C council at your local school. You can choose to belong to any of those organisations, but you cannot, in effect, choose to belong to a student union. At least you cannot choose not to put your money into that organisation.’ That is a very, very strange paradigm that this government puts forward.

The misuse of funds by unions—and Senator McGauran made reference to that in his remarks—is certainly a serious issue and one that I think will be a much more serious problem in the future with the passage of this legislation. But the bigger issue is the breaking of the nexus between student money and the way in which it is spent. I predict that we will see a great deal more of this in the future and all of us will have reason to regret the way in which student unions spend their money because we will have made the decision, if this legislation is passed, to break that nexus. I appeal to the Senate not to pass this legislation because it is simply fundamentally wrong and in particular because it is bad for student unionism. It is bad for the quality of the services provided by student organisations to their own members.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Humphries on that speech. He very clearly articulated, as have so many of my colleagues during the day, why the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 should be defeated. I do not intend spending a lot of time tonight on this, given the hour. Over the last 18 months or so I have seen many glaring examples of this government’s political dishonesty. There is no more glaring example of political dishonesty than this bill. If you look back—and my colleagues have already quoted the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the former shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith—you simply cannot account for this legislation in light of the foreign minister’s comments in 2007. I know it has been done ad nauseam, but I will repeat them as, quite frankly, it should have been done ad nauseam. He said:

So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

What could be clearer than those words? My colleagues have articulated a wide range of arguments in relation to why this bill should be defeated. I will go through some of those that are particularly important to me.

There is a group of 130,000 people who are studying externally and who will be exposed to this levy. There has been some reminiscing about former student days, and I am one of those ones who were lucky enough to have a free education. I cannot remember what it was—quite frankly, it was so long ago, regrettably—or whether I was on a Commonwealth scholarship for fees, but I know I did not pay for it. But university life has changed. When I first went to university, in perhaps 1971, if you had said to someone that there would be 130,000 students studying externally you would have been looked at as if you were stark raving mad, because that was not the way universities were run when I went to university. But the world has changed and fortunately there is now the ability for people to study externally. Fortunately there is now a group of people who would never have had the opportunity to study who can now do so. Whatever governments, in whatever guise, have added to that, all power to them. But those people should not bear the responsibility for a fee that they will not benefit from.

The other matter I want to raise particularly is in relation to the enforcement provisions and the very real, and I would say almost definite, opportunity for political abuse. As Senator Mason has said, while the bill prohibits universities or any third parties which might receive money from spending it in support of political parties or political candidates, there is nothing to prevent the money being spent on political campaigns, political causes or quasi-political organisations per se. I think it was Senator McGauran who quite rightly said that, when abuses of this fee under its old guise were so clearly obvious, why would anyone who took the remotest interest in this debate have any confidence that the university administrators were going to do any more to ensure the integrity of this process than they did under the old process? Every single person who went to university knew exactly how it was being abused, and it was a de facto reallocation of money for political purposes.

I know, as many senators know, that universities are under enormous pressure at the moment. I recognise that. I do not wish to place any more pressure on them, but the point I want to make is that the resources required to police the allocation of these funds will simply not be there. When there were a lot of people to police the allocation of these funds, it was not done, and it most certainly will not be done in the current economic climate. Senator Mason quite rightly said that, when this reaches its inevitable conclusion, we are going to require students to be the whistleblowers of a flawed system. What an appalling piece of public policy it is to force young people, students, to become the whistleblowers on what will undoubtedly be abuse of the process. Quite frankly, the foreign minister’s words are seen to be, with a bit of hindsight, absolute weasel words. What I would like to know is: what grubby deals were done when the weasel words were being used? And who was told, ‘We will fix this up despite what we have said publicly’? What deals were done and who were they done with?

I will finish on this note. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 August, a Labor source belled the cat in relation to this matter. I will read from a story by Phil Coorey, the chief political correspondent:

The Education Minister, Julia Gillard, has in recent days reinforced Labor’s election pledge that ‘there would not be a return to compulsory student unionism’.

But a Labor source said Ms Gillard was choosing her language carefully. Labor would not reintroduce a compulsory student union membership but the fee which accompanied the membership and funded services.

So what we now know from Labor sources back in 2008 is that this has been policy in the making for some time. I suspect this had been policy in making prior to the 2007 election. I equally suspect that the deals were done prior to the 2007 election to reintroduce this fee, which would in effect force students back into student unions. I find it extraordinary that a party that apparently pleads the case for freedom of association is so completely and utterly devoid of any integrity in relation to this debate that they will pick out, as Senator Humphries said, one group of people for whom they are prepared to sell their principles down the drain because of some deal that has undoubtedly been done.

I have not heard one skerrick of evidence from the minister, the minister representing the minister, those on the other side or anyone else. There is not one person who has convinced me that there will be any ability of the universities to police and sanction those who are abusing the system. There will undoubtedly be abuse, because you could drive a truck through the definitions of where this money can be allocated.

I find it personally objectionable that an 18-year-old student just out of school—inexperienced politically, socially and in every other way—is going to be left to whistle-blow on abuses of this system. I think that is utterly appalling. The Labor Party stand condemned for a dirty deal that was done in the past and they stand utterly condemned for their political dishonesty. I will finish as I started. I again quote from the then shadow minister for education and training, Stephen Smith, when he said back in 2007:

So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

Game, set and match.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. Among other changes, this bill allows for higher education providers to charge students an annual, capped compulsory fee of $250. Thirty years ago I was a fresh, young student about to embark on my first university degree. I do not know whether people would agree with fresh and young, but it was certainly my first university degree. University education was then free, but that debate is for another time and place. Education is now an expensive business and these are tough times for Australian families. Attending university is a rite of passage for many of our young Australians. A place in a university of their choice, studying the course of their dreams, is often hard-won, following years of intense study and often sacrifice. That sacrifice also extends to their families who work to support their loved ones in full or part-time study to enable those dreams to be reached. University is a costly experience, particularly for those coming from regional areas who have to pay for things like accommodation, food and living expenses that have probably been provided for them at home.

The Rudd government is proposing to reintroduce a compulsory student amenities fee that must be paid even if the student has no intention of using any of the services being offered. I have to admit that I have an issue with the word ‘compulsory’ and, judging by the number of responses I have had to a blog I wrote about this on my website, so do many of the students this legislation is meant to be helping. Listen to what Helen, a student, has to say:

I do not use the services that this tax would be spent on and I find it extremely unfair that I would be burdened with more expenses in these difficult economic times.

It also worries me that even one cent of this compulsory tax could be sent to student unions.

In the workplace compulsory unionism has been abandoned as it does not represent the whole of the work force.

Why should struggling students be treated any different? I pay the same taxes everybody else does, so why should I also have to pay a tax just because of my status as a student?

If people want to keep using these services they can voluntarily pay for them.

I have no need of these services, so I fail to see why I should pay for something that I don’t need when I can’t afford to be wasting money.

Consider what Kahla has to say:

University is supposed to be for everyone from any socio-economic background.

I fail to understand how forcing students from low socio-economic backgrounds to pay large compulsory fees, which is spent on funding student unionism, political rallies and social events, is going to help those who are at the centre of this issue: THE STUDENTS.

I think that imposing such a tax on every student, no matter their university and its services, is unfair and is an unnecessary extra burden on student finances and their subsequent HECS debts.

For this semester alone I have paid out over $400 in textbooks along with over $100 in parking permits and I struggle to afford these in the first place.

As an independent student I also have to pay for rent, food, car payments and bills and any extra pressure, especially in the current global climate, would be an extra stress.

While there is the argument that it can be put on HECS I am aware of just how large my HECS debt currently is and will be by the time I finish. I am not prepared to make it any larger especially as I will be paying back my debt at a time in my life when I will want to buy a house and save for the future.

These are just two examples from many on my website. These are the thoughts of students who are struggling to manage their finances as they study, who are struggling to pay for the necessities of life and who object to having to pay a compulsory fee for university services that they will never use. Students are often among the lowest income earners in this country. That is why we have government funded schemes, such as Youth Allowance and Austudy, because without this money many students would be unable to afford to study. Many have to work just to support themselves through university.

I know many young people attending university at the moment and I know their priorities are, firstly, the necessities of life—food, rent and bills—and, next, expenses associated with their study: books, stationery, petrol, public transport fares to go to classes and parking. For the government to even suggest that these students could manage adding a compulsory fee to their shrinking budget shows they are out of touch with the young battlers of our nation. For the government to force this compulsory fee on students for services many may not even use is against all reason.

I am opposed to this bill for three reasons. Firstly, it does not make any sense. If university students want to use the many services on offer at their campus, they can pay for them as I would pay for any service I wish to use. But those who do not want to use these services should not be burdened with a compulsory fee that will subsidise other students’ use. Secondly, I believe the bill is morally flawed. The bill removes the student’s right to choose. I thought we had moved on from the days when students were forced to join unions and pay fees just to get a university education. Now it seems the Rudd government is using the method of force once again. I am also concerned, as are many students who have contacted me, that their hard earned money will go to supporting groups with political agendas within universities across our nation. Only a few years ago we saw a radical socialist group publicly burn the Australian flag using student money to fund their activities. Is it fair that decent Australians should be forced to pay for such disgraceful acts? How absurd is it that students should be forced to dig deep into their pockets to pay a compulsory fee and then have no say on where the money should go?

Thirdly, and finally, I am against this bill because it is a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those people in the community who can least afford it. At the moment important student services are funded by the universities through their federal government funding. If this bill were to be passed, we all know what the next step will be. The government will simply reduce its funding to universities because the costs are now being picked up by the students. This is not something that I can support either.

I believe a compulsory fee will breed inequality in our education system. It will only widen the gap between rich and poor. Putting a further financial burden on those already struggling will push some low-income students out of the tertiary system. This country has worked hard to improve the next generation’s chance at a successful future. We have decided that university should be an option for all people, regardless of their family, their financial situation or their socioeconomic background. This ideal is already fading under the pressure of limited university places, low-income support, dwindling housing options, rising living costs and the latest challenge of rising unemployment. What the government is proposing will put university out of reach for some. This bill seems like a backward step from our goal of making university accessible to all Australians. Compulsory university fees also put further pressure on students and their families at a time when we should be aiming to relieve them of this burden. It is for these reasons I have decided to vote against this bill.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank those senators who have spoken on the bill. I would like to thank those senators who have participated in the committee of the Senate inquiry into this bill. I think it is important to put into perspective what this bill is actually about. It is not about a number of the claims that have been made here by some of those opposite. There seems to be a presumption that these types of debates—and I have seen them now in this chamber for a long time—are opportunities for conservative politicians to essentially revisit their obsessions with the ghosts of their pasts, the misspent youth that they are seeking to dispel and their attempts to essentially re-fight the battles and relive the old indignities and humiliations that they suffered at university. They see this process as some sort of psychological cleansing because they, frankly, have no grasp of the fundamentals of what is actually in the bill.

If you listen to the speeches, these very colourful presentations that we have heard over recent times, you would not get a sense of what is contained in these propositions that are before the chamber tonight. What we have here is a measure that would provide about $170 million for the universities of this country to provide services for students. What those who are opposed to this legislation are doing is turning their backs on the capacity of universities to provide $170 million for the students of this country. Those are very useful sums of money, coming as they do at this particular point in the interregnum between now and the point at which a great bulk of the $5.4 billion worth of new moneys provided as a result of the government’s last budget are available. So when I hear Senator Fielding talking about cuts to universities that will flow from this bill, I frankly wonder whether or not we are talking about the same piece of legislation. We are dealing with a group of assumptions here that are not borne out by the facts of what this bill seeks to do.

This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to bring about an end to the damage to the student amenities and services on university campuses that was caused by the existing voluntary student unionism provisions, which were introduced by the previous conservative government. We do so at the same time as maintaining the commitment by the new Labor government not to return to compulsory student unionism. So this bill is an attempt to start rebuilding student services after the decade of neglect by the previous government. This bill makes amendments to require the higher education providers that are receiving Commonwealth Grant Scheme moneys to comply with new student services, amenities, representations and advocacy guidelines. This means that for the first time universities will be required to meet national access to services benchmarks. There are provisions in this bill—Senator Mason, I trust you are aware of this, rather than fighting out those ideological obsessions of yours—that actually deal with assisting students.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, direct your remarks through the chair.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are important benchmarks which will allow students to have the provision of information on the services that are provided to them on their health, on their welfare, on their financial services and on their various advocacy services. So this bill introduces for the first time a requirement for universities to meet national student representation protocols to ensure that universities provide opportunities for democratic student representation so that student views might be taken into account in institutional decision-making processes. What a shocking thing to do! What a horror for a government to actually ask students what they think about the provision of services on their campuses!

What this Labor government has been doing is taking a balanced and a practical and a sustainable approach to securing the future of student amenities and services while also maintaining a commitment not to return to compulsory student unionism. The provision of student amenities and services on our university campuses is a key part of providing a world-class higher education system. One thing I will agree with Senator Barnaby Joyce about is his observation that going to university is a bit more than just simply turning up to class—or, for those who do not turn up to class, filling in some assignment every now and then. It is actually about a broader engagement. And what we will see through this proposal is that we have an opportunity to provide services to students with much needed services that have been substantially reduced or have ceased to exist as a result of the negligence by the previous government when it came to provision of services on campuses.

What we saw under the previous government, one of the few governments in the OECD to reduce spending for universities, is that students were hit particularly hard with increases in prices for the provision of basic services like child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport and food. What we have heard is a lot of sanctimonious twaddle about what has been going on at universities. But what we actually see when we look at the facts in these matters is that parking fees, for example, at Monash University have risen from $80 to $280 per year. Child care fees at La Trobe have increased by $68 per week and by $800 a year at the University of Technology Sydney. We have seen the membership fees for the Sydney university sport and fitness centre raised by 500 per cent. These are the facts of what has been going on under the previous government as a result of the starvation of the university system by the previous Liberal government.

This is the great panacea that those opposite created with the voluntary student unionism regime. And what we have seen is that the cost of the voluntary student regime has been directly detrimental to students right across this country. We saw that universities were redirecting funding out of research and teaching to fund services and amenities which otherwise might not have existed at all. This is the harsh reality of the education nightmare that was created by the previous government. And so it was a pity that senators who were speaking in the debate on this bill did not reflect more wisely upon the actual experience of students today but rather reflected on their obsessions from some 20 years ago.

I think this is an opportunity for senators to correct their record of appalling abuse of students that we saw over the last decade. There was not a squeak out of any of you on that side. I sat here for over a decade and there was not one squeak out of you when it came to the cuts in higher education that were experienced under the previous government.

Just this evening we have had a number of universities trying to appeal to your better natures. I know how foolish that is, but, nonetheless, they remain optimistic of their capacity to persuade you. The Group of Eight, for instance—forever idealistic is the Group of Eight—has called on the Senate to ‘support the Government’s policy for restoring vital student services on university campuses’. It says:

The Federal Government’s decision to allow universities to support essential student services through the collection of a modest fee is a sensible compromise that will enhance the quality of Australia’s higher education system,” said Go8 Chair, Professor Alan Robson.

              …              …              …

The Go8 strongly supports the Government’s decision to ensure students will have the option of a HECS style loan to cover service fee costs. This means the student services fee will not pose an up-front barrier to any student.

That was pointed out to us tonight. So there is a request from the Group of Eight that this bill be passed. Obviously it has fallen on deaf ears and it is a tragedy that such ignorance is allowed to prevail. Then there is the Australian Technology Network, the ATN, which calls on the Senate to support the government bill:

… which will ensure the continued availability of quality student services to the nation’s university students.

It points to the guidelines underpinning the legislation as explicit in outlining the allowable uses of the fees.

Failure to pass this bill will have a potential negative impact on the nature of services provided for our regional students.

Reduced services is a significant threat to the level of international enrolments, to the satisfaction of international students with their on-campus experience and more generally to the global reputation of Australia’s higher education system.

Once again we have the ‘ignorance is bliss’ mentality on the other side of the chamber.

Senator Barnaby Joyce spoke about his experiences at UNE—the University of New England. Tonight the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England, Professor Alan Pettigrew, urged federal senators to pass this legislation that will rebuild student amenities and services at universities around Australia.

‘It’s very important that the Senate consider wider issues of student welfare, and the health of the sector,’ Professor Pettigrew said.

              …              …              …

‘This is an issue that also goes far beyond sporting and eating facilities.’

He said that the need for the legislation was particularly pressing for regional universities. I trust that that message has actually been heard. Senator Barnaby Joyce, I look forward to you joining with the government to ensure that this legislation is carried, because otherwise we will think that this is another case of you blowing hot and strong but not actually being prepared to do anything about it. That is what we have heard from you so many times now, where you have got up and said, ‘This is what I am going to do,’ but have failed to deliver every time. What you insist upon is trying to grab the headline without actually walking the walk and talking the talk. You have actually got to cross the floor on this issue for this bill to be carried tonight.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Joyce on a point of order?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have done it 28 times more than he has.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never done it, because I am not a fraud and a hypocrite when it comes to the question of supporting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Minister, I ask you to reflect on your language in that case.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I always reflect on my language. I make this point: it is all very good to stand at the front of this building and big-note yourself about how you are going to cross the floor; it is another thing to actually do it. What you have got here tonight, Senator Barnaby Joyce, is the chance to put your money where your mouth is. Here is your big chance because, on the basis of what has been said here tonight, there are not sufficient numbers for this bill to be carried through the third reading when it goes to division. So I am going to require you to show the courage of your convictions. I commend the bill. I trust that, in the time we have to debate this matter during the committee stages, senators will reflect upon what it actually means to defeat these measures.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.