Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, the bells last night interrupted my contribution to this debate on, effectively, voluntary student unionism. Last night, I was making, and continue to make, the point that things are tough enough for students at the present time. The cost of living, particularly in my home state of Queensland, continues to rise, principally but not entirely because of the cost of fuel and energy in Queensland. Through the mismanagement of the current state government in Queensland, electricity prices have continued to rise over recent years and the Bligh Labor government seems incapable of doing anything about it. For too many years the Bligh government has ripped profits out of the electricity utilities to prop up its budgets, with the result that the electricity utilities have not had sufficient money to contribute towards new infrastructure, maintenance and upgrading of their networks. Hence there have been outages, and it is forecast there will be more outages in Queensland, and the costs keep rising.

These increased costs of living are hurting all Queenslanders. They particularly hurt students, people who take an extra job to help with the costs of attending university and the costs of accommodation. On top of those increasing costs in Queensland at the present time, and I assume it is the same around the rest of Australia, we have this carbon tax coming up and, on even the most benign view of the world, the cost of living for all Queenslanders, including students, will again increase. Ms Gillard, the Labor Party leader who is currently, at least for a little while, Prime Minister of Australia, promised before the last election that there would not be a carbon tax. On the basis of that, her party scraped back into power. According to newspaper reports, that carbon tax will happen. The Labor and Greens alliance, the Labor-Greens coalition, in this place has determined that those 18 bills will be guillotined through this parliament and that we will have a carbon tax.

For students in Queensland that will mean further increases in the cost of living. On top of that, do they want to be lumbered with a compulsory levy that, for many of them, will not in any way contribute to their studies, wellbeing or health at university? I appreciate that the Labor Party are saying that this is for services, but we only have to look back to the days when the Left groups of Australian politics controlled all the student unions. They compulsorily gained money from students, and students had no choice. When the Left groups were in charge of the universities, they clearly used those funds to campaign for left-wing, usually Labor Party, causes. That has always distressed me.

I made the point last night that, in two universities in Queensland that I know of and have had direct experience with, the Left no longer controls the student union. Again I give credit to the members of the Young Liberal National Party in Queensland who, through their corporate group called Fresh, took over something like 59 of the 64 positions on the University of Queensland Union, but do not quote me on the figures, and a marvellous job they did. So perhaps I should be voting for this bill so that it gives that university union a bit more money that they might be able to use in a very sensible campaign on the carbon tax.

But, I only joke there. I do not think that students should be required to contribute money to any group that then uses their money to promote political causes. All too often we see that members of the union movement, many of whose members are actually members of the Liberal and National parties around Australia, are compelled to pay their union fees and then the union simply uses them to support the Gillard government and this carbon tax proposal that is going to put many of those unionists out of work.

So, for the reasons I mentioned last night, and perhaps more importantly for the reasons that my colleagues on this side used to forensically demolish the argument of the government and the Greens on this bill, I urge all senators to oppose this bill and leave it to students to have the choice of who they support and how they support their benefits at university.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. Let us be clear that this is the imposition of a new tax. Australians are now very used to the Gillard Labor government imposing new tax burdens on them and this is another new burden, this time on students. It is a particularly ironic tax in that it is imposed on a group in the community that, throughout its years in opposition, the Labor Party constantly advocated for on the basis of having too many expenses associated with their education.

Time and again we were lectured about how the cost of HECS, the cost of university fees and the cost of other impositions on students were excessive and that the Howard government needed to do something about the cost on students. Today, in government, the Gillard Labor government is adding its own costs—the cost of a student services fee—which until now students have had the choice to meet as they see fit. No-one denies that people on campus as students should not have the right to contribute to organisations where they feel they will obtain some benefit, where they feel that there is some advantage in belonging and that they can get some value for money from their investment. We all make decisions of that kind. We all decide at various stages of our life to join the local tennis club, the golf club, the RSL or to belong to the P&C at the local school. We make educated decisions about what is in our interests and about what benefits we get from membership, and organisations tailor their benefits of membership to the amount they charge to the people who come forward to join them. They need to demonstrate that there are benefits in order to have people make the decision to pay the membership fees and join those organisations.

It is a freedom we all enjoy, all except, effectively, students at Australian universities, who will be told that they will have an obligation to pay a fee of $263 a year. The fee will not be voluntary; it will be levied regardless of the ability of the students to pay the fee, regardless of the extent to which students are actually on campus using the benefits of the fee. For example, there are around 130,000 Australian students at the moment who are studying externally. These students, of course, do not very often come to the campus; they cannot access the services which their $263 fee will provide, and yet they are compelled to pay it.

Students will be required to pay the fee to fund services that they may not approve of. Senator Macdonald and other senators in this debate have pointed out that there are many things which those student organisations fund which, in the eyes of many Australians, would be regarded as quite reprehensible. They shamelessly lobby and campaign in elections, for example, and we have the phenomenon of thousands and thousands of students who are great Liberal or National supporters, or with some other party, who are effectively funding the activities of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens because they are compelled to contribute to an organisation of which they do not approve and of whose politics they do not wish to support.

I know that the members opposite choose to characterise this debate as being about the Liberal Party and the coalition trying to prevent organisations that they politically oppose from having resources to run campaigns against them, that we do not understand or appreciate the work of student organisations and we are not in tune with those organisations. I have to put on record that, as a student many years ago, I was very active in my student organisation. Of course, I lived in the era when fees were compulsory and I felt that I would get involved on the basis that I had no choice in that matter. Indeed, I was elected President of the Students Association of the Australian National University and I made it my mission as president of the students association there to give students better value for money for what they wanted, even though I knew that the association would continue to get fees via the university's funding mechanisms from the pockets of the students, irrespective of how well the organisation did. The fact is, however, that in the last few years students have had that choice to make, courtesy of legislation passed during the Howard government's term. They had an election to make whether they wished to join those organisations, to pay those fees and to obtain those benefits.

The fact of that voluntary student unionism has had a very salutary effect on the operation of student organisations. They have had to change, in a very substantial way, the way in which they worked in order to attract people to belong to them. Some of the nonsense that used to go on in student organisations has, I think, to a large extent dissipated. That pressure to provide value for money will disappear when this legislation passes because it will provide once again that the students will be burdened with a fee on which they have no say and which will fund services and activities which other students do not need or which they do not support. This is a very cynical step by a government which has constantly claimed to be on the side of greater choice for students and greater capacity to support students as they go through their years of study. It now decides that it would rather take money from their pockets to support its political allies on university campuses.

The really astonishing thing about this legislation, though, is the extent to which it deprives students of any meaningful say in this process. At our universities we have people who will rise to positions of doctors, lawyers, scientists, accountants, dentists, nurses and, undoubtedly, senators one day. We have people at our universities who we expect to be leaders of our community in every sense in a generation or so. They are leaders in a sense of being political leaders, perhaps, but they are leaders in their various occupations and professions and they are leaders in the community. We expect them to be people who exercise a great deal of judgment and who will be able to make important decisions about what goes on in their communities. But we do not believe that these exceptional individuals, these talented people who make it through to our universities, are capable of deciding for themselves whether they could afford to put $250 a year, or whatever the fee might be, into an organisation on the basis that they know it is worth while. We are telling those students that, irrespective of what you think, you put your money into that organisation. We do not care whether you believe the services are good value for money. We know what is best for you. We, the Australian government, are telling you that these services are what you need. We do not care that you might live 200 kilometres from the university campus and cannot access the campus gym, or uni bar or pool. We do not care that you might make an educated decision not to belong to that organisation. We know it is best for you and we will oblige you to belong.

I do not know of any other area in a free, democratic society today where we so blatantly require individuals to belong to organisations, in effect, by virtue of them being in a particular area of the community, particular occupation group or a particular place. That is, I think, insulting to those people who we trust enough to occupy rare and contested places at our universities. It is insulting to them and it is not necessary.

I believe that the government has once again looked at the dollars, is keen to ensure that the dollars are put into places where, in effect, it obtains a benefit from them. I can understand the politics of that. I can see that the government would love to have access to those dollars, because the support that the community is giving the Australian Labor Party at the moment could be said to be at a pretty low ebb. Maybe the dollars that it would usually expect to be available to it through donations and so forth might be a little bit harder to come by at the next election, as has been the case in the past. So shoring up a source of funding from universities might appear to be a sensible bit of work on the part of the government before they face the next election.

I remind senators that that money is coming out of the pockets of people least able to afford it. It is from people on already low incomes, who struggle to pay university fees and get through those usually fairly lean years of university. It is from smart people who are quite capable of deciding whether they need to belong to a union and get services from it or not. That money will flow to those student organisations and, sadly, the blatant misuse, which we have seen in the past, of those sorts of funds I think will resume. That is a matter of great regret. The government has decided to increase the burden on students for reasons which really are more to do with politics than to do with principle. At the heart of this is the principle that the government does not trust the judgment of the students to occupy those valuable places at our universities.

It is important to acknowledge that student organisations have a right to exist on campuses. It is important to acknowledge that they can play a valuable role and that, particularly in recent years since voluntary student unionism was effectively introduced by the previous government, a great many changes have been made in the way that many of those organisations have worked. The extent to which they have been able to generate a much better range of services and demonstrate much better value for money is a question that I do not think any of us doubt. The reason that university student organisations are now able to look up and say, 'We've done a better job at selling ourselves to our potential student membership base,' is precisely because students can make an election about whether they belong to the union or not. When a student has to choose between buying textbooks, studying materials, a laptop, transport to and from the university, costs of living and so forth, they will make a very judicious and careful decision about whether belonging to the student organisation is value for money or not. At least they would have made it before this legislation came forward. They will no longer have that decision to make.

As I mentioned, a large number of students are not in a position to even use the services of student unions. A large number of students for various reasons, because they study part time or they are external students, find themselves at great distance from universities. For them accessing those services is not a practical option. People need to ask themselves: why is it that those people in particular should be required to pay these fees? The assumption seems to be that, if they are external or if they are part time, they have the resources to pay them. I would have thought that the more important issue here is not whether they have the resources to pay but whether they have the need for those services. As a nation we do not require that people recognise the benefit of their local tennis club, golf club or football club and say, 'You shall belong to these organisations because they are worth while and valuable and do some good things, and you might get some services from them one day.' We say that you belong if you choose to belong. It keeps the organisations themselves honest in a way which is not going to be the case under this legislation. This is compulsory student unionism by stealth. There are some mechanisms in the legislation which operate as fig leaves, to make it look as though the organisations have to demonstrate certain things before they can receive these funds. None of those fig leaves alters the reality that this is in effect a return to the compulsory funding of student activities by students who may not have any need for the services provided or any interest in the activities of the student organisation. The fact that student organisations provide 'representation' on behalf of students to university bodies and so on is again beside the point. We do not require people to belong to organisations in order to obtain representative advocacy on their behalf. We let them choose whether they wish to subscribe to the views of organisations before they belong to them, but that does not appear to be the motivation behind this legislation.

I note in an opinion poll commissioned by the Australian Democrats—and the Democrats would not usually have associated themselves very much with the concept of voluntary student unionism, as I recall—that 59 per cent of students voted against compulsory fees. That is not a surprising figure when you bear in mind that in most campus elections perhaps only five per cent of students cast a vote.

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

It is 25 per cent at Adelaide University.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well maybe, Senator Hanson-Young, they pull out an exceptionally large number, but what does that say about the other 75 per cent? If I think something is worth while, I will get involved with it. I think most students know enough about the way the world works to make—

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

It is the highest voluntary voting in the country at Adelaide University.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think people should not be forced to do these things. If people really believe that the student unions give them value for money they will make the decision to be involved and they will pay their money. I imagine you, Senator Hanson-Young, were active in student organisations when you were on campus and I imagine you got some benefits from your student union membership, as did I, but I did not ask people to fund my activities because I chose to get involved in those sorts of activities and I do not think the Australian government should do so today either.

This legislation is quite repugnant to the concept of a free society where individuals make decisions about what they do, what they belong to, how they spend their money and how they lead their lives. We have moved away comprehensively from the kind of society which, a few generations back, used to demand compulsory membership of unions in certain occupation areas, from 100 per cent union membership requirements in certain work places, and we allow people to make decisions in respect of every other area of the workplace. To the extent that student unions are analogous to workplace organisations, we make an exception in the case of students and student organisations and there is no compelling case for that to be so. I urge the Senate to reconsider this dreadful piece of legislation.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 does feel a little like a back-to-the-future scenario. We debated a very similar bill in the previous parliament and the parliament before that debated the matter of voluntary student unionism and an end to the compulsion of student union activities for students right around Australia. But here we are again, as the government and the Greens together seek once more to reintroduce an element of compulsion to Australia's students, to reintroduce an element which has previously been used and manipulated for political purposes around the country, purely ultimately to keep their constituencies happy and for their own potential political gain and benefit.

This legislation offends me on two very important key principles which, as a Liberal, I hold very dear to my heart. The first of these is the principle of freedom of association, the principle that individuals should be free to associate with whichever associations they wish to and, equally, to not associate with the associations with which they do not wish to associate. Secondly, there is the notion that we should operate in a society where, wherever possible, unless there is a public good or public benefit to the contrary, the user pays for the services they want without there being a public subsidy for those services. These are core, sensible, fundamental Liberal principles —that nobody should be coerced into belonging to an association or body to which they do not wish to belong and that nobody should be forced to pay or subsidise services they have no wish to use, unless in either of those instances there is an overwhelming public good or public benefit to force such activity.

In this instance I can see no overwhelming case of public good or public benefit for these principles to be betrayed in the way that this legislation seeks to do so. The legislation before us will take us back to a situation where students around Australia will be compelled to pay a compulsory fee, administered ultimately by organisations that they may not wish to be a member of, a compulsory fee that will be used to underwrite and subsidise services that they may have no wish to use. There is no justification that those opposite have given at any time as to what the overwhelming public good or public interest is for the reintroduction of this type of compulsory fee for student unions or student services around Australia. Of course, this is another example, albeit one that now dates back a little bit, of the Labor government saying one thing in the lead-up to an election and doing quite that e opposite when they appear in government after managing to secure seats on the government benches. Before the previous Labor government of Mr Rudd was elected back in May 2007, the then shadow minister for education and training, made it very clear that it was not the intention of the government to go down this path. Mr Stephen Smith told the Australian people on 22 May 2007, while reassuring those who were worried that there might be a return to some type of compulsory fee:

... 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.

They were the words that the Labor Party took to the 2007 election. I repeat the shadow minster's very statement:

So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

And what are we debating here today? A compulsory amenities fee—exactly the opposite of what the Labor Party promised from opposition that they would do. It does ring some bells. Of course, we have seen an example of this that has repercussions around the country at present. I refer to what Ms Gillard said at the last election about there being no carbon tax under a government she leads. We should have known, because the Labor Party has form on this. They have form with Mr Smith having promised one thing from opposition and then in government, in the last term and now again in this term, attempting to do quite the opposite.

I was a little sceptical of Mr Smith's promise and I must say that after the Labor Party formed government, and in the first full year that they were in office in 2008, I used the Senate estimates process to try and tease out whether the government actually intended to honour the words of Mr Smith about the promise that they would not contemplate introducing a compulsory amenities fee. So I pursued the matter through the Senate estimates with Ms Paul from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and challenged her as to what the position of the government was. I posed the question to Ms Paul whether if a HECS-style loan scheme for union fees were introduced there would there be a voluntary fee. Ms Paul's answer was:

The minister—

by then the member for Adelaide, Ms Ellis, was the minister responsible—

in her media release—

Se nator Farrell interjecting—

Senator Farrell never misses an opportunity to praise his factional colleagues from South Australia and, of course, I would want to acknowledge the interjection to again ensure that his recognition of Ms Ellis is there on the record as he always puts it. Ms Paul's answer was:

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

So it was not just in opposition that the Labor Party ruled out compulsory student fees; the member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, also ruled out at that time, as the Minister for Youth, a return to compulsory student fees. Yet what has she voted for on multiple occasions since then? The member for Adelaide has voted for a return to compulsory student fees. That has been on multiple occasions since those words. This legislation is another classic example of the Labor Party saying one thing and then doing completely the opposite. For that they should stand repeatedly condemned in the eyes of the Australian public.

I have some experience of paying compulsory student fees. I wish that I did not but I have had some experience of doing it as both an undergraduate and a mature-age masters student working on a full-time basis. Those are two very different situations: an undergraduate student working part time—the type of person that those opposite might claim would fully utilise the services—and then as a masters student working full time and having very little opportunity to utilise any services. In both instances I found absolutely no value for money and no benefit flowing to me as a student, and I think the overwhelming majority of students found themselves in exactly the same situation. Between my two periods of study and my two periods of paying compulsory fees I ran as a candidate for election to the other place and I found myself in the slightly ironic situation, whilst running as a candidate, that the National Union of Students—a body that had been funded by my student fees when I was first at university and a body that was again funded by my student fees when I returned to university following my unsuccessful attempt to be elected to the other place—actually campaigned against me. They used my own money, money that I had been forced to pay, to campaign against me. In fact, I arrived at the campaign office one day to find a new brochure had arrived in letterboxes across the country with the headline: 'Don't let Simon Birmingham and John Howard take away our future'. And what a future it was that Mr Howard was actually able to provide to the students of Australia: essentially full employment, a vastly strong and growing economy, rising real wages and the provision of enormous opportunities for the students of Australia. But, no, the National Union of Students thought that it was quite appropriate to use money acquired under compulsion from students around Australia, including me, to campaign for the election of a Labor government against me and, I suspect, against you as well in that election, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett. It was a quite ironic situation that I found myself in and this was a key example of the type of abuse of students' money that we saw rampant when we last had this type of compulsory student fee in place. Ultimately, if those opposite get their way it will be the type of abuse that we see rampant once again as student fees are collected on a compulsory basis. Whether under this existing legislation or under future attempts to water it down even further by those opposite, we will eventually see it siphoned off into the types of political campaigns that can be used against those of us on this side for the benefit of those on that side regardless of whether that is what the students paying those fees actually want.

This is sometimes likened by those who advocate it as being a tax, a tax for the public good. They say it is somehow like paying your council rates. On previous occasions in this debate—and sadly I missed his contribution last night—Senator Abetz has drawn a very good analogy. Senator Abetz, like many on this side, has been a champion of the opportunities for association provided by voluntary student unionism. He has likened this proposal to making people join their local ratepayers association rather than making them pay their council rates. That is what this essentially does—it is not actually akin to paying council rates, where there is a demonstrable community benefit of ensuring that footpaths and roads and rubbish collection and core services are provided; it is about extraneous services that are not core to the student experience, to the studying experience, and funds are often funnelled off into lobbying and other activities that really should be undertaken purely through voluntary commitment.

Students going to university already pay large sums of money—either upfront or through deferred payments. They contribute those large sums of money and, in return, they already receive the core services required from the university. They receive lectures, tutorials and the facilities at the university in which those activities occur. They receive the complete academic experience. They are still asked to dig deep into their pockets to buy textbooks and other materials that are necessary, and this type of extra impost, this type of fee, just hurts their capacity to pay for all of those essential services. The Labor Party and the Greens want a compulsory fee that is layered on top of all of the existing fees and just makes it so much harder for people to pay for the essential services required to get a university education. And they are essential.

As we do throughout the rest of society, in any other workplace in the country or any other place around Australia, we should let the market provide the non-essential services at universities that are not directly related to the provision of education and the learning experience related to that education. That is what happens if you put thousands of workers together on the one work site. If they need a cafeteria, if they need restaurants, if they need bars, if they need sporting fields, if they need childcare facilities—if they need or want any of those sorts of things—if there is a market and a demand there for it, somebody comes in and provides the service. Presumably they provide it at a commercial rate of return, and that is what happens. It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for it to happen everywhere else around Australia, so why on earth is it not acceptable for it happen on university campuses?

Frankly, on university campuses we should be encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurialism, actually encouraging people to see the opportunities for business investment, the opportunities that exist for those who want to drive innovation and business in campus life and as part of the campus culture. That is what we should expect to see and that is what we should be encouraging in our universities. But, no, this is all about further centralisation. We will see students' money collected on a compulsory basis, funnelled off to a central body that will determine through a central structure what services are necessary, how they are built, how they are run and who pays for them et cetera, rather than letting that entrepreneurial spirit be fostered and providing in a market responsive way the services that are truly necessary.

There are other arguments put that perhaps extend beyond even those non-essential services, such as childcare facilities or eating facilities. There is talk about the opportunities for clubs and associations in social activities and sporting activities and the like. I hope that we have in our universities people of capacity, people of ability, so that if they wish, and there are sufficient numbers of them who wish, to participate in a voluntary sporting activity or in a voluntary social activity they can organise themselves to do so without needing a compulsory fee to underwrite their activities. I would hope that the calibre of individuals we have involved in our universities and studying at our universities is such that they are able to put in place the framework and the institutions they want. I do not just hope that is the case—I am confident that is the case, because it happens at universities right around Australia already. Whether it is the sporting groups or the political groups—whichever ones they may be—we already see them right around Australia. We already see young people, and people of all ages, organising themselves into the groups and activities they want without this compulsory fee.

We were told, when voluntary student unionism was suggested by the Howard government some years ago, that campus culture would die, that all these services and facilities would evaporate. Essentially, if you had listened to the doom and gloom from those opposite, there would not have been a club for anybody to join, there would not have been a bar for anybody to drink at, there would not have been a cafeteria for anybody to eat at, there would not be a sports field for anybody to kick a footy on—the whole lot would just have evaporated under VSU. That had not happened last time I looked at a university campus. On most there is still a bar for people to drink at if they want to, there is still a cafeteria for people to eat at if they want to, or often multiple cafeterias and eating options, there is still a rampant and lively clubs culture full of voluntary activities and opportunities, and there are still sporting facilities that are used by local clubs and others outside of the university as well. All of this is still happening—it is all happening right now and happening in an environment where students are not forced to part with their money.

I have had numerous representations on this occasion and on previous occasions when this matter has been debated in this place. I particularly want to highlight representations I have had from students in South Australia, and especially from Liberal students in South Australia. I have received a letter from Jack Batty, the President of Liberals on Campus, a group of Liberal students operating across South Australian universities, which highlights very clearly their concerns. Mr Batty says:

Students should not be forced to pay for services that they do not want or cannot use. If services offered on campus are good enough, they will earn the support of students without any compulsion. This new tax will hurt those who can least afford to pay it. Students already struggle to pay for textbooks, study materials and transport. Poor students will suffer most as work pressures mean they have less time to spend on campus enjoying subsidised activity.

…   …   …

Services provided by student unions are largely superfluous and open to political abuse. This Bill provides little by way of enforcement mechanisms to prevent the misuse of our money.

Mr Batty has put it quite wisely and quite succinctly in that representation. He has made it clear that their view is that the money will be open to misuse and that it will see those who can least afford to pay it having to pay a compulsory fee—a fee that at best goes to underwrite services that should be able to be provided without such a compulsory fee in place.

I return to emphasise the two key points that I made: the belief that where possible the user should pay for the services they want and the activities they engage in; and, most fundamentally, no Australian should be compelled to be associated with an entity they do not wish to be associated with. Unfortunately, this bill fails both of those tests and I sincerely hope it is defeated. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to follow Senator Birmingham, who has articulated a number of the concerns around the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. I commence my contribution to this debate with a broader issue, and that is about principle. It helps when you come to this place or to the other place—when you enter parliamentary life—if you have some guiding principles. These are the things that allow you to instantly assess the merits or otherwise of a piece of proposed legislation or to respond almost immediately to a circumstance in respect of policy, initiatives or programs that are suggested. I am talking not about the sorts of flexible ethics that a number of politicians and political parties may use in order to get themselves elected but about the core principles. It is about how you view the world and it is about the strength of framework which you bring to use your intellectual rigour to make assessments about policy.

These are the sorts of things that stop politicians from misleading, deceiving or lying to the Australian people. These are the sorts of things that would have prevented, for example, the Prime Minister saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' just a few days before the election and then introducing a carbon tax under a government she is leading subsequent to that election. It would be the same sort of principle that would prevent an opposition from saying, 'There are no plans for a compulsory amenities fee,' when they are in opposition and the same sort of principle that would lead a minister to say, 'There will be no compulsory amenities fee,' when they are in government.

Unfortunately, these sorts of principles that support integrity, honesty and transparency are completely missing from the government, and it is characterised in this debate. Not only did Mr Smith say that he had no plans for a compulsory amenities fee when he was in opposition in 2007 but Minister Ellis, who was perhaps not— and I will be very generous here—the most effective minister—

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

That would be a first.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it would be a first. Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Normally, I would be considering your contribution and it is very tough to be generous about that. Anyway, getting back to Minister Ellis—who perhaps has not covered herself with extraordinary glory through her ministerial career—she did say that there was not going to be any compulsory amenities fee, and what we have before us is effectively a compulsory amenities fee. When you apply principle to this debate you say, firstly, the Australian people were once again deceived by the Labor Party. That is a big X—it gets a no; you do not win any credit for that. Secondly, this compulsory amenities fee offends the principle that should guide every single Australian that there should be no compulsion in paying for things that you are not going to use. It should reflect the user-pays system whereby if people are going to opt into something they should pay the price for that.

Many in this chamber have had the experience of university—some enjoyed it. I did not particularly enjoy it. I found myself one of the few people at odds with the leftist orthodoxy on campus. What I cherish about that fact is that I protested against these compulsory fees right from the word go, because I did not see that there was any value for money in it. I do not see that funding from the student union for the Days of Our Lives club or the role-playing Dungeons and Dragons club, and things like that, really added much to university life. When I reflect on the product of the student unions, and the student politicians that have tried to translate their student politics into places like the Senate, I wonder why we are funding this sort of activity and this sort of initiative. Is there a real benefit for it amongst the millions of students?

I suggest that this $250 proposed fee is basically a $250 million tax on students. It is a tax that many of them will get no benefit from because of the new and radically altered nature of university and student life today. There is an increasing number of students who are doing external studies or who are studying part time. There is also an increasing number of mature-age students. These are people who return to university and who do not have the time, interest or need to take advantage of the myriad services that are provided through the student union. I say they do not have the need because many of these things are available through other external bodies, whether they be quasi-government bodies or through voluntary organisations. If there is a need for support or counselling or prayer space or some sort of advocacy group, these are all available outside of the university campuses. So what we are seeing is a replication of services in some instances, but we are also seeing the building of empires. This is something that really has no place on our university campuses. They are places of higher learning and, as such, people should be focused on that. If people want to participate in clubs, sporting groups or other initiatives then it is only reasonable and fair to ask those who are participating to make a contribution to those initiatives. It goes without saying that sometimes it would be at quite a significant cost. I myself was a member of the University of Adelaide rowing club and took great benefit from that, and I understand the university rowing club is still prospering and thriving despite the fact that there is no compulsory student amenities fee. That is just an example of how the Henny Pennys who said the sky was going to fall when we took away this fee have been proved wrong once again. What has been taken away is the ability to rort and manipulate the system, to buy influence and to peddle propaganda, some of which Senator Birmingham himself was a victim of.

We have to come back to the point: if these services are not particularly necessary in the sense that they can be replicated elsewhere, why are we forcing students to pay $250? That is money which, might I say, will get added to a HECS bill, will be an imposition on them with their generally small incomes or will have to be picked up by a third party. We cannot deny the fact that many students are already struggling, and not just young students. A number of older people who return to study have other obligations in their lives, so they find it very tough to make ends meet. That means that there will be $250 less for textbooks, study materials, transport or the general costs of living, or it will be $250 more of HECS debt, which we know is becoming increasingly difficult for students to manage.

I have also touched on the changing nature of university life, and that relates to the demography of university students today. They are not elite institutions anymore. They are places of higher learning where the majority of Australian students go after finishing high school or when seeking to pursue a higher education. As I said, there are many more students now studying part time or in the evenings to complete work. These people cannot and do not participate in or take advantage of the services that the unions allegedly provide. More people are interested in taking advantage of the greater flexibility and the competition between universities. They have the opportunity to avail themselves of new technology which enables a virtual learning environment where people can be at home or anywhere in the country and undertake their university studies. There are now approximately 13,000 students studying externally. Having been an external student myself, I know how flexible and important this sort of option can be. Why should these 13,000 students be forced to pay for a service that they will have very limited if any opportunity to utilise?

It is also worth analysing the expectation of students of their university life now. I am of the opinion, and it has been fed back to me by a number of university students already, that they go to university because they want the credentials to enable them to get a better job or to pursue a profession or a particular career. The so-called university experience is not that attractive to many of them. They do not see it as developing their personal CV. They may participate in one or two aspects of university life, but it is more important for them to get the education and to be out there managing the other demands that we all have in very busy lives.

People tend to coalesce around things like Facebook rather than the Dungeons and Dragons clubs or those things that I mentioned earlier. This may be a characteristic of the generation. They call themselves generation Y and they account for the bulk of university students at this point in time. This generation is less collectivist, less committed to the institutionalised civil society. They have a much more flexible way of assessing their interpersonal relationships and the types of things they expect from the organisations that they get involved in. As I said, they are probably much more likely to join a group on Facebook than to join a group on university campus.

I would put to those listening to this debate that the majority of students themselves, unlike the student politicians or those who are seeking to make a name for themselves in student politics, are not really interested in student unions or the services that these unions provide. The Australian Democrats, lest they be forgotten, once did a survey about compulsory fees which demonstrated that 59 per cent of students were against compulsory fees. So students themselves have said they do not want this. Then we find that only five per cent of students actually vote in student union elections. There is a big disparity in thought here. There is a lack of connection between what students want and what politicians are telling them they want. There is a big disconnection between how students act and how the student politicians will tell them to act. It is a tiny minority that participate in the student elections, and yet the politicians are trying to force all students to pay a fee which the majority of them simply do not want.

They do not want the fee, because they know that most of the activities and services provided by the unions are superfluous. They are provided by the university itself, by government organisations or by the voluntary sector in many instances. A lot of them are already available for free. Others are heavily subsidised. So there is not a great burden on the people availing themselves of these services. There is no prejudice or discrimination in access to these services. As I said before, if people outside of university require help they can go to Centrelink, legal aid or any other non-government organisation—whatever fulfils that niche. When people who do not attend university—whether they be apprentices, working people or whatever—want to pursue an activity, they join a local club or go to a commercial operation and they pay, whether it be a couple of hundred dollars to play football for the year or a $500 amenities fee to join a rowing club. Whatever it is, whether it be a club, an activity or an organisation, everyone makes a contribution not only towards the operation of the club but towards providing for it financially. Why are we now treating students differently from the rest of Australia? There has not been a massive breakdown in campus life since the compulsory amenities fee was scrapped. The only thing that has happened is that every student has been $250 or more better off every single year because they have not had to pay for services that they have not wanted. Ultimately, if more than a tiny minority of students want access to a club or service on campus, it will be provided. It will be provided because there will be a demand for it that will earn the patronage of students. There will be no compulsion and everyone will benefit—not least those who are not subsidising that interest when not using it.

We also know that the existing system remains open to political abuse and is devoid of effective enforcement mechanisms. The coalition is concerned about effective enforcement of this proposed legislation. While the bill prohibits universities or any third party which might receive money spending it in support of political parties or political candidates, there is nothing at all to prevent the money being spent on political campaigns, political causes or quasi-political organisations. We all know how these organisations operate: most of them have some sort of Green front, or something like that, and they peddle propaganda designed to infiltrate universities, appeal to students and push a left-wing barrow. But even with a prohibition on direct support for political parties and candidates, the question will be: how can this prohibition be policed? This bill provides for no credible enforcement or sanction mechanism. The bill merely states that it is up to universities to ensure the money is not spent on political parties and candidates, without providing universities with any powers to enforce this. We know that a lot of things that deserve higher scrutiny happen on university campuses. We know that people will try to rig and rort elections to gain power. They will do all sorts of things that would be considered inappropriate, because they believe that they are beyond the scrutiny of normal people.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

There is an interjection coming from Senator Hanson-Young. I am sorry, I missed that Senator Hanson-Young—if you would care to repeat it.

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

Christopher Pyne and his activities when he was education officer at Adelaide university—what have you to say about that?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This compulsory amenities fee is student unionism by stealth. We like people to be upfront in this place, and this bill attempts to impose a compulsory fee which may in turn fund the activities of student unions. We should be under no misapprehension about this. This will fund the political activism of the Left on university campuses. In the past, student unions have proven themselves to be very adept at using the profits from the permissible or allowable activities to effectively cross-subsidise activities for which direct funding was disallowed.

We have freedom of association in this country, notwithstanding the recent outcries about these sorts of things. But the freedom not to join an association, not to join a union, not to join an organisation remains one of the core beliefs of the coalition. It is something we are committed to. We believe that someone opting into a system is always far preferable to forcing people into system. This comes back to the key principles with which I started my contribution to this debate. Unless you enter this place with a framework, with a set of principles with which you can critically analyse and assess bills, the policy issues and the substantive matters that we are all asked to make decisions on, you will be unable to level with the Australian people. You will inevitably be forced, compelled or tempted to deceive the Australian people, just like our Prime Minister did at the last election with her statement that 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' just like the former Minister for Youth, Ms Ellis, who said that there were no plans for a compulsory amenities fee and just like the former shadow minister, Mr Smith, just before the 2007 election. If we cannot take at face value the words of our politicians, those entrusted with running the country, what can we have confidence in? It is a genuine question, and it comes back to principle. This bill suggests that the Labor Party is devoid of principle. It has no policy passion— (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to contribute to the debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. This bill is about one thing and one thing only: whether all students, approximately one million of them, at higher education facilities across the nation should be forced to pay an indexed fee of $250 or more every year to fund the activities of student politicians and/or the social and sporting activities of a small minority of their student colleagues, and whether they should be banned from graduating if they recognise that they have no need for so-called amenities and refuse to pay the fee. Accordingly, the coalition opposes the bill, because we do not believe that students should be forced to pay for services that they will not or cannot use. The fact is that many, indeed probably most, students would have little need or inclination to make use of the so-called amenities that this reinstated tax is likely to fund. And, of course, this new tax will be imposed on all students, regardless of their ability to pay.

But a new tax coming from this government is hardly surprising. Despite being one of the most incompetent governments in Australia's history, one thing that the Rudd-Gillard government have proven is that they are more than competent when it comes to devising new taxes. Here we are today once again considering the imposition of a new $250 tax on students, a tax supposedly to fund valuable services that will ensure the added extras of uni life will be available to uni students and that they can have proper representation. In my experience, the vast majority of students attend uni to get a degree that will best equip them for participation in our society—to set them up for a career—and to expand their academic knowledge and understanding of our world and how it works. Of course, along the way, many students manage to have a little fun as well, but most students are quite capable of having a bit of fun without the need to dip their fingers into the pockets of their fellow students to fund it.

When I was at uni, a bit over 20 years ago, I was involved in the Tasmania University Union. I first stood and was elected because I and other students were appalled at the way that the fees we were required to pay were being spent and the total lack of benefit that we were getting as a result. My view was that, although I could not stop it being collected, maybe I could see it being better spent. So, together with a number of other students, we ran as the Better Management Team. Interestingly, we clearly were not the only ones that felt that way, because we received well over 80 per cent of the vote. I subsequently spent three years as an elected representative on the TUU, the second of those as a vice-president and the last as treasurer. We had to work hard to turn around the momentum to ensure the funds compulsorily raised by the then equivalent of what is being proposed in this bill were spent in the best interests of those who had been compelled to pay it. The reality is that, no matter how carefully we did spend it, the vast majority of those who paid it received little benefit because, no matter how well the money was spent, most of the services offered were of no benefit to the majority of students.

Quite apart from the support for blatantly political purposes, which was endemic and which I and others elected with me put an end to, a huge proportion of the amenities fee equivalent was spent subsidising the hobbies and the sporting and drinking pastimes of a limited number of students who had worked out the system. We worked at the time to place better and stronger qualifying conditions around these activities and had significant success, although I understand that with subsequent elections a lot of the work we did was undone.

But this was because the temptation is there, when students are forced to pay into a compulsory fund, for the money to be doled out to favour individual office holder ideologies and to support activities and people with whom you are familiar. I recall that student moneys at the time went to support ski lodges, rowing clubs, football clubs and water polo clubs—all very worthy activities in themselves but all activities that people can easily participate in without the need for subsidies from other students. Many of those receiving a subsidy for their activities were well able to afford those activities without subsidy. For example, many of the skiers would have been skiing regardless. Similarly, there was no end of 'societies', which were in many, if not most, cases fronts for drinking clubs. Again, this is all a part of the fabric of uni life, but it is a fabric which would exist, and indeed still does exist, without money being taken off those who do not choose to partake in those activities and being given to those who do wish to.

The bottom line is that, although uni is rightly primarily about study, students will, regardless of whether there is a student organisation funded by a tax on all students or not, seek out their own way to add value to the experience of uni life and to the extent that best suits them. They will, if they are so inclined, continue to play sport, socialise with like-minded students, participate in activities of their own choice and even collectively organise to ensure they get a fair deal. The question is whether they have a right to do so at the expense of other students who do not choose any or all of this and whether a student-wide tax should be imposed to pay for them to do so.

The total we are talking about under this bill amounts to a $250-odd million new tax on students, who in many cases are really not in a position to pay it. Given that the Greens and Labor purport to represent the least advantaged in our community, I would have thought that imposing a tax on students, many of whom come from backgrounds that mean they struggle to afford to be at uni in the first place, would be anathema to these so-called progressive parties. Yet here they are lining up to take another $250 off each of them, regardless of their ability to pay, so that some students can have their choice of activity or their drinking subsidised or so that student politicians can be funded to cut their teeth.

But it is important to remember that these students can currently still undertake these activities, do that drinking or cut their as teeth student politicians, just not on the account of other students who have been forced to pay a tax. If the relevant student organisations can sell the benefits of their activities or representation, they can still charge a fee and, if students see the benefit, they can still pay it. But, if this bill is passed, for many students on a budget it will mean $250 less for textbooks, study materials, transport and the cost of living—or, at best, $250 more in HECS debt.

This bill represents yet another broken promise by the Labor Party, which made a commitment before the 2007 election not to reintroduce compulsory student union fees, a promise made by then shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith, someone now being touted as a potential replacement for Prime Minister Gillard and apparently someone with similar proclivities. As you would appreciate, this is not the only broken promise from the 2007 election, and certainly it is not the only one from the 2010 election—the big one being the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government led by Prime Minister Gillard.

If ever there was a time when a student-wide tax was justified—and I doubt there was—the case for such a tax is much diminished now by changes in the demographics and style of study undertaken in the 21st century. For example, there are many more older—what used to be called 'mature age'—students, and the incidence of external study is far higher than it used to be in the 1970s heyday of compulsory student unionism. These days, many more students study part time. In such cases, the benefits to be gained from the so-called amenities that this tax will fund are likely to be of little or no attraction or possible benefit. For example, there are around 130,000 students studying externally. These students will never have the opportunity to use the services they are being forced to pay for. Similarly, a single mother studying and working part time—not an uncommon occurrence—is likely to have little opportunity or inclination to partake of the so-called uni culture that pilfering $250 a head from students is said to be likely to deliver.

Listening to this debate, I have not heard any senator mention any service or activity that is likely to be provided by a student organisation that is not currently available: They already exist and are being provided and funded by the universities themselves, by the government or by the non-government voluntary sector. Many of them are free, others are heavily subsidised and all of them are available to university students without any prejudice or discrimination. For example, nothing stops university students from going to Centrelink or Legal Aid where they have a relevant need or to any number of non-government organisations such as the Salvation Army or St Vincent de Paul.

When people outside of university are interested in a pastime, an activity or a sport they join together in a club to pursue it and they all contribute money to the common pool towards their club or association or they go out and raise funds in the community to make it possible. The reality is that there are activity and sporting clubs all over Australia that manage to run, undertake activities and stay solvent without needing to be subsidised by taking money off others who are not involved in their activity or club. Students do not want to be treated differently to everyone else, and they should not be. Outside of the university, they certainly would not expect that everyone in their suburb should be forced to pay a levy or a tax so that they can enjoy beer appreciation or subsidised snow skiing. In the end, if clubs and services offered on campus are deemed valuable, students will seek out that value and pay for it without any compulsion.

Further, despite the very weak arguments put by the government, we on this side of the House remain very concerned about the potential political activity that the proposed tax will fund. I have touched on this when talking about my own recollections and the potential for the abuse of student moneys for political or ideological reasons. 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, whether students whose money is being spent agree with it being used in that way or whether they do not.

Even if this prohibition is enforced, it is easy to see how it can be avoided and circumvented. In the past, student unions have proven to be very adept at using the profits from 'allowable' activities to effectively cross-subsidise activities for which direct funding was disallowed. Students are generally quite clever people and if there is an opportunity to get around something like this they will find it. But it is also doubtful if this prohibition, such as it is, will be or even can be enforced. Neither the bill nor the guidelines provide any credible enforcement and sanction mechanism. The bill merely states that it is up to the universities to ensure that the money is not spent on political parties and candidates, without providing any commensurate powers or any other mechanism to enforce this. There is no departmental monitoring.

For any action to be possible, individual students will need to raise and prove their concerns. Even then, it is at the discretion of the minister whether any penalty is imposed, something that I imagine is not likely to be easily attained. In addition, there will be no policing or penalties for universities that act in breach of the guidelines and no opportunity for the tax to be refunded in circumstances where political activity is proved.

The simple truth is that the bill funds the activities of student unions. It allows funds compulsorily acquired by universities to be used for 'student representation' and thus political activities of student unions will be funded by all students whether they like it or not. In a broader sense, it is no better than forced gambling where everyone is required to take out a ticket but only a few get to share in the winnings. Freedom of association, including freedom not to join an association, remains one of the core beliefs of the coalition and this bill stands condemned as a flagrant breach of that mighty and powerful principle. It is bad policy, it is outdated policy, it is blatantly inequitable and unjust, and it should be voted down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She concluded:

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

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

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

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