Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 has the primary purpose of imposing a new tax on the one million students attending universities across Australia. This $250 student fee was first introduced on 11 February 2009 with a section on VET-FEE-HELP as part of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The first bill passed the House on 19 March 2009 and the coalition voted against it in the House of Representatives. It was then introduced into the Senate on 20 March this year and negatived at the third reading on 18 August 2009. As a result, the second time around the VET-FEE-HELP section has been removed and is now in a bill separate from this legislation.

I am rising to talk for those who have contacted me wanting choice. Students in my electorate are saying they want choice and opportunity. This bill can be considered as another broken promise by the Labor government, with the Minister for Education stating in 2007 that at no point did Labor promise to introduce such a compulsory tax. In 2005 the Howard government introduced voluntary student unionism, a historic move for those who believe that freedom of association for students is a fundamental right, as is choice a fundamental right. The coalition believed then, and still does, that students should be free to choose how, when and on what they spend their hard-earned money. It is very hard-earned money that in so many cases is scarce for university students, particularly for those who will fail to qualify for youth allowance but who get to university in spite of that and for those who have no choice but to work while at university to support their education. Every dollar is important to each one of those people and we are very well aware of the significant costs of going to university for regional and rural students. We are aware that this cost can be anything from $15,000 to $30,000 a year for each student who has to move to the city to study, so every dollar is very important to both the student and their family.

It is on behalf of these young people that I have risen to speak tonight. One of the university students from my electorate of Forrest who emailed me regarding this legislation said:

While entering my final year at university I am all too familiar with the ‘high costs’ associated in being a student, especially considering the fact I have had to become financially independent from my parents in Harvey in order to study here in Perth. I would like to point out that there are many other students from a country background such as myself who are in the same ‘boat’ in terms of being forced to live away from home in order to have the opportunity to study.

With this in consideration I can only view the proposed levy for higher education as an unnecessary cost placed on students, who already have numerous costs associated with their studies …

The student went on to say in this email:

In my experience the Student Guild at my University provides a large range of services to students, regardless of whether the students are full-fee members or not.

Therefore I can see no extra benefit (in terms of services) that the Guild could provide if the levy was imposed.

In terms of funding, I am certain that the Guild at my university has sufficient funds for its services (perhaps along with university funding) as every semester they launch a large campaign to recruit students in becoming members.

As a Commerce student, I view this situation similar to that of Private Health Insurance, as it has many similarities.

(1) The Guild service is available to all students

(2) Those who can afford it or see extra value in becoming a member, will chose to subscribe.

(3) And those cannot afford it won’t subscribe, but are still entitled to some essential Guild Services.

He also said:

I believe that the Government of this country needs to provide our students with every means possible to encourage and support their studies, as it is the Tertiary students who will one day become the leaders of this country in solving its problems; from the environmental issues to economic problems.

If the Rudd Government is genuinely serious in supporting the learning and developments of our nation’s students it will reconsider its proposal.

Another current university student raised another two key points that I want to mention in the course of this speech. The first was that a majority of students are currently dissatisfied with the activities and funding distribution of their student guild. The second was that the implications of this legislation are not widely understood by a majority of students at the university she attends. The university student also stated that at present approximately 60 per cent of students at her university pay the student fee, which is currently $90. Furthermore, a majority of the guild members are those students who study full time and even live on campus.

I remember the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, saying during the debate on the Higher Education Support Bill on 14 October 2003:

… Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students or their families …

Well, this particular university student from my electorate stressed her concern that under this proposed legislation the current fee of $90 could rise to as high as $250. Every dollar is important to this young lady, and $250 is a major additional expense for a university student, particularly when many students are unable to identify exactly what their student guild does for them. We also know that there are a number of students from regional and rural areas for whom ever single dollar is important. It is critical to whether or not they can study. I also understand that funding from student guilds in Western Australia can be largely determined by membership numbers in the groups, with groups with more members receiving more funding than the smaller groups.

The coalition strongly believes that students from regional and rural areas certainly have a right to an affordable higher education. We have already seen the government ignoring regional and rural students through the proposed changes to the youth allowance and by now imposing a further annual tax. I am very concerned about the youth allowance issue, which might see fewer students actually being able to get to university only to be forced to pay this additional $250 in tax. We know that the current legislation disadvantages 25,000 students. Only 5,000 students of those who are currently in their gap year will be able to take advantage of the amendments sought by the coalition and agreed to by the government. However, we have legislation that will severely disadvantage rural and regional students, particularly those from farming and small business families who will not be able to access dependant youth allowance because of the assets test. That can often be so even though those particular small businesses or farming businesses, while they might have assets, can be extremely cash poor and have the significant and high costs of relocation and keeping their young people at university. Then we have the other particular part of the government’s youth allowance legislation, which is the requirement for 30 hours of work a week consistently every week for 18 months out of any two-year period. While members like me who represent regional and rural electorates would know of many small towns and small communities in which there just might be seasonal work available to these young people, there certainly would not be and will not be 30 hours of work a week, every single week for 18 months out of a two-year period. This further compromises their capacity to attend university and then they will be hit, if they are able to attend university, with actually having to find an additional $250.

We have seen the government and the Minister for Education clearly oblivious to these issues, which are very specific to regional and rural areas. I have parents from towns like Donnybrook, Harvey and Dunsborough contacting me on a regular basis asking where their child would find 30 hours of work a week, every week for 18 months. It is a great concern. If it is not youth allowance that will have a significant detrimental effect it could well be the waste and mismanagement from Building the Education Revolution, or BER. We have seen $1.7 billion wasted in this program, with $7.3 million just for plaques and display signs.

In conclusion, the coalition believes that students should be free to choose—students like the young people who have contacted me and said they want the choice of what to spend their hard earned money on. I oppose this bill on its primary purpose of imposing a new tax on the one million students attending universities across Australia.

See this speech in context