House debates

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

6:19 pm

Photo of Julie OwensJulie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Some universities indicated that they were forced to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to support services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut. Others highlighted price hikes for parking, food and child care. Universities Australia, the peak body representing the university sector, stated in 2008 that:

Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation

In its submission to the review, the Australian Olympic Committee noted that there had also been a serious impact on sport, stating:

… the introduction of the VSU legislation has had a direct negative impact on the number of students (particularly women) participating in sport and, for the longer term, the maintenance and upgrading of sporting infrastructure and facilities and the retention of world class coaches.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 aims to support universities and students to help undo that damage. The bill makes amendments to require higher education providers that receive Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding to comply with the new student services, amenities, representation and advocacy guidelines. This means that for the first time universities will be required to implement national access to services benchmarks for all domestic Australian students—in line with the arrangements that already exist for international students. These important benchmarks will ensure that all Australian students are provided with information on how to access important health, welfare and financial services, and are provided with access to advocacy services. The bill also introduces, for the first time, national student representation protocols to ensure that students have an opportunity to participate in university governance structures.

Let me be clear, this bill is not a return to student unionism. Section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which prohibits a provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation, is unchanged. The new benchmarks will help ensure students have access to advocacy support services to support student appeals and vital help for students who may need extra assistance on matters that can be overwhelming and unfamiliar. They also ensure that universities provide opportunities for democratic student representation, so that student views are taken into account during the decision-making process. This is a value that is reflected in the democratic rights that underpin our nation and community.

Over and above these basic services, representation and advocacy rights, the bill will also provide universities with the option to implement a services fee capped at a maximum of $250 per year—$254 in 2011 due to indexation—to invest in quality services and amenities. Universities that choose to levy a fee will be expected to consult with students on the nature of the services and amenities and enhanced advocacy that the fee would support. 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 out a HECS-style loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program—SA-HELP.

The bill specifically outlines what the fee can be used to fund. The content of these provisions has been developed in consultation with the higher education sector and other key stakeholders. In addition, the bill prohibits universities from allowing the expenditure of any funds raised from a compulsory student services and amenities fee to support political parties, or support the election of a person to the Commonwealth, state or territory legislatures or to a local government body. The bill will help to secure the future of universities and the critical role they have in Australia’s education future. For many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds it will provide the range of services that make university attendance possible, such as child care, subsidised parking and subsidised travel to and from railway stations.

I believe that this is a balanced, practical solution that enables universities, students and the government to work in partnership to rebuild important student supports and services and ensure independent student representation and advocacy. We believe that these support services are of particular importance to the vibrancy of regional campuses and provide essential support for students from regional areas. The government will continue to work in partnership with higher education providers and students and take responsible action to ensure quality and sustainable student services and representation into the future.

6:24 pm

Photo of Alex HawkeAlex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. It is no surprise to coalition members that one of the first agenda items of the Gillard government is the introduction of a compulsory fee for students of $250 per annum, and indeed the provisions of this bill index that fee so that this tax on students will continue to rise. Considering what we have seen in the first tranche of legislation from this government, it is fair for us to assume that the taxation of students, imposing higher fees and charges on those seeking to further their education, is indeed the top priority of the Australian government. That is very disappointing—every student in the country can look at this and say, well, this is the most pressing priority of this parliament. Ensuring that this fee for services is charged is something that this government regards as more important than the so-called greatest moral issue of our time, climate change; it is more important than financial services reform and relieving pressure on families. We have to rake in more money from students allegedly to provide services.

I note that similar legislation failed twice in the previous parliament. It was rejected because it was seen, quite rightly, as an attempt to reimpose compulsory student unionism. The government now argues that this bill is somehow better because all it seeks to do is charge a $250 fee, and it prescribes how that can be spent by university administrations. I do not see how it is better. I do not see how it is better to say that now a university administration can charge this services fee and then spend it in the ways prescribed by this legislation, and that that will produce a better outcome than having a body controlled by students doing it. It seems to me to be an odd and specious argument.

It is interesting to note that these services, being the justification for this fee, are paid for whether the student wants them or not. It is important to note that this is actually written into the legislation. Subclause 19-37(5) states:

(5) that a higher education provider requires a person enrolled, seeking to enrol, with the provider to pay for a period starting on or after 1 January 2011 to support the provision to students of amenities and services not of an academic nature, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of those amenities and services;

That is exactly why I oppose this legislation. We are levying students to pay for services, as it says here in the legislation, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of these amenities and services. There could be nothing more ridiculous than levying these people in this way. The member for Parramatta spoke about people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I came from western Sydney; I actually grew up in North Parramatta and Carlingford. I went to Sydney University and I know that many of my friends and I found that the ability to go to university was hindered by compulsory unionism and the $300 to $400 fee paid every semester to the university union. Yet it is argued that somehow the levying of a fee for services and amenities that students might not use will benefit people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We really understand what this bill is about. It is revitalising what Labor student activists have always sought, and that is what they define as activism on campus; having student life. That is code for taking money off hardworking students and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to support political activism.

This legislation says that you are not allowed to use the money levied to finance federal, state or local political candidates. Of course what is missing in that definition is a reference to third-party political campaigns or entities. Clause 19-38(4) lists a number of things that a university may spend this compulsory fee on. What is not prohibited by this legislation and what is not prohibited in section 1 is funding of third-party campaigns, such as those by organisations like GetUp! that seek to influence the political debate and to change the nature of our society. I think that that is quite deliberate. That is a deliberate move by this government to leave out third-party campaigns, unions and other organisations. In part 4, what we see is that helping students obtain employment or career advice or help from unions is not prohibited by this proposed legislation in the House today. We all know the reason for that: the transferral of hard-earned student dollars to unions and third-party organisations to engage in the political debate.

What we have seen since the introduction of the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism regime has been students having their own money to use to choose their own goods and services on campus. Those services have continued to be provided in a fashion that is in line with the demand for them on those campuses. If anyone here in this place is seriously suggesting that the union on any single campus in this country provides better food than a private provider could or is seriously suggesting that their childcare services were better than those of private providers or that other services that can be easily provided by private providers—especially in metropolitan areas—were better provided by a student union then I would like to hear that argument. That was not the experience at the University of Sydney. In fact, union-provided food was regarded universally by the student body as a bit of a joke; it was a constant source of amusement over many years. And it was not a service that could not have been provided by independent providers on campus at a better standard and at a cheaper price.

The words ‘regardless of whether a student wants or needs a service or amenity’ are written into this legislation. That is the key flaw in this particular bill.

Proposed section 19-38(4) states that subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for certain purposes. It also reveals what I think are several flaws in this proposed bill. Once again, the government is picking the winners on campus—what activities can be funded and what activities cannot be funded by this fee. Once again, we see a nanny state approach to all the legislation that comes before this House from this government: ‘We will decide what services students need.’ And of course there is a list.

When you look at this list, it is not simply confined to health services or childcare services—the things that we hear so much about from those opposite. We know the statistics. What we are talking about is one per cent of students or less who need or use those services. We are not talking about the vast bulk of students; we are talking about a very small minority. On this list, there are things like supporting debating by students. We are actually charging people from low socioeconomic backgrounds $250 to support debating by other students. Is that a service that is so vital and so desperately needed that we need to fund it by a compulsory levy whether a person needs that service or not?

Let us have a look at what else is on this list. We are supporting artistic activities by students. Yes, of course we would be. The Labor Party would of course compulsorily levy people who work very hard to go to university so that some students can engage in what they describe as art. Who will decide what that artistic activity is? We do not know that. But we do know what kind of quality of art it will be. And we will be paying for it. When you look down this list, it is not a list of vital do-or-die services without which there would be people out on the streets or children not cared for. It is art. It is debating. It is all of those sorts of things.

Even sport and recreational activities are problematic. I want to address this very briefly. I am a big supporter of sport. I play sport. I use sports services. And I pay for them. This concept that somehow the general population of the student body, which includes many students who have to work or come from average backgrounds, has to somehow subsidise elite rugby and other sports on any campus in this country has always been a flaw in compulsory unionism. It remains a flaw in this legislation before us today, as sport is exempted. Taking the hard-earned money of one group and giving it to another group to support their chosen activity is a problem. There is nothing wrong with sport on campus. It is a fine tradition and institution. But if money is taken off others without their choice or consent then it is a very flawed system. We are going back to this idea that the government will decide what services students need, and particular people with an agenda inside this government will continue to prescribe lists like that in proposed subsection (4).

We also see in here a list of advocacy and other services. These are things that, as the Labor Party’s drafting in this bill suggests to us, students may not want and may not need. I would suggest again that 99.9 per cent of students will never want or need these services, and yet all students will be required to pay for them, for a small amount of activity.

I want to turn to some other events in relation to this legislation. There has been a huge rush in bringing forward this legislation before the House today. I have spoken about this being defeated two times before in the previous parliament. But the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training rushed its inquiry into this legislation. That committee had a government majority and they gave just six days for people to make submissions, thereby denying many individuals—students or other people around this country—the right to say what they think about every student being charged a compulsory fee for services and amenities that they may not want or need. The stated reason was the rush to put this bill through before the 2011 academic year. But when I look at the list of reasons I do not find that compelling.

We know what this is about. We know that political activity has dropped on campuses. The funding of third-party political organisations has dropped on campus. That is a good thing. People on campus are now free to vote or not vote in elections and to participate or not in political life. What we see in the voting returns on campuses around the nation is that very few students vote for these organisations. They do not choose to participate in political activity. That is the way that it should be. We should not force or compel people to pay a fee for services that they may not want or need and then have that money given to a political organisation that they may not support or may not choose to be involved in. It ends up being for the edification of those people involved in politics. I am one of those people, but I do not support this.

I want to record that, in their submissions, the Australian Liberal Students Federation, led by Sasha Uher, made a fantastic contribution to this debate, highlighting many of the practical reasons why this legislation will be detrimental to students around the country. University campuses are no different than any other part of our society. The concept that this bill will somehow improve standards of services for people when you are taking $250 out of the pockets of every student is flawed.

This bill means $250 less for textbooks, study materials, transport, the cost of living and, at best, means more HECS debt. This is where you come to the very odd position taken by the Labor Party: they oppose HECS and HECS debt increases when, really, HECS is designed in the understanding that education is an economic asset and improving your education improves your ability to obtain remuneration in our economy today. Therefore, we say you ought to make a contribution for the economic asset that the government is giving you and that society is providing you with. It is a reasonable and fair scheme that is working well.

But the Labor Party of course do not agree with the principle that you ought to make a contribution to your own education and that if you are going to receive such an economic asset and do better in your life you ought to return something to the system. Then they say, ‘We have in this legislation a provision which says we will have a fee help scheme.’ We do not need a fee help scheme if there is no compulsory fee. We do not need a fee help scheme if we allow people to have the $250 back in the first place to make their own decisions about student services and things on campus. When you think about every provider in this country that would be keen to get onto a campus to provide their goods and services at the cheapest rate they possibly could—because you are talking about young people, young consumers, people who will set their consumer behaviour for life—it is a golden opportunity for our campuses and universities. One of the great concerns of the coalition, and one of my great concerns as a coalition member, is that in our university and private sector funding for universities we do not encourage the system they have in America—scholarships, private sector involvement, more money being generated into education—which is the way to go.

There is no disguising what the Labor government is up to in this legislation. They see the taxation of students as one of their first priorities for the new government. This is the new paradigm: higher taxes and charges for our young people in Australia. I am happy to oppose this bill.

6:39 pm

Photo of Laurie FergusonLaurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

That was an interesting contribution—on the one side whingeing and whining that we are not charging students thousands of dollars for their education and then complaining about the introduction of a fee of $250 to provide services at university. A comment by Senator Barnaby Joyce to Patricia Karvelas in the Australian on 26 February 2009 summarises some of the realities of this issue. Senator Joyce quite correctly said:

I still believe that university is more than just the academic, it’s the development of the person as a whole, but this issue is now secondary to the state election in Queensland and the global financial crisis.

While the Queensland election is on, I’ll have to fall into line … but (if the vote comes after the election) it’s a different kettle of fish.

He articulated on a number of occasions, as did National Party members, the reality of the campuses that this was particularly hurting, such as the University of Western Sydney, the universities that more recently have emerged in the suburbs of Australia and those in rural and regional areas.

I must confess that my university period was not associated with university politics. I did not have the slightest interest in it, so I cannot be accused of coming to this after those battles. I do, however, believe that there are very strong reasons for the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010, and I think we have a reasonable compromise here. On the one hand the postgraduates association and others say that we are not giving enough power to students in this compromise position, and then we have the more extreme elements of the opposition going to the barricades in opposition to this minimal change.

I agree with Senator Joyce that university is not just about the exams; it is about the fuller life. One of the characteristics of the Howard government was to set up a conflict between a rounded education—the arts and a broader education—and rhetoric about how they only wanted to put people through TAFE colleges and the Labor Party was not interested in anyone but the elite. That came through in the previous speech. But this is just a guise for the opposition’s belief that funding of universities should be shifted from the taxpayer to become more dependent upon the private sector and thereby the universities should jump to the tune of the private sector with regard to who is produced and in what manner and where academic studies go. We are even seeing the picture, particularly in areas such as pharmaceuticals, of a very disconcerting line between the demands of private enterprise and genuine academic research.

The previous contribution essentially ridiculed the need for debating, as though anybody from the working class or the western suburbs would never be interested in it. I can assure him that in schools such as Granville Boys High School in my former electorate there is great pride and interest in having a debating team. Going up against more select areas is something that is very much to the benefit of the school. There were rather puerile shots at the art that might be produced, as though nothing worth while could ever come out of universities with regard to artistic pursuits, and there was philistinism about how it is all superfluous and unnecessary. I must confess that, whilst not having been active in university politics, I actually appreciated many of the things that were available. A lifelong interest in cinema was probably created by Wednesday afternoon films at the theatre. The availability of other entertainment around the university did not really hurt me in life. This is a thing that is worth funding.

Where the decline has occurred is not in the elite universities. We have had comments about rugby union at the University of Sydney. This is such a furphy. The speaker before me actually understands that the revival of the University of Sydney rugby union club has been accomplished by a very effective utilisation of their alumni—actually going out to them and raising money from those sources. Sydney university’s rugby union club is no way dependent upon these fees. Quite frankly, they are piddling compared to the amount of money that that club needs to survive and which it does raise.

When we talk about sport at university, we are not talking about the University of Sydney first grade rugby union team or the rowing. We are talking about interfaculty sport. We are talking about the provision of squash courts in the university for those who are interested. We are talking about the provision of tennis courts for those who have the time at any time during the week.

These services are reasonable and necessary. The argument that because everyone does not utilise them and therefore we should not have a fee from the general body to support them is the kind of logic we have seen from the Liberal Party recently in the Liverpool council in Sydney, where they are seeking to close down public libraries because, as they see it, a lot of people—including most of the councillors, apparently—do not read books. That is the kind of logic: because everyone does not utilise a service, it should not be cross-subsidised by the general public.

Quite frankly, these services are not going to be viable in many cases without the ability to fund them. As I say, if you go around the campuses of this country, you will find that where they are really being hurt is in those more recently established universities which do not have as strong corporate support as the more established—those that have not had the history and the time to have put those facilities together.

I know from my own dealings particularly with the University of Western Sydney that the concern over the previous government’s legislation is not just coming from a few university radicals who want to spend the other students’ money in regard to gay liberation, environmental causes, Fatah or Hamas. That is a very, very minor ingredient in how these funds would be utilised. There is once again a contradiction by the member for Mitchell. On the one hand, he is carrying on about the fact that the government is prescriptive in regard to what the money can be spent on. It is the nanny state, according to him, in that we actually have a list of what it can be utilised for. Of course, if we had not left out political causes and radical efforts at university, that would be his biggest complaint. We prescribe that it is not to be used for these political mechanisms, and that is why there is a list that encompasses what is reasonable.

I think it is more than reasonable that those things that are prescribed are assisted by a general fee. We know that they cover the areas of sports recreation and various clubs and societies. Isn’t it reasonable that the university body would help fund faculty associations, annual dramatic performances and various language groups, whether they are an Italian students’ group at Sydney university or an association for ancient Greek? Is there something deplorable about trying to promote those kinds of activities? As to child care, certainly I think it is more than reasonable that a facility is provided for those students who need that, and similarly counselling. He lampoons advocacy. Apparently there should not be a voice there for students, they should not have the ability to articulate a position around issues that are important to them and they should not have legal services.

As we have seen, I believe that this is a sensible compromise. Some people might say that it has not gone far enough, but, as we see around this country, there is broad support for it from the university leadership. I believe that concerns with the legacies of 25 years of juvenile university politics are not a reason why we should not have a reasonable compromise on funding reasonable facilities in universities around this country.

6:48 pm

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 having been a student leader myself back in the early nineties, having worked with Dr Nelson in the early 2000s—in 2005, if I recall correctly—to abolish compulsory student union fees and as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, which inquired very briefly into this bill and tabled our report in this parliament. It is an issue which I have thought a lot about over many, many years, and it is an issue which many people on this side of this chamber are very passionate about, as are many thousands of students across the nation.

I am strongly opposed to this bill, which in effect reintroduces compulsory student union fees. There are three primary reasons why I am against the bill. First of all, it is against the principle of choice. Second, there is the creation of inequity through the operation of this bill. Third, if any type of fee is introduced, inevitably it will end up funding party political campaigns.

Before making my substantive arguments, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some grave reservations in relation to the process by which the Standing Committee on Education and Employment undertook its inquiry into this bill. The bill was referred to the committee on 21 October 2010 for inquiry, and the committee was originally instructed to report during the autumn sittings in 2011. The committee tabled the report on Monday, 15 November 2010. This gave the committee just three weeks to receive submissions from the public, consider those submissions and report to the parliament. Thirty-six submissions from interested persons were received in this time, only 20 of which were received before the nominated closing date.

Given the wide impact this bill will have if it is passed into law, many more submissions ought to have been received and a more appropriate time frame ought to have been made available for the committee to consider all the evidence presented to it and to consult with relevant parties to come to a more rounded evaluation of the evidence presented and the issues involved. The short time frame did not allow any time for face-to-face hearings, as is usually the practice when bills as important and as contentious as this come before a standing committee. The committee itself would have benefited from the opportunity to conduct face-to-face hearings, but the government majority on the committee ensured that that could not take place.

I would also like to highlight the awkward timing of this inquiry, such as it was. The inquiry fell largely within the university examination period for many universities, meaning that many of the most affected parties—individual students—were not afforded the opportunity to give evidence either in writing or face to face. Those individual students who did find the time to make submissions to the inquiry are to be commended.

Why the rush? One person who put in a submission to the inquiry, Ms Arabella Haddon-Casey, put it as such:

The vast majority of students do not have a clue that the government is considering imposing compulsory fees upon them. If it was such a big issue, surely students around Australia would be demanding compulsory service fees?

I think she put that very well. Why the rush? There is no great demand for compulsory fees to be reintroduced. The vast majority of students are not aware that this bill is coming before the parliament. Yet we only gave three weeks to inquire into this process. I think that is unsatisfactory and I hope it is not an indication of what is going to come in the future.

Let me go to my substantive arguments. First of all there is a fundamental principle at hand here with this bill. That is individual choice. Since Brendan Nelson when he was education minister introduced voluntary student unionism into this country in 2005, students have had real choice on campuses. They have had choices over what services to join, they have had choices over what political activities to be part of, they have had choice over whether or not they want to join the gymnasium and they have had choice over whether or not they want their own money to subsidise the food in the local cafeterias. These are everyday decisions made by grown-up adults. The students have relished this opportunity to make their own decisions for themselves. Choice is fundamentally part of the DNA of every human being. We want choice in terms of how we live our lives; we want maximum freedom over our own decisions. But this bill overturns that choice. If it goes through, students will find they will be unable to enrol in the publicly funded universities unless they pay a compulsory fee for services that they do not want, unless they give money which will inevitably end up funding political campaigns. The government contends that it believes in choice. These days it talks about it even in this parliament. But we know that we should not look at what the government says but what the government does. The National Broadband Network is a case in point, where the government wants to reintroduce a government monopoly and significantly diminish choice.

Under this legislation students will be forced to pay a compulsory fee for services that they may not want. They will pay a compulsory fee where inevitably some of that money ends up funding political campaigns. This is fundamentally at odds with freedom of choice. Over the last few years students have voted with their feet. Sometimes they have agreed to join student unions or student guilds. Others have not, and that is fundamentally their choice. In the case of one of the submissions to the inquiry, Cameron Sinclair had not been a member; he chose not to be a member in one particular year. Then in his third year in 2009 the Curtin Student Guild modified its membership fee structure in an effort to be more attractive to potential members. For $99 students would receive a $50 food and drink voucher for on-campus outlets in addition to discounts, access to social events and the other services guild members can access. Finally, he said, guild membership provided value for money and he chose to rejoin. He says that this is the perfect example of how voluntary student membership encourages student organisations to attract members by catering to student needs. I think that is a very good submission that Mr Sinclair has made and it perfectly encapsulates how he and thousands of others are quite happy to make informed decisions for themselves and, if a package is attractive enough, they will join the particular guild. In this case, in his third year he did decide to join that particular guild. He did not need to be forced to and, had he been forced to, the guild probably would not be providing the services that he, and thousands of other students, wanted. But by virtue of being voluntary the guild had to think through exactly what the students wanted and make their offer attractive to the students so that they would join the guild.

The second substantive argument is in relation to equity. This bill would create significant inequities for students across campuses in Australia. It would be levied on mature age students, on part-time students, on students who study by correspondence, students who live large distances from campuses and students who work to pay their way through university. None of these groups have the same opportunities to use the student services that many other people do. Again I refer to a number of the submissions received which illustrate very powerfully this point and how individuals feel hard done by by the prospect of again having to pay a compulsory fee for services which they will not be actually able to use. I go first of all to Dr Michael Ayling. He writes:

My concern relates to the possible relevance of such taxes to distance education students. I am enrolled at the University of New England for a Graduate Diploma of Economics in 2011 [as a distance education student]. …It is not my intention to ever visit the UNE campus in Armidale. …Yet it is still envisaged that I should pay the new tax.

How is a compulsory fee for Dr Ayling equitable to him when he is doing a distance education course and he will never step foot on campus? How is that equitable?

Here is another submission, this time by Alyson Richards. She writes:

I am currently studying an undergraduate degree part time. I work full time during the day and attend classes 2/3 nights a week. Due to me not being on campus full time and certainly not in the day time I do not have the option of using the amenities that this new compulsory tax is supposedly funding. So I will be forced to pay a fee towards facilities I do not even have the option of using!

There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of students in that same position: mature age students, low-income students who have to work tirelessly in order to fund their way through university, distance education students—all of these students spend very little time on campus other than attending lectures if indeed they are able to get there for those lectures. They should not have to pay a compulsory fee, because it is inequitable for them to do so.

Photo of Peter SlipperPeter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! It being 7 pm, the debate is interrupted. The honourable member for Aston will have the opportunity to continue his remarks at the appropriate time.