Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very important bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010, which will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow higher education providers to charge a capped compulsory student services and amenities fee. I speak in support of this bill because it is incredibly important to students in this country and, in being important to students, it is important to our society and to our future. It goes to the role and capacity of our universities, to whether we continue to support a vibrant higher education sector in this country, whether we continue to support academic environments that are conducive to learning and supportive of discovery and whether we believe that all students should be able to fully participate in their student life and fully engage with their studies.

Universities are places of profound scholarship and sources of constant expansion of the knowledge of humanity. They are places of debate, of academic rigour and peer review and of advancing our understanding, enlarging our imagination and enriching our culture. Universities have been responsible for the development of the philosophical, scientific, artistic, technical and professional skills that have been responsible for so many of the great changes of modern society. They are places where the capacity and contribution of those who want to engage deeply with some aspect of a vast body of human understanding are recognised through degrees, diplomas, research and publications, but of course they are much more than that.

Universities are no doubt institutions of scholarship and of qualification. They are academic and they are vocational. But equally they are the tinderbox which sparks new and exciting systems of thought, cradles for social movements and sites for communities to gather, share knowledge and think deeply about the issues and the opportunities that confront us. Universities are the crucibles in which young minds—and minds still gentle enough to open to instruction and intrigue—shape and are shaped by the world around them. They are places where eager minds and curious souls drink in new experiences, dispelling old ways of thinking and realising new things about the world and about themselves.

University study is in many ways a formative time that not only crafts the skills with which a student will contribute economically to our nation but also moulds the kinds of citizens we want in our democracies. Indeed, it is perhaps appropriate to borrow the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum's recent rallying cry for supporting the humanities in education and apply it broadly to higher education: we must not simply turn our universities into institutions for creating 'useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticise tradition and understand the significance of another person's sufferings and achievements'.

This attribute of the university, this part of the tradition and, I would argue, this responsibility of the academy is plainly about education, but it is about more than that; it is about the learning that one has access to, both inside and outside the lecture theatre or the classroom. It is about exploring the interests that students have that may not fit into a course of study offered at an institution but that enable that learning to take place or are the source of inspiration and innovation for new fields of study and new types of opportunities. It is about supporting the kinds of services that support students, the kinds of communities and networks that enable students to concentrate on their studies or to develop, grow and explore new passions which they might not have access to at any other time in their lives and of which they may never be aware if these opportunities are not visible, active and alive on campus.

In 2006, the Howard government completed their campaign against vibrant campus life by passing the voluntary student unionism legislation, undoing the revenue stream that supported so many essential services on campus. This bill seeks to redress that gravest of the consequences of that move, a move that was motivated principally by the Howard government's determination to snuff out student representation that was opposed to the conservative agenda. This bill will enable higher education providers to require students to contribute to the services and amenities available to them and their peers, many of which either cannot or will not be provided at an affordable price by commercial providers. This bill looks to support students in the places that students need support—that is, on campus—and at rates that enable most in need of those services to have access to them, supported by those who share their student experience.

I will just give one example of that very need for those supports on campus. It is a personal example from my time as a university student at the University of Tasmania in the early 1990s. Part way through my undergraduate degree at the university, I became pregnant and forthwith had my first child. If it were not for the support services provided at the university, namely the childcare centre, I would not have been able to continue my university degree. It is something that has stayed with me through all the years, especially during the years of the Howard government introducing voluntary student unionism, because, if it were not for those services provided to me—and I am sure I am an example of many other students across this nation—then I might not be here today. I might not have been able to go on to finish my degree and complete the career that I have had from my days as an undergraduate student at the university. I am very thankful for the fact that we did have compulsory student services and amenities fees in my time at university and I am very thankful for the fact that those services and amenities were delivered—and at a high-quality standard—at my university and that I was able to be a beneficiary of them. This is exactly what we are talking about here today: ensuring that, in the future, a student like me who may need those services—a childcare centre or some other type of service—at their university has them on offer and that they are not disadvantaged because of their circumstances and because those services are not provided because the university can no longer afford them, through the change of process that has come about over the years with voluntary student unionism.

There are a number of pressing considerations surrounding the debate around voluntary student unionism and universal student unionism—whether life at our universities should be restricted to attending lectures and then going home, whether students should be restricted in their pursuit of a quality education because they do not have access to convenient and affordable services. I think I have just outlined my own personal example of that.

I want to consider for a moment the situation of the Tasmania University Union, the student representative body at the University of Tasmania. Since the introduction of VSU, the Tasmania University Union, the TUU, has seen a funding shortfall of $2.2 million. The TUU and UTas joined in good faith to negotiate a service level agreement designed to enable the services delivered by the TUU to continue to be delivered even when the TUU's direct revenue was severely curtailed. I and students at the university are very appreciative of that collaborative arrangement that was reached.

Since VSU, the Tasmania University Union has had to cut back the opening hours of food outlets on campus, to cut costs. This results in students not having access to proper food after 3 pm. Students have also been robbed of cheaper meals at what is commonly known as the refectory. Another outlet of the TUU that has suffered badly is the uni bar. The bar used to be a gathering point for students after classes, with its cheaper drinks and counter meals. It was also of course a place to debate and discuss the learning that had gone on in the lectures throughout the day on campus. Now the bar has to shut down early to cut costs, and we have seen the number of students meeting on campus after hours reduce significantly.

Sports and societies—the backbone of uni life—have greatly suffered. Sports clubs continue to be billed with exorbitant ground-hire fees and competition costs, while not having access to the same amount of money they used to have. The Sports Council operating budget has shrunk by almost 75 per cent since the introduction of VSU, and the university has been unable to send the best of its athletes to uni games and world games due to the lack of funding. Student societies are not being able to hold the kinds of vibrant and inclusive events that they once were able to.

So there are a number of examples, at one university alone, of where VSU has caused damage in various areas. Senators opposite, in their contributions on this bill, choose to completely ignore the current environment of student life compared the past environment of student life at our universities.

Student representation has greatly suffered as well. Remuneration for student representatives has been cut tremendously. Student reps are required to commit at least 10 hours a week to their role, for as little as $250 per annum in recognition of their services, when they could be earning that same amount in a week working elsewhere. All this simply diminishes the independence of the student organisation. Student councils have also lost access to a research officer who used to help the students come out with policies. The most pressing issue is the lack of ability for students to be adequately represented in academic matters, because access to advocacy has also suffered. Currently the Hobart advocate is overrun with students seeking help and is unable to hire a second advocate, due to funding issues. It struggles to get emergency food parcels for students as well.

These are a number of examples of how the current situation has brought about the need for this government to redress the disadvantages, the difficulties, for students and staff working at universities. Student life in general—with all the positives that come from it—has suffered over the years as a result of voluntary student unionism.

Those on the other side of this chamber come in and denigrate the bill and talk down its components. They do so in complete ignorance of the fact that student life in Australia, now and in the past, has been difficult and disadvantaged. The government does not support denying students a campus life, a life that I am sure many senators in this place have positive memories of. We were more than happy to contribute our fair share to those student services and amenities, which we all took advantage of and perhaps took for granted. Yet here today we have coalition senators who went to university conveniently ignoring their time of taking advantage of those services, enjoying those amenities. They now come into this place and say that those services that they had the benefit of should no longer be available to students in our universities. I think that is very unfair. Not being able to support the system as it currently is, as they once had the privilege of enjoying, shows complete contempt for it. It is something that government senators on this side of the house take seriously in the sense that we believe that every student, no matter what their circumstances, should have those services and amenities available to them. Whether they are a student who needs them or does not need them, the services and amenities should be there for all to be able to participate, utilise and seek the benefit of so that they can have a fulfilling university life, so that they can ensure that their academic time was one of intrigue, of discovery and of ensuring that they had all the balls in the air, so to speak, being able to not only participate in the knowledge learning but also the knowledge sharing and the supports and services that they need to make all of that happen. I commend the bill to the Senate.