Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Carol Brown begs to differ. Senator Brown, on behalf of the government, does think that all students should pay for the activities of the few that happen to have a view that they do not agree with. That is the fundamental problem with this Labor-Green government. They abuse the power they have at present by being the Australian government. They abuse it to force all students across Australia to fund organisations for the few at the expense of the many.

Senator Mason very eloquently talked about the million or so higher education students, many of them do not even—

Senator CONROY: Time!

Senator CORMANN: I am sure that Senator Mason will move an extension of time, but I summarise: this is a bad tax from a bad government and of course the Senate should get on top of it. (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:44): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. I was just warming to Senator Cormann's speech. That does not mean I agreed with it, but I was just beginning to warm to it. I thought I should outline a brief history of voluntary student unionism in the context and then set out my views on this. It is important that we distinguish between what has been very much an ideological debate and one in which we need to have a practical outcome. This is what this bill intends to achieve. When voluntary student unionism was introduced by the Howard government in 2005 it had a number of practical and quite drastic effects. I think they were acknowledged by the Howard government when it provided $100 million of transitional funding to universities through three competitive funding programs. The VSU Transition Fund for Sporting and Recreational Facilities allocated $85 million for 44 projects, the small business and regional campuses fund allocated $5 million for 19 projects and the regional university sports program provided $10 million over four years to Australian University Sport. I think that is a concession on the part of the Howard government that there were going to be quite significant impacts on campus life.

The problem here is that the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association and the Australian Union of Students concluded that the grants available in the VSU transition funds 'do not address the shortfalls in recurrent funding and provide only temporary respite from the pressing capital needs of the sector'. That is the key to this. The fact that the Howard government provided $100 million in transitional funding was an acknowledgement that this was going to have a profound impact on students and campus life, but it was just a stopgap measure. The transitional funding did not address the fundamental problem of not having recurrent funding for these activities.

These are the very sorts of activities that I think this bill will address in a fairer and more structured way. The opposition say it is unreasonable to go down this path, that it is unreasonable to fund these sorts of activities, but they are the very activities that the Howard government funded with its transitional fund. There is some flawed logic or some convenient overlooking of facts in this case. The Howard government acknowledged that those activities ought to be funded, but the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association is absolutely correct in saying that there is not sufficient recurrent funding for these activities. The opposition should acknowledge that these are activities that the former coalition government funded but did not fund on an adequate long-term basis.

The impact of VSU on campuses has been quite profound. A principal of a smaller tertiary institution in South Australia has told me how profound the impact has been on student life on his campus. I think it is important to acknowledge the impact this has had on regional universities throughout the country. It is clear that smaller and regional universities and campuses have been most profoundly affected. The consultations that the Hon. Kate Ellis undertook as Minister for Youth in February 2008 indicated:

While a 'user‐pays' model worked for some services (e.g. food and beverage outlets), it was reported that this type of delivery commonly resulted in increased costs to individual students.

Not having a well-administered VSU lends itself to all sorts of inefficiencies and distortions. This is the best and fairest way of dealing with these issues so we do not have those anomalies and distortions. The consultation on VSU that the minister undertook in February 2008 also indicated:

… VSU had commonly resulted in an increase in fees, which had led to a decrease in the number of clubs and/or in club membership.

It is also important to look at the impact VSU has had on student amenities and services. This bill does not actually propose to reintroduce student union fees. I think it has been criticised by the Greens for not going far enough. They said that the bill is quite conservative in its approach to dealing with these matters. For instance, these funds are not controlled by student unions per se. But to the government's credit and to the credit of the Australian Greens and Senator Hanson-Young, who has pushed this point, there will be consultation requirements for higher education providers in the representation guidelines. Higher education providers will be required to have a formal process of consultation with the democratically elected student representatives—and the emphasis has to be on 'democratically elected' student representatives. So there will be a level of consultation, as I think is appropriate.

Higher education providers also need to provide details of the identified priorities for the proposed fee expenditure and to allow an opportunity for students to comment on those priorities. There must be regular meetings or a process for the student organisations to meet with those who are making decisions about the expenditure of funds. They are quite modest measures that do not go as far as I think the Australian Greens have requested—that the funds should be controlled directly by student unions. So this is a fairly conservative approach, a softly-softly approach from the government in dealing with this issue. The issue is the impact that VSU has had on campus life and campus amenities.

I think it is also important to look at the views of the Nationals. Before he became leader, my friend and colleague Senator Barnaby Joyce, now the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, raised concerns about the ideological nature of this debate. He raised concerns about how country students who played sport had been punished. He said there was some sympathy from Nationals senators about the adverse consequences of VSU and the need to have them addressed. That is important.

The issue as to whether the fees should be compulsory is, of course, one that has driven much ideological debate. But this is about how you administer something for members of a campus and the most efficient, effective and fair way of providing student services which all students should be entitled to.

The fact that the fee is in the order of $250 per year, or capped at that, is quite significant. The government has taken a median approach when it comes to these fees. I think it is interesting that the Australian Liberal Students Federation is concerned that:

There are numerous student organisations that are political in nature that will be eligible to receive monies compulsorily acquired from students, as the majority of political groups on campus would not meet these requirements.

But it seems:

… the Australian Liberal Students' Federation will not be prevented from obtaining money from a student organisation, as it is not a political party per se.

So it will be interesting to see if the Australian Liberal Students' Federation will be seeking to obtain funds under this. If they do, I will not criticise them for it.

I think it is also worth reflecting on the very ideological nature of this debate. A lifelong member of the Australian Liberal Students' Federation did point out how philosophical and ideological this debate has been. It is worth looking at the alternative. The alternative is to go back to the system with the piecemeal, ad hoc approach of the Howard government of having a lump sum that is completely inadequate to deal with these issues. I know that it is not cheap to be a student these days. Most students juggle a part-time job, if not two, with study, and so the very suggestion of a compulsory fee is off-putting for many. However, for me, it comes down to: what do we want a university to be? Do we want it to be a case of students just turning up for lectures and tutorials and then leaving, or do we want it to be a time when young Australians learn skills, participate in activities and facilitate opportunities which will help them in the future? Ultimately, higher education has to be about more than just lectures and textbooks.

I supported this legislation when it was debated in the last parliament and I made a contribution at that time on 17 August 2009 where I referred to my youthful indiscretion as a Young Liberal on campus. We all make mistakes!