Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I thank you for your intervention. I can understand that the Labor Party feels sensitive about this, because it is desperate for this legislation to get through, because it will also, without doubt, be the financial beneficiary of some of the money that will be compulsorily acquired from students.

I remember, and students have told me, that the ski club at the University of Tasmania got heavy subsidies from the student union. What is more, which were the students that were able to afford to go skiing during the holidays? Those from a wealthy background. It was the wealthy students who could milk the extra money out of the poorer students to get a subsidy for their skiing holiday, whilst the poorer students had to work holiday jobs so the richer ones could go skiing. That is the sort of social injustice that the Labor Party, the Greens and others will be foisting upon the student population of our country. As somebody who drove taxis and who worked as a farm hand during university holidays, I have some sympathy for those students who feel the pain of having to pay a student union fee for services that they do not want. I can understand the pain of those part-time students. Senator Xenophon referred to the fact that students nowadays go to university for lectures and tutorials and then leave campus. The old days when you had to be on campus for all your activities—educational and social—are well and truly gone. We now have students who do university degrees online. They do not even set foot on campus, but you can bet your bottom dollar they will be paying the compulsory student union fee.

We have had a number of submissions about this issue. A number of people comment on these matters, such as—just at random—Sheradyn Holderhead from the Adelaide Advertiser, who starts off her article:

Campus culture … could be back in South Australia's universities as early as next year.

To these people I say: what arrogance and what nonsense. Is there no culture today in South Australian universities? Does anybody actually believe that there is no culture? But we are told recklessly, 'Campus culture could be back in South Australia as early as next year.' That is the sort of nonsense they have to dress compulsion up with because they do not have a rational or proper argument to put forward. Why does the payment of a compulsory fee automatically mean that somehow a culture is reinstituted? The only culture that will come to the campuses of South Australia is the culture of compulsion—a culture to which we on this side of the chamber object to very strongly.

In same article, the University of Adelaide Vice-Chancellor said:

Under the present arrangements, the University has diverted funds from other core business areas to ensure services are available to support students.

A lot of people have made that argument. What they never tell us is from where those funds are being diverted. What would they actually be spending the money on if they were not allegedly paying extra money to support students? That is always a blank. They never advise that they would be holding another course in Japanese if they were not doing this. Would they? Of course not. Once again it is all hyperbole that is never backed up by any substance.

We had the same from the Vice-Chancellor of UniSA, not to be confused with the University of South Australia, who said:

Improved student services will result in a higher quality of student engagement and experience in the short term.

Can he explain to the people of Australia how the payment by students of a $250 compulsory fee will result in a 'higher quality of student engagement'? Once again, they are just words thrown out. It sounds good, but when you ask them, 'What does it actually mean?' there is no substance behind the empty rhetoric. There are no arguments being put forward other than that, somehow, campus culture and campus life has suffered. Where is the study, where is the evidence to suggest that the university degrees of the past five or so years are of any less value than those that were obtained during the compulsory era?

Senator Xenophon told us in his speech that higher education was more than just text books and lectures. If that is the case, and he actually believes it, then there should be a compulsory element to university degrees which says you cannot get your arts degree or your medical degree unless you have played a sport, or unless you can shown that you have attended at least 20 student union meetings in your day, or that you have read the student newspaper cover to cover, or that you have drunk half-a-dozen beers every week at the uni bar. But until such time as that becomes an integral part of obtaining your degree, the only thing that remains an integral part of one's degree is the payment of the compulsory fee.

Then we were told by Senator Xenophon that it is a pity that O-Day, as in orientation day activities, no longer exists. I do not know in what universe Senator Xenophon exists in relation to this matter, but I know that at the University of Tasmania, at the ANU and at universities all over the country there are orientation days and the various university Liberal clubs around the country busily sign up new members. I am sure Senator Rhiannon will be able to tell us that the Greens also sign up members on O-Day or during O-Week—the orientation period. To suggest that that has gone from campus is an absolute nonsense, because self-interest of all the clubs will of necessity demand that they be present there at the beginning of the year to sign up as many members as possible. The only difference is that it will be voluntary money, voluntary fees, and those who want to be part of the Greens will contribute and those who want to be part of the Liberal movement will join and pay for it; they will not use the subsidised moneys from other students who only want to get a university degree.

The culture of university life has changed dramatically over the years, and the concept of a compulsory fee, a compulsory levy, is anathema to the students. Universities have shown they can operate very successfully without the need for a compulsory fee. We can have vice-chancellors and we can have all sorts of other people saying why they want compulsory fees, but they never tell us why any of the activities which are funded by these compulsory fees are compulsory for obtaining your university degree, and that is where it falls down. I was never in the league for a Rhodes Scholarship, but I understand that for a Rhodes Scholarship you actually have to show not only academic prowess but also sporting and other prowess. If that becomes part of the university culture, so be it. But of course if it were to become part of the culture then all the universities that are now promoting online studying—the fact that you do not have to go to campus, that you can simply do it on line, attend virtual lectures et cetera—will of course be doing themselves out of business and I think doing a great disservice to future student generations.

The coalition has had a very strong, firm position in relation to this. I conclude on this. Mr Smith, when he was minister for education, promised that there would never be a loans scheme in relation to compulsory student unionism. Another promise, like the no carbon tax promise, has been broken and discarded like a soiled tissue by this government. The coalition remains committed to student choice.