Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I have not had the opportunity to join this debate until now, but I do want to take up some of the matters that have been raised most eloquently by my colleagues, both in the second reading debate and in committee. What is glaringly obvious from listening to this debate from my room on and off over the last two days is the utter philosophical hypocrisy of the government—absolute philosophical hypocrisy. I assume that their partners and the other end here, the real government in this country, will be joining them on this matter. That is the real philosophical hypocrisy.

Quite frankly, the parliamentary secretary has not given one ounce of confidence to anyone in relation to the abuse of these funds in her answers to Senators Mason and Cormann. The problems are big enough for a truck to be driven through. We know from past experience that organisations such as the National Union of Students are going to do whatever is required to ensure that they get hold of this money. They get hold of this money to support the Australian Labor Party, and what the Australian Labor Party has done with this legislation is to pull out from underneath the feet of all Australian students their right to freedom of choice in the expenditure of these funds.

What you have done is the most appalling part of this debate. The Australian Labor Party have done this because the National Union of Students for decades was a third or fourth arm of the Australian Labor Party. It is not appropriate to argue that there are sufficient provisions in this legislation protecting students from the misuse of their funds. There is not sufficient protection. Anyone looking at this legislation, as Senator Mason said, could drive a truck through it. The Australian Labor Party knows, we know and the Greens know that it will be used against the coalition in support of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens.

But that is not the fundamental issue. The issue is not about whether it is to support the Labor Party against the conservative part of the community; it is about freedom of choice. On what basis does the Australian Labor Party force Australian students to pay money for services which they do not use? On what basis does the Australian Labor Party have a philosophical right to demand that of students? The only fair philosophical position in relation to this debate is for freedom of choice to remain, for there to be voluntary student unionism, because everything else is the antithesis of what we in this place should believe.

You cannot sit there, Parliamentary Secretary, and argue that a loose form of words is giving protection against abuse of these funds because no-one looking at the legislation we will believe it. Even a bush lawyer can see that there is no protection in this legislation. I do not think that anything you have said today to Senator Mason, Senator Bernardi, Senator Cormann or others would give any confidence at all in relation to this matter. Clearly, Parliamentary Secretary, you need to answer the questions properly that were put today. For example, you have not answered Senator Cormann's question about NUS expenditure. Answer the questions that have been put to you today, because if you do not it is just a further example of a philosophical cover-up on this matter.

Apart from the National Union of Students and the Australian Labor Party, I do not know anyone who is legitimately opposed to voluntary student unionism or voluntary student payments. How could anyone be against those voluntary payments? It does not stand up to the philosophical test. It does not pass muster in relation to what is reasonable. Again, I look at the great cohort of students in this country, particularly regional and rural students and particularly the children of working families. On what basis does the Australian Labor Party demand of them a compulsory fee? On what basis does the Australian Labor Party demand of working families and regional and rural students a fee over which they have no choice and for which they will have, in the most part, no use? On what basis do you justify that?

You have sold your own alleged constituency down the drain on this matter. Surely it is the students and their parents who make a decision about the expenditure of the family funds. It is the families who must be allowed to make that decision, not the Australian Labor Party to support one of its largest branches—namely the National Union of Students. This is about supporting a branch of the ALP. It is not about supporting regional or rural Australians. It is not about supporting struggling families, working families—