Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The concerns of many in the coalition, most recently articulated by Senator Ronaldson, come back to this issue of the welfare of students. I seek a broader response from the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations. How are we to interpret the words in clause 19-38(4)(f) of this bill: 'promoting the health or welfare of students'? You can draw a long bow and extrapolate health into many much needed areas, and the welfare of students is certainly a very subjective task. Some would say that engaging in political agendas, as Senator Mason has highlighted, is about enhancing the welfare of students, whether they be current students or future students. Some would say that the opposition to this compulsory tax on students is in fact acting in the welfare of students, so would students and student unions be able to put their funds in and campaign, for example, against this government which is seeking to tax every student, whether or not they actually engage in the services that are available on campus?

I am drawn to the dichotomy that, on one hand, the Prime Minister said earlier this week that she believes in individualism and rejects collectivism and that the choices of individuals are very important, but, on the other hand, has had introduced into this place this week a bill which rejects entirely the individual choice of students. It is applying a tax of $250 on students, overall a tax of about $250 million, which will make their lives more difficult. I say more difficult because, financially, it is a struggle—many students do not have $250 to pluck out of thin air. It is a week's work for many casual students—it can be applied to their HECS bill but if they do that it becomes a greater burden later on. We know that delayed gratification is a good thing, but delaying the repayment of debts is not a good thing.

The welfare of students, that catch-all phrase, is open to an enormous amount of abuse. The challenge for the parliamentary secretary is to highlight the areas which the government considers are appropriate for this money to be expanded upon for the welfare of students. It is incumbent upon us to highlight our concerns and have them ruled out specifically by the government. I suspect that it will not be able to do that. That is not a reflection upon the minister's competence, but upon the drafting of this bill. You have to understand, and I think the Australian people understand, judging by the feedback that comes into the Twitter stream, that students are concerned. I do not read what people write about me on Twitter, but Senator Mason has certainly been getting many favourable comments on Twitter from students who are concerned about how this will impact on their lives. They are not concerned about the $250 specifically, although that will be a burden, but about the greater concerns of potential misuse and abuse for people who might consider themselves victims of on-campus actions. That will be the challenge and it is why I put to you, Parliamentary Secretary, the question: are you able to determine in a very specific manner, perhaps you could even table, a list of approved activities that would be determined to be for the welfare of students? If you are unable to do that, perhaps you could provide us with a number of examples that would clarify the phrase. These are very genuine concerns that have been articulated in a number of areas and which are held not just by the coalition but by hundreds of thousands of students across this great land. It is for them that we are raising these issues. We want to protect not only their financial pocketbooks but the integrity of the use of their funds. There is no denying that there has been misuse of student union funds in the past. That has been demonstrated, categorised and catalogued extensively.

In the short time I have left I do not need to elaborate too much further on that, save to say that when compulsory student unionism and amenities fees was abolished by what was an excellent government—most Australians would confirm that, given the current state of affairs of this nation—there were a lot of happy students. Those who decried and said that student life would be diminished or fail have been proven wrong again and again. We could draw parallels with other sorts of policies, but I will not. I will confine myself to this issue, which is the welfare of students. So, Parliamentary Secretary, I ask whether you are able to provide me and the people listening, the many students who are following this debate, with a definition of 'welfare of students', with some examples of how it would be inappropriate to spend money under the guise of the welfare of students and some examples of how it would be appropriate to spend money on the welfare of students. I have given you plenty of time to take appropriate advice, so I would like a full and complete answer to my very genuine concerns.