Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The passage of the former coalition government’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 helped to lift a substantial financial burden for students in Australia. For the first time students were empowered to make their own decisions about the services they needed, and it enshrined freedom of association on campus. The results were not surprising: student unions, bereft of the power to force their members to pay their fee, had to radically cut the cost of membership and tailor their services to the demands of students. At my alma mater, the University of Sydney, union membership fees dropped from $590 in 2005 to $99 in 2008. The University of Melbourne dropped its fees from $392 in 2005 to $99 in 2009. RMIT went from $500 to just $80 three years later. Thanks to VSU, students at these campuses have hundreds of dollars back in their pockets that they can choose to spend as they see fit.

Many students were sick and tired of seeing their money wasted on extreme political campaigns. But ultimately the debate was never about whether student unions promote left-wing or right-wing causes. Student unions should be free to engage in whatever political activity they wish, provided their membership and funding base are entirely voluntary. That is freedom of speech.

To many, these changes seemed long overdue—after all, compelling Australians to join an organisation against their will was regarded as objectionable in every other part of society. Workers long ago won the right to freely associate, and today no government would ever think of making union membership compulsory in the workplace. But, for some reason, university administrators and the Labor Party believed that student unions were the exception. For some reason, the services they offered and the value they provided to their members was so high that students had to be forced to join and forced to fund them. Aside from the obvious logical fallacy that if an organisation offers its members value for money it should not require compulsion to have high membership, there are also a myriad double standards.

These students, who are supposedly incapable of choosing whether to purchase union membership, are called upon to vote in elections, electing political leaders who will chart the course of the nation. They are allowed to drive, purchase alcohol, join the Army, own a firearm or take out a loan. They are even expected to be able to choose their course, their subjects and their future career paths. But the same students who possess the faculty to make these important decisions suddenly become incapable of looking out for their own interests when it comes to student union membership.

Labor’s plan is to slug Australia’s university students with a new tax of up to $250 per year, and that will rise annually with automatic indexation. The government will establish a new loans scheme to assist some students to defer their fee payments. This is an admission, if one were needed, that students do not have the capacity to pay. This policy is also a clear breach of Labor’s pre-election commitment to Australia’s students. In a doorstop interview on 22 May 2007 the then shadow education spokesperson, Mr Stephen Smith, said:

... I’m not considering a compulsory HECS-style arrangement, and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach, so I’m not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

That is pretty clear. Fast-forward to less than two years later and Labor introduces a compulsory amenities and services fee, with a HECS style loans scheme. When considering their vote at the last election, no doubt some university students were swayed by Labor’s assurances that they would not seek to return to the days of compulsory union fees.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just like the economic conservative argument.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Cash. Labor have now betrayed the trust those students placed in them, with this sneaky return to compulsory student unionism. In her second reading speech to the House, Minister Ellis said that this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 was ‘not a return to compulsory student unionism’. This is nothing more than a con and a sham. It is true to say that the fee is levied by the university rather than by the union. Students can choose not to be union members under this package. They just have to pay the same fee as if they were a member of the union. If students refuse to pay the fee the university can decline to offer them academic services and prevent them from graduating. It is just like the old union fee. That would be like telling a construction worker that he does not need to join the CFMEU but he had better pay his union dues if he wants to work on the building site. It is, again, a no fee, no start policy, and it is wrong.

A portion of the money will still end up with student unions or with the university providing services previously provided by the student unions. It is a technical workaround of the colation’s legislation. Minister Ellis boasts that students have had a say in the bill through the consultation process she undertook prior to its introduction. Unsurprisingly, student unions and universities, who have a direct financial interest in seeing a return to a compulsory fee, slammed VSU. One of the most extreme and ridiculous arguments I have heard from anti-VSU crusaders was made by Glenn Withers from Universities Australia. Withers, in an interview with ABC radio’s program PM, hinted that VSU was perhaps responsible for recent violent attacks on students. He said:

... things like advice on employment services, advice on health and counselling. Advice from student organisations themselves on safety and feedback to universities, to other education providers, to police, on problem areas in safety, have all been compromised by the absence of a good campus way of representing students in providing services.

What utter bunkum! In reality, there is no connection between a university amenities fees and late night violence at train stations and in Melbourne’s outer suburbs This was just shameful opportunism. Ordinary students do not want to see a return to the policies of compulsion—pre VSU. In an Australian Democrats youth poll in 2008, 59 per cent stated that they did not support the abolition of VSU. It is to be expected that unrepresentative student unions, more worried about their own idea of what students should have rather than the interests of ordinary students, would demand a return to a guaranteed income stream. It does not require them to worry about pesky and annoying things like delivering value for membership or supplying the services that students want and need. National Union of Students President David Barrow highlighted this anti-student attitude perfectly when he said:

Universities get the fee, students get the services and student unions get screwed.

In reality, Barrow was doing what any good unionist would: he was making an ambit claim. Student unions are secretly delighted at being able to again levy a compulsory fee, using the university as their proxy. But ordinary students cannot afford this. The inclusion of a loan system in the package is a tacit admission that students cannot afford a compulsory upfront fee. Each semester, many students struggle to cover the costs of their books, rent and food, let alone their tuition. Most choose to put their academic fees through the FEE-HELP system and pay them back when they earn a full-time wage. Yet Kevin Rudd has called student debt in Australia a ‘national disgrace’.

For a student starting a four-year undergraduate degree in 2010, the government’s package will add up to $1,000 of debt, plus inflation. And it could not come at a worse time for students, with Australia’s graduates facing a post-study employment market weaker than any in recent years. Many of the large firms that hire graduates will take on a significantly reduced number or even zero new employees in 2010. Inevitably, some students will struggle to find work. Yet the Rudd government is happy to slug students with more debt. This is not the best way to help struggling students. They do not need to be hit with a new tax to fund services they may not want or need. The best way to help students is to allow them to keep more of their own money and let them decide what academic services they need.

The new fee also fails to take into account capacity to use the services provided or the ability to pay for them. Part-time students, who work several days a week to support themselves financially, will in many cases be charged the same as wealthy students living in college on campus with family support. Mature age students with young children, who may only ever attend campus for classes, will in many cases pay the same fee. Students who study off campus, online or at a small regional branch at the university, are likely to be slugged the same amount as students who can easily access the services on the main campus. In fact, it is the students who need support the most who will be hurt by this fee. Those students who struggle financially typically do not have the time to enjoy the benefits of union funding such as clubs and societies, or attending the free lunchtime beer, barbeque and band sessions. Those who have the time and financial security to do so hardly need other students to subsidise their experience.

The government also appear to equate compulsory union membership with an active campus culture. What rubbish! Students at TAFE or in high schools do not need compulsory unionism to have fun, nor do adults in the workforce. So why on earth should thou-sands of eager, young, curious and enthusiastic 18- to 25-year-olds on university campuses need an amenities fee to have a good time? The government have assured students and the public that, under their proposed model, students’ money will not be wasted on political activities. They specifically prohibit the support of a political party or the election of any person to the local, state and federal branches of government, but this pol-icy has been in place in Victoria for years. It did not stop the Monash Student Association from donating to the Southern Oil Workers Union in Iraq, a known anti-coalition forces group. It did not stop the Monash Stu-dent Association donating to the legal defence fund of an accused G20 rioter and it did not stop Melbourne University Student Union donating to the defence fund of an accused Palm Island rioter. It certainly did not stop student unions donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Union of Students, who ran a ‘Make Howard History’ campaign prior to the 2007 federal election.

Also, money is fungible. A dollar of compulsorily acquired money spent on a legitimate student service frees up a dollar for political activity. Unfortunately, students can have no confidence that their money will be spent on strictly non-political activities. Many critics of the former coalition government’s VSU policy noted that student unions provided welfare services to needy students. They pointed to reduced counselling or dental services on campus as evidence of the failures of VSU. But there are two important points to keep in mind. Firstly, the vast majority of universities still provide access to medical and counselling services on campus. Typically, these are university run and free or privately managed but with bulk-billing. Secondly, in the rare event that a campus does not have these services, it is important to remember that universities are not islands. Governments at a state and federal level provide medical services across the country. Student unions are not some fourth tier of government. Student unions, with election turnouts typically less than five per cent at even the most politically active campuses like Melbourne and Sydney universities, lack the popular mandate of any tier of government. Ultimately, it is up to federal, state and local governments to provide a social safety net for the whole community, students included.

The viability of university sport is often cited as a concern by opponents of VSU, but the claims do not withstand scrutiny. Thousands of voluntary community sporting clubs exist all over the country. They are mostly funded by participants and run by volunteers. Community sporting clubs survive and prosper because they offer something people want at a price they are willing to pay. Elite sport already receives generous taxpayer support throughout Australia, particularly at an Olympic level. These athletes often go on to earn handsome financial rewards for their sporting success, so to claim that they need compulsory funds acquired from their non-sporting classmates is simply unreasonable.

But do student unions really need these funds? Judging by the financial position of one of Australia’s unions at the University of Sydney, the answer is no. The union in Sydney have an art collection—good luck to them—valued at more than $2 million, which would rival many top-listed company art collections in Australia. They also have a set of silverware worth more than $100,000.

Let us look at what some student unions do when they actually have the money to fund the services they say are crucially needed on campus. At the University of Melbourne, the union receives close to $1 million per annum in transition funding from the university. Unions often claim that funding is needed to support a vibrant campus life and that clubs, societies and campus activities cannot exist without these essential funds. At Melbourne university, the student union wanted to increase its donation to the extreme National Union of Students, and it was not going to let campus activities get in the way. The union moved to slash the budget of the clubs and societies by nearly 25 per cent, increasing the budgeted funding to the National Union of Students from $50,000 to $65,000. The previous financial year, the union slashed the activities budget to increase funding for the arts department. Among other events, the arts department ran an exhibition entitled ‘From Beards to Badges’—a history of student unionism on campus. If unions really cared about student services and not about their extreme political agenda, they would have funded services properly when they had the capacity to do so.

What about the unions that actually have improved and prospered under VSU? The University of Western Australia Student Guild has long had voluntary membership, thanks to the policies of the former Court government. It boasts high rates of union membership, a low yearly fee of $120 per year and offers services that most students want. The University of Queensland Student Union actually says that VSU has led to improved services on campus because it has forced the union to supply the services students actually want rather than the services student unions think students should want. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation, held last year, the union noted:

Since its enactment in 2006, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 has had a profoundly positive effect not only on the operations and service capacities of the University of Queensland Union but most importantly the entire UQ student body. VSU has been a very practical way of easing the financial burden on UQ students who had previously struggled to meet the upfront cost of union fees in addition to other daily living expenses such as rental accommodation, food, utilities and textbooks.

Ultimately, however, VSU is about a straightforward concept—an individual’s right to choose. It empowers students to make their own choices about what sort of university experience they want, rather than forcing them to subsidise the choices of others. There is an important principle at stake that must be defended: no-one should be forced to support or join any organisation against their will. If this legislation is passed, that right, that choice, will effectively be taken away. It is my hope that this legislation is defeated.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 before this chamber. This legislation marks the fulfilment of a key election promise to university students, who are the future leaders of this nation, to undo the damage caused to universities and student services by the rampantly ideologically driven Liberal government. I notice that in his contribution Senator Fifield did not take up my interjection in reminding this chamber that of course the current Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, was once the president of the student union association at the University of Sydney. It is interesting that the contributions from the other side make no mention of the fact that some of their current leaders came out of that movement. According to the now former Liberal government, the reason for the current legislation stemmed from their empty rhetoric about the freedom of association. However it was all too transparent to Labor and to students that what really motivated the Howard government was using their Senate majority to finally cut the legs out from underneath student unions that so effectively stood up for students and their rights and who demanded an end to the Howard government’s demolition of the tertiary education sector. That was the motivation behind their legislation when in government.

Governments should look behind the rhetoric and examine the real impact that their legislation has had on the ground. Prior to the last federal election, the Labor Party made a very accurate prediction about what would happen to student services and the holistic education experience of university students if this legislation was passed. All of the predictions that we made when we stood here in this place and defended the interests of university students have in fact come true. As we predicted, money was ripped out of the education system by the current legislation. In fact, we now see that, in total, a decrease of about $170 million of funds for student unions and student services was the direct result.

We predicted the loss of jobs as a consequence and, as we predicted, the VSU legislation created a reduction in employment of 30 per cent, with 1,000 jobs lost as a direct consequence. We predicted that this would actually increase expenses for students, and regrettably we saw exactly the detriments we feared come into effect as direct user-pay charges to students increased, in most cases way above the consumer price index. Australian students had to literally pay the price for the Liberal government’s blind ideology and complete ineptitude. They paid the price in terms of not only increases in basic food, goods and services on campus but also absorbing the damage to teaching and research budgets as universities desperately tried to tighten their belts to cope with the damage to student services caused by the then coalition government

It is important to also note that our predictions about important services and organisations for university students and staff being adversely affected by the introduction of VSU came true. As a direct consequence of the legislation, we saw health services, counselling services, childcare services, welfare support, student advocacy, sport and recreation and clubs and societies all incur serious financial penalty. They were massively constrained or, in many instances, were forced to fold and vanished from campuses entirely. By proposing and voting for voluntary student unionism, the Liberal government showed unequivocally that it was completely uninterested in the health and wellbeing of students.

Of course, this was a particularly embarrassing chapter for the Howard government, because it was clear that not even all of their own government senators bought their empty rhetoric. Senator Barnaby Joyce crossed the floor to vote with us against that legislation. It was Senator Joyce who highlighted in his speech that the VSU legislation would impact over 5,000 families.

So I rise in this chamber to fulfil our promise to university students. We promised a balanced, practical solution to rebuild important student support services and amenities, and this legislation provides for exactly that. What we are proposing to establish is a comprehensive new scheme, whereby higher education providers can charge students an annual capped compulsory student services and amenities fee. This fee need not come straight from the pockets of impoverished university students. Like the payment of HECS-HELP fees, the fee can be deferred through a student amenities HELP scheme, an SA-HELP scheme, and equity can be created between VET and universities by broadening the application of the HELP category to include VET FEE-HELP.

The policy formulation process undertake by Minister Ellis was extensive and consultative, and I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the minister and her department on their work in developing this response. This bill delivers on the government’s election commitment to rebuild important university student services and to also ensure that students have representation on campus. It outlines a robust and balanced solution that will not only help ensure the delivery of quality student services but also help once and for all secure their future. The government have consistently committed to ensuring that students have access to vital campus services and we make no apology for honouring this commitment here today.

Universities Australia, the peak body representing the university sector, painted the picture clearly last year. It stated:

Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism ... legislation.

This was reinforced by the Chair of Universities Australia, Professor Richard Larkins, when he said that the VSU:

... directly impaired [the] ability [of universities] to deliver quality education and research ... We had to use money for research and teaching and use it to support the student experience on campus.

Moreover, though, because of this consultative response by the minister, the Rudd government has now been able to achieve broad endorsement of the legislation by key relevant stakeholders. During the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry into the impact of the new legislation we heard ringing support for this legislation from a range of individuals and organisations. Mr David Barrow from the NUS said:

... the fee will improve student life for students.

The National Liaison Committee for International Students said:

The NLC fully supports this legislation to rebuild important student support services and democratic student representation.

Australian University Sport said:

I cannot emphasise how badly we feel at Australian University Sport that this fee is essential.

The Australasian Campus Union Managers Association said:

The capping of the fees, the deferability characteristic of the fees and, within the guidelines, the defined uses for the fees we think are quite sensible amendments to the current circumstances for our sector.

The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations said:

… this bill becomes an effective measure to restore and sustain quality student services for postgraduate students that are sustainable into the longer term.

These are clear endorsements not only of this government’s move to undo the damage of the previous, Liberal government but also of the sensible and appropriate measures which address the harms identified.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact of this legislation on regional universities. The legislation will have a particularly direct consequence for smaller, regional campuses such as Charles Darwin University. Submissions received during the Senate committee’s inquiry showed that the Howard government’s VSU legislation had a great impact on regional universities like CDU, for two key reasons: firstly, regional universities like CDU generally enjoy a lower level of discretionary funds than other larger, metro universities such as the Group of Eight; and, secondly, the cost of the provision of student services per enrolled student is often much greater for smaller universities.

So what did the combination of these factors mean on the ground for students at CDU? It meant that, as the university started to lose a significant slice of its revenue, it was forced to tighten its belt and, in some instances, shed important student services. Many staff lost their jobs as a consequence of the introduction of that legislation, and the student union at Charles Darwin University became financially unviable and, as a direct consequence of that legislation, was forced to dissolve. This means that many students now at CDU have never experienced student representation and a student voice on campus; a student-organised orientation week; student-organised social events, student funded clubs and societies on campus; a student magazine to inform students of the happenings on their campus; and much more. Life as a university or TAFE student should be more than just home, bus, lecture, bus and back home. It should be a holistic educational experience both in and out of the classroom.

I think it is a real shame that students in Darwin who wanted to stay in the Northern Territory should have missed out on this experience, while students who travel down south to go to university got to enjoy much more of a holistic experience. I believe that students should get equal treatment, with equality of access to student services of a comparable level, irrespective of their geographical location or which university they attend. This equality of access was a principle that was eroded under the Howard government, and it is a principle that the Rudd Labor government will reinstate with the passing of this legislation before the Senate.

It is important to note as well that there has been a huge response by students at CDU to the promise of this legislation. During orientation day at CDU, the National Union of Students travelled to the Casuarina campus in an attempt to gauge the interest of students in re-forming their old student union if this legislation passes. Carla McGrath, the NUS Indigenous Officer, set up a stall, talked with students who had never even heard of student unions about the role that they play and engaged with students who remembered what an important role the student union had previously played on campus. She attracted much attention. From students, she collected pages and pages of signatures demanding a return of their student union. From the media, the Northern Territory News covered the story. And the National Tertiary Education Union came along and supported the NUS because they recognise the importance of a student union on campus to complement the learning experience that is provided at university. So there is clearly a demand from students to reintroduce student services, including the student union at CDU. This legislation gives students an opportunity to re-engage.

It was not only the student union, though, that became a casualty of the Howard government’s war against students; students who used and accessed university sport and recreation services and equipment were also casualties. CDU incurred cuts to sports funding, which has had an adverse effect on student participation, particularly among female students. University sport helps to improve the health and fitness of students and assists students from interstate, rural and remote areas in building social networks and becoming part of their university community. Sport and recreation facilities are important not only to campuses all around the country but also to the Australian economy, building a productive and well-rounded workforce into the future.

The reforms in this bill will help to sustain university sporting teams and facilities, allowing them to foster the next generation of Australian sporting champions. About half of the Australian Beijing Olympic team, in 2008, had university links, showing that it is vital that university sport is strengthened in the future. This arrangement will allow for the funding that was previously stripped away from the system to be reinjected into universities that were chronically underfunded and chronically neglected by the former, Howard government.

So I am proud to support this bill. I am sure that it will once again provide for students to gain access to the education and to the student services that they need. It will enable them to complete their university education in a holistic manner, without universities having to reach into their teaching and research budgets to ensure that the complete range of services offered by student unions and student union organisations are there for students so that they can enjoy a holistic, post-compulsory secondary education experience—enjoy university life the way it ought to be enjoyed.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to rise today to speak against the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. Indeed, it is an issue I raised in my first speech in this place and in rising to speak I join my colleague Senator Fifield, who spoke earlier on this bill. However, it does not give me any pleasure to speak against this bill because, contrary to what Senator Crossin has just said, this particular bill represents an explicit breach of a commitment given by the Labor Party before the last election. I will read out the words of the then shadow minister for education and training on 22 May 2007:

I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

So there we have it. We actually have the then shadow minister, representing the Labor Party, saying months before the election that there would be no compulsory amenities and services fee and specifically ruling out the HECS type approach that we see in this legislation.

Having been privileged to serve on the Senate committee that considered this bill earlier this year, I wish to cover two ranges of issues today. The first are practical ones that relate to the specific provisions of this bill and the second are the philosophical objections which the coalition has to this bill. Firstly, I would like to address a couple of issues raised by Senator Crossin. Senator Crossin referred to nearly $180 million that had been ripped out of student services. I would prefer to describe that in another way. That is $180 million that stays in students’ pockets. That is $180 million that has not been compulsorily acquired from them for services that they may choose not to use or they may be unable to use or they may simply not have the time to use. Senator Crossin talked about how a number of students at one of the universities in the Northern Territory were quite keen to establish a student union. There is nothing in Australian law today that prevents a group of students getting together to do just that. This bill has got nothing to do with students seeking to form an association. It has got nothing to do with students seeking to represent their own interests. It has got nothing to do with student sport. It is about some students forcing other students to pay for their hobbies, be they political, sporting, recreational or otherwise. It is a fallacy to argue and it is misleading to the Australian people and to students to argue that this bill is about helping students represent their own interests. This bill represents a compulsory tax and it is a return to compulsory student unionism. It is the equivalent in the workplace of a bargaining fee: ‘We’re going to charge you the money and we’re going to hand it over to a student union’—or an association or a guild or whatever it describes itself as—‘and you’re going to have no say in it. If you don’t pay it you can’t come to this university.’ I will go into some of the those issues later but I will first turn to the flaws in this bill.

Firstly, for people who campaigned against student contributions to their own education to say, ‘Well, we’ll oppose actually increasing HECS to fund university education but we’ll add on nearly $1,000’—when you consider the indexing—‘onto most students’ HECS bills’—or HELP bills, as they are called now—‘to pay for services that aren’t directly related to their education,’ is utterly hypocritical. It will add $1,000 or close enough to it onto the costs of someone doing a three-year degree. To those doing a five-year degree it will add over $1,500 to their costs because of the additional indexation to add to the HECS bill or the HELP bill. I do not understand why on earth those people who opposed access to education based on financial grounds suddenly think the only fee that should be compulsory at a university—and I speak to the crossbenchers here as well—is the student union fee.

It always struck me when I was at university in the nineties—and, I sat on the National Union of Students executive for a year and I know what the money was spent on—that hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on flying people around the country and on election campaigns. I know what the student unions spent their money on. At the University of Melbourne alone, with 30,000 people on a campus less than a kilometre square, they managed to lose a quarter of a million dollars on catering, with the food being more expensive than that from the independent coffee shop on the other side of the building. These were not student unions that provided cheap services. They were featherbedded and they provided funding for people’s pet political causes. I do not understand why we trust our students to choose what degree they wish to enrol in, to undertake a vocational course and to choose their career but we do not trust them enough to allow them to decide whether or not they want to join a debating society or a footy club. We have to tax them and we have to put that power to decide who gets what in the hands of someone else.

One of the other problems with services under arrangements like these is that they are set up in such a way that not all students can access them. I will turn to one of my favourite particular institutions at the university that I attended, the University of Melbourne. I refer to the Mount Buller ski lodge. It did get a subsidy through the student amenities fee in the days before 2005, through the sports union. It was used by graduates and it was used by students. Why should the thousands of part-time students and the thousands of mature-age students who do not like skiing be forced to subsidise the Mount Buller ski lodge? I declare my interest in this. I did play sport, particularly badly, at Melbourne university. In the first year of any sports club at Melbourne university in the nineties—and this is interesting—you did not receive any support from the sports union. You had to prove you could do it yourself for a year before you got access to any funding for any form of insurance or access to footy ovals. Yet our club managed to prosper, albeit not on the sporting field. As Senator Fifield pointed out, there is no need whatsoever to replicate the structures that voluntary organisations can provide for themselves. Why is it that the Essendon District Football League, where my office is, manages to survive, obviously with support from local governments, but we do not trust our students to be able to the same? That shows what the real agenda of this legislation is: to ensure that there is a pot of money for a small, noisy minority.

This bill does nothing to prevent moneys being used for political purposes. Yes, section 5 of the bill prevents them being used to support a candidate in an election campaign, and I challenge anyone in this place to define ‘political activity’ so narrowly. As Melbourne university did several years ago, you can still use the money from compulsory student fees to fund the legal costs of someone who was arrested by the police and charged with a particular offence at a protest that turned violent. Under similar legislation in Victoria many years ago, a student union paid for an axe that was used to take out the vice-chancellor’s office door. There is nothing in this bill that prevents that happening again. That is because of the narrow definition of ‘political activity’. It prevents money being spent on a sticker that says, ‘Vote for Kevin Rudd’. It does not prevent money being spent on a sticker that says, ‘Vote against Kevin Rudd’—or any other person in this or the other place.

As Senator Fifield said, money is fungible. If money is coming in the door to be used to subsidise a student service—let us say, for example, for a revenue-raising service such as catering—then there is nothing to stop the money gained from selling that service being used for political activities. Why on earth would we set up a system whereby we charge students for a service whose providers do not need the money so that we can take money out at the other end to spend on political purposes? Why is the government not honest about what this bill is intended to achieve? When student unions say they have had a tough time over the last three years, I do not particularly feel for them. Some student unions have prospered, particularly in Western Australia, where they have proven that they are responsive to students. But those student unions that have failed have been the ones that have sought to continue to pay six-figure sums to the National Union of Students, which does not provide a service to students on campus. There are no welfare or sports services or any such services coming out of the NUS. But what it does do is ensure that all students are going to pay more for their education.

Unions, guilds or associations already have a privileged position on university campuses. There are no competing student unions at any Australian universities that I know of, yet with that privileged position on campus including, at many universities in Victoria, rent-free arrangements on university land or in university buildings, they still cannot get people to join their associations. In any other part of our country, we would say there was something wrong with an association that cannot sell its product, something wrong with an organisation with a captive market that cannot convince people it is worthwhile to join. The problem is not with the students that are not choosing to join, but this government has said just that the problem lies with the students. It wants to compel students to fund that organisation, which in many cases in the last three years they have chosen not to join.

Senator Crossin talked about university being more than home, bus, lecture, bus, home. This is one of the main reasons this bill is so inequitable. For many students today, university is more than that; it involves a part-time job or two, it involves paying your own way, having a bit of economic independence at university. Yet, to those students who work, to those students who study part-time or those students who prioritise other aspects of their life, we are going to say: ‘You’re funding the debating society. You’re funding the footy club. You’re funding the Mount Buller ski lodge. It doesn’t matter whether you want to; we’re going to make you pay anyway.’ To apply a tax to the people that do not actually have the time, inclination or means to spend all day at university is blatantly unfair. Students will have no say in how this money is spent because a small university election—not all of which have passed the same probity tests as we have expected from the Australian Electoral Commission over the last 20 or 30 years—does not mean students have control. Why are we replacing the ultimate level of student control—their own wallet, what they choose to spend their time and money on—with a collective approach that ensures a noisy minority will once again be able to capture students’ interests and students’ moneys?

I would now like to turn to the philosophical objections to this bill. As I said earlier, it is a farce to say that this bill does not reintroduce compulsory student unionism. It simply uses a new legislative form to achieve the same ends as the situation which was in place prior to 2005. If a student is being forced to pay money that will be handed over to a student union, association or guild, the mere passage of it through the hands of the university does not make it clean. It is still compulsory unionism. If I was at work and my boss took money out of my pay to pass to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association or any other union, that would be treated as unionism. I do not see why it is different for university students. In fact, there was no suggestion whatsoever in the bill or the committee hearing that this money would not be handed to student unions—there is every expectation that it will be. But, at the same time, there are no safeguards against it being used to support facilities or activities that are used for political activities, whether they be audiovisual facilities, legal services or any other.

There is no arrangement in place to ensure that value for money is provided by these; we are only trusting the universities and the student unions. There are no tendering arrangements, or similar style arrangements, to make sure that the cost is as low as possible; we are just handing over money and hoping the universities keep student unions efficient. In the last 30 years, the debate in this country has shown that student unions are not, in the main, the most efficient providers of services, and the lack of competition on university campuses is a reason for this. In fact, in the committee inquiry that was conducted, our attention was brought to a youth poll conducted by the Australian Democrats in 2008 that showed 59 per cent of students opposed the reintroduction of compulsory amenities and services fees. This bill represents compulsory membership through financial support, nothing less. I mentioned earlier the irony of how we hear, from those particularly on the crossbenches, that education needs to be cheaper, but that this is the one fee that they support and has been for many years at university level. Our society no longer tolerates compulsory membership of any other association and no argument has been put as to why it should do so for students, other than to try and cloak it in the guise of services. This is nothing more than a Trojan Horse argument.

I would also like to put to the Senate that universities should have grievance procedures, they should have counselling services. But why should students be compelled to pay extra for these? Students contribute a significant financial amount to their education these days, and that is a good thing. Yet we seem to see that universities, benefiting from extra revenues, do not see the provision of these services as part of their core responsibility. In my view, students already pay for them; they are legitimate expectations of attending a tertiary or post-secondary institution. But this bill allows universities to avoid that responsibility. They can avoid it by simply charging an extra amount of money and handing it over to a third party. In the main, these third parties have not been very effective providers of such services in the past, and there is nothing in this bill to suggest that they will be in the future.

Senator Fifield raised issues like dental services and health services—child care is another service that falls into this category. These are services and safety nets that are legitimately provided by Commonwealth, state and local governments around the country. In Senator Fifield’s words, universities are not an island. Nor should they be treated as such, but I fail to see why we should be charging some students—not based on means, not based on their ability to pay—for services that benefit other students. Not all these services are in any way welfare services. I hark back again to the Mount Buller ski lodge. I fail to see why a part-time student working a few jobs—as a number of friends of mine did, and I had part-time jobs while at uni—should be forced to subsidise the hobbies of others. There is simply no justification for it.

Many of the services listed in the student services and amenities fees guidelines that have been tabled by the Minister for Education are irrelevant to the direct educational purposes for which students attend university. They are often not open to distance education students—a growing part of universities—or the growing numbers of part-time students, and particularly mature age students, that may have other responsibilities such as work and family. Most are replicating services that, where they are necessary, should be provided by Commonwealth, state and local governments. There is no justification to charge students for this range of services which are not necessary to an education. Those services that are necessary should be provided by governments and by universities themselves.

This bill should be rejected for what it is, a Trojan Horse for compulsory student unionism. In a classic Labor way, the government has simply given an age-old objective a new name. It contains no benefit for students, it increases the costs of their education, it once again forces them to fund minority activities. I say again, there is nothing in Australian law at the moment that prevents the formation of any student union, student association or sports club. The opportunity to do so already exists. This bill is about some being able to force the many to pay their way.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This attempt by the Rudd government to restore compulsory student union fees should not be allowed. It is a restriction on the freedom of Australia’s one million university students and, may I say, typical of many bills introduced into this parliament by this government. It is not in the interests of students and does not truly consider the needs of universities. The debate, as we have heard, is not a new one. For decades there has been debate on and around university campuses concerning student union fees. We in the Liberal Party strongly believe in freedom. In fact, freedom of association is a fundamental belief of our party. Freedom of association is integral to forming the next generation. It is the role of government to guide this formation, not to dictate orders from an ivory tower far away from the realities of university life. Sadly, the latter is exactly what the government hopes to do.

On Thursday, 21 August 2008, part-time Minister for Education Julia Gillard said that the government was considering how it should tackle the problem of declining student services but that compulsory union fees were not on the agenda. She said:

The Rudd Government is committed to ensuring that university students have access to vital campus services, including child care, health care, counselling and sporting facilities ...

But she said:

We are not considering a return to compulsory student union fees.

Only three months later, on 3 November, Minister for Youth Kate Ellis announced that the Rudd government would introduce a bill to charge university students a compulsory fee, to a maximum of $250. The bill was then introduced in the other place on 11 February this year. I have news for the part-time education minister: if it looks like compulsory student unionism and if it smells like it, chances are it is compulsory student unionism. Time and time again the government has denied that this is a return to compulsory student unionism. If that is the case, then just what is it?

This new tax which is being imposed on students is entirely in breach of the ALP’s promises before the election. The tax would raise about $200 million across 38 Australian universities. The way in which the Rudd government has approached this bill calls to mind the way in which Draco codified the laws of Athens in 621. The ALP even went to the election saying that they had no intention of introducing this tax, and now they want to force legislation through which is not supported by the vast majority of students—solely, I would suggest, for ideological reasons. Since the Prime Minister’s first Monthly essay, it has been interesting to observe which political ideology he will sign up to next. Mr Rudd went from being a Christian democrat to a fiscal conservative seemingly overnight. What could possibly be next? The students of Australian universities are quickly recognising Mr Rudd as a modern-day socialist. Through this policy, the Labor government pontificates on the policy of shared responsibility, so students could be excused for thinking along these lines.

The government, in typical ‘all spin and no substance’ form, tried to sugar-coat this policy. The compulsory fee could be paid using a HECS style arrangement. Its spending would be managed by universities, in consultation with students, and the funds would be used to support so-called ‘vital campus services, including child care, health care, counselling and sporting facilities’. Let us not mince words here. What the government is proposing is a compulsory tax on students. The amount is $250 and the consequences are beyond the obvious. This proposal is a blatant return to the bad old days of compulsory student unionism. This is a new tax on Australia’s one million university students, who would be hit whether or not they wanted the services to be funded, as Senator Ryan has so clearly articulated. What about those students who are studying off campus or who study online at significant distances from campuses? What about those students who will not use services such as child care or counselling? Why should they have to subsidise these services for other people while not seeing a dime of value for themselves? This is a new tax on students and it is forcing people to subsidise services that they just do not want or need. The principal point in this debate must be the concerns and interests of students.

There is nothing in the legislation to stop the compulsorily acquired money from being channelled into the Labor student club or used to fund the legal defence of violent student protesters, like those charged in Melbourne during the G20 talks in 2006. In fact, there is no system for monitoring whether the money is spent in accordance with any guidelines. It is naive to believe that the fee would not be used for political purposes, contrary to government advice. The only activities expressly prohibited are direct donations to political parties and funding for election to a Commonwealth, state or territory body. This still leaves a large range of political activities, including funding campaigns against legislation and policies or for direct elections to the student union. Sadly, it is a possibility that ordinary students could subsidise the political careers of elite student activists. How do we know that this is the case? Because it has happened before. Minister Ellis and Minister Gillard have both held significant positions in the leftist NUS. I suggest that their own political careers were possibly helped by the compulsory acquisition of student union fees from unsuspecting students.

The NUS Education Officer, Stefie Hinchy, made comments which I consider worth noting. She said:

We have no problem with that if it just means student organisations can’t give money to political parties or external political organisations.

Well, of course there is no problem, even if this is the case. This does not mean that political activities could not be funded throughout university campuses. Further, Ms Hinchy went on to say that ‘advocacy on campus was a political issue’. It is obvious to see where the priorities of this organisation lie—and it is certainly not with the welfare of mainstream students. Byron Hodkinson, President of the Australian Liberal Students Federation, has correctly said:

Make no mistake, this is compulsory student unionism, no matter how Kate Ellis tries to dress it up. The fee is compulsory and will be passed on to student unions.

He said any suggestion the funds could not be spent on political activity was untrue, and he went on to say:

Under the legislation, my own organisation, or the ACTU or even socialist groups on campus could receive millions of dollars in student money.

I seriously question if student unions actually represent the views of the majority of students. I know this is not the case. They did not represent me when I was at university, or my friends, nor do they represent the interests of my son today.

The University of Melbourne Student Union recently stripped its clubs and societies budget of $18,000—24 per cent of the budget—in order to fund a $15,000 increase in its donation to the NUS. The RMIT Student Union asserts on its website that voluntary student unionism has led to its advocacy services being scaled back, yet it still finds money to produce an expensive radio program on 3CR every Saturday morning called Blazing Textbooks, a show that is promoted—I repeat, promoted—as advocating an ‘anti-capitalist perspective on current issues in education from around Australia and the world’.

One case which may be of interest to senators and, in particular, to members in the other place is that of Mathew Hilakari, a ministerial staffer for Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Mr Hilakari is perhaps better known for his questionable conduct as President of the Monash Student Association just one year ago. Recently, a former colleague brought action against him in the anti-discrimination list of the VCAT. Mr Hilakari, without going through the actual complaint, perhaps wisely, agreed to a settlement, before a full hearing took place, for an amount rumoured to exceed $40,000. How is this of any relevance, you may ask, Madam Acting Deputy President? How can you judge all student unions based on one person’s questionable behaviour? Other than the fact that his boss, a government minister, has not taken any action, why should any of this matter? The answer of course lies in the fact that, as joint respondent, the Monash Student Association partly bore the cost of this expensive settlement. More importantly, it is believed that Mr Hilakari’s legal fees of around $20,000 were paid by none other than the Monash Students Association, MSA. In other words, it was students at Monash University who had to foot this bill. It is disgraceful that money of ordinary students can be used to protect people like Mr Hilakari. Even worse is the fact that the government now wants to give universities the right—I repeat, the right—to collect this money by force, as a condition of enrolment, from every student in the country.

Medical and counselling services are available in some form at nearly every university. Nearly all medical services offer bulk-billing, whilst counselling is typically free at universities.

Under this government, the future for our young people is grim. In addition to the costs associated with being a student, nothing is guaranteed except one thing: more taxes. I am not wanting to trivialise this issue, but this unjust proposal reminds me of the 1990s Australian comedy The Castle. In that movie the debate concerned the compulsory acquisition of land. Our debate today concerns the compulsory acquisition of students’ money. I am not suggesting that the coalition case is based on a vibe but, rather, on an innate sense of justice which guides all coalition policy. Cynical people may ask: why fight this debate? What is the political advantage of fighting for students? To those cynics I say that the Liberal Party is a party of principle. We have no hesitation in advocating causes which are fundamentally good. A voluntary student union fee is a good thing. It offers the freedom for students to choose if they want to belong or not.

The coalition is opposed to this legislation because it understands the change in needs of modern students. The reality of these challenging economic times means that a uni student does not simply study. More often than not, they have part-time work. Many students are in a position where they financially support their family’s increasingly tight budget. Modern students do not have the time nor the interest in engaging with numerous clubs or associations on university campuses. For them to have to pay a compulsory tax for activities that they would not benefit from is simply daylight robbery. It is not surprising that this legislation is perpetrated by the Labor government.

In conclusion, this bill will seriously disadvantage the vast majority of students. Students who do not use services should not be forced to subsidise those of other students. Students cannot afford this additional expense. It is just another unjust government tax. Napoleon Bonaparte summed up this worthy cause when he said:

Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.

The Liberal Party is a proud advocate of freedom and student rights. We will vote against this bill because it is unjust.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the Rudd government have against young people? We have this broken promise on student taxes, we have the unfair changes to the Youth Allowance, we had the tax hike last week, prosecuted over the last year, on alcopops and, of course, we have the mountains of debt which the young people of Australia will have to repay for decades. The young people of Australia are the losers under this government. I say to the young people across Australia, if they do not want to pay this unfair student tax, if they do not want to be subject to the unfair tax measures that are prosecuted by this government: vote Liberal at the next election.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 is yet another broken promise. I, along with my colleagues, will quote some of the comments that were made in the lead-up to the last election by the then shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith. On 22 May 2007 a journalist asked him during a doorstop if he was considering a compulsory amenities fee on students. Mr Smith answered:

No, well, firstly I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.

Of course, we know that Peter Garrett put a footnote into the contract that the then Rudd opposition entered into with the Australian people. The footnote said, ‘Once we get in we just change it all.’ This is yet another example of the ‘once we get in we just change it all’ footnote and young people across Australia, the students across Australia, are being asked to pay a student tax which the government, before the election, said they would never consider.

Students should not be forced to pay for services and amenities which they never use. Of course they should not. I would like to reflect on the experience that we have had in my home state of Western Australia, where the former Court government introduced voluntary student unionism in 1993. We had full voluntary student unionism in Western Australia between 1993 and 2001, and all of the student unions and guilds continued to exist and operate during that period. They did not disappear. They did not collapse or dissolve. On the contrary, they refined their operations and became more effective at giving students value for money. They were forced to respond to real student needs. And when VSU was reintroduced by the Howard government in 2005, the student guilds in Western Australia were the best placed in the country to deal with it. It led to the University of Western Australia Student Guild having the highest sign-up rate in the country because they were providing a valued service. By comparison, other student unions did not do as well because they were relying on the compulsory fee, they had lost touch with what services the students needed and they were not making a sufficiently valued contribution to university life. If you need a compulsory fee in order to fund your services, if you cannot attract enough students to access your services and pay a fee towards that service, then maybe you need to reconsider whether your service is sufficiently valued and actually needed.

We all know how compulsory fees have been abused in the past to fund the political activities of the Left. I was listening to Senator Crossin very carefully before. I was in my office and I rushed in here straight away. She said that the Howard government’s VSU legislation cut the legs out from student unions that so effectively stood up for students’ rights against the Howard government. Why should any student be forced to pay for that? If a student wants to join a campaign or join a union to run a campaign against the Howard government or against any other government, or against a policy measure of the previous, this or any future government, of course they should be free to do so. They should pay their fee, join the union, help fundraise, organise campaigns and be active participants in the democratic debate. But they should not be forced by their government to join a union that stands for something they do not agree with.

The criticism from Senator Crossin earlier in the second reading debate was exactly that: it somehow suggested that the Howard government’s motivation in introducing voluntary student unionism was to silence the critics. The reality is this: the voluntary student union legislation did not abolish student unions and it did not stop students from freely associating. That point was made by some of my colleagues before. One of the arguments put forward is that the fees envisaged in this piece of legislation will ensure that students have access to vital student services. Who determines whether a particular service is vital or not? Who makes that decision? It should be the student who accesses the service. The VSU legislation did not ban the collection of fees by student union associations; what it did do was give students choice. Students deserve that choice.

Why should students be forced to fund the political activities of organisations they do not agree with? I do not think that anybody has provided a proper and satisfactory response to that. The point is made that students lose access to important sporting and other social services without an amenities fee. Students have a right to choose what is important to them. It should not be assumed that a minority view of what is needed by students reflects the preference of all students. This is all about an ideological agenda of the Labor Party. The Rudd Labor government wants to force all students across Australia to fund the activities of its mates in a particular section of student politics. We should not stand for this. We should not support this. The Senate should stand up to stop this student tax. We should defeat this legislation.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue was one of the first issues that was brought to me when I entered politics. I totally agree that there should not be politics involved in student bodies. I was never a member of any political party at university. What is a university about? A university is more than just the lecture theatre and the library; a university is more than just a nine-to-five job. A university is about the development of the person as a whole. I will be honest: when I went to university, I was a private school boy from Sydney and I expected everybody there to be private school boys from Sydney. That was my view of the world. Over a period of time, I had the opportunity to mix with a wider group of people and I realised that I was just part of a very small segment of my nation. What was the mechanism that brought about that mixing? The mechanism that brought about that mixing was the sport that I played. There was the incredible ability to talk to people—or to be forced to mix with people—who you otherwise probably would not have talked to or mixed with. That is what a university is supposed to do: bring you out of your shell. It is not just about developing you academically but about developing you socially as well.

The biggest overhead for universities at this point in time is sport and the coverage of sport. I see sport as being a fundamental section of any educational institution. When I went to Woolbrook Public School, the sporting facilities were there. The government paid for them and we all utilised them. When I went to Riverview, the sporting facilities were there. You did not have the option of not paying for them. Or you had an option: if you did not want to pay for the sporting facilities, you went to another high school—that was your option.

I am always a bit perturbed when we come up with pieces of legislation that say, ‘You can charge for this and you cannot charge for that,’ within a business. A university is a business. You cannot prescribe to a business that they are allowed to charge for this but not allowed to charge for that. You must believe in the marketplace, and the marketplace means that they can charge for whatever they like. If people do not like it, they have the option to go to another university. That is the option that is before us. In regional areas, it is very prevalent.

At the University of New England, for instance, which is where I went, we were not very political; in fact, we were completely apolitical. What we recognised, though, was that we had a small student body and about $14.5 million—at that point in time—of sporting facilities. If there was not the capacity to pay for those sporting facilities, those sporting facilities would fall into disrepair and, as they fell into disrepair, the university would lose its attraction, the university would lose its status and the regional people would lose a tertiary institution. Once more, you would have got that disenfranchising of regional people from the expectations that people in metropolitan areas have.

Sport costs money. It costs a lot of money to build a gym; it costs a lot of money to have a netball court; it costs a lot of money to run the cricket pitch; it costs a lot of money to have the rugby grounds. But the chess club does not cost a lot of money. All you need are two chairs, a table and chess pieces. If you want a debating club, you get yourself seven chairs, two tables and a bell. Sport is the big drain on funds.

If you go to other universities around the world—if you go to Cambridge, Oxford, Yale or Harvard—you will find they have a compulsory amenities fee to cover those things. It is the expectation. When this legislation came forward, there was only one other nation on earth that had legislation like this, and that was the communist People’s Republic of China, which I thought was peculiar.

I have never sat on the edge of a netball court—netball being what my wife played—and been able to determine the political allegiances of the players. They were just playing netball. When I played water polo, the people were just other water polo players. When I played rugby, they were just other rugby players. When I ran the four by 400, they were just other runners. It was just a mechanism that got us to communicate. I spoke to people from other nationalities, from other religions and from other socioeconomic groups, and I hope that in some small way I developed as a person.

People say, ‘What about the cost?’ When I was at university, I also had to go to work. I worked as a farm labourer. I did a bit of fencing and I did a little bit of crutching—not as well as Senator Williams, but a bit of it. Later on, I worked in a pub. That was the ticket that I bought. I decided to go to university and there were things that I was expected to pay for.

I always noted that Cambridge had the greatest number of Nobel laureates of any tertiary institution in the world. They have done studies as to why Cambridge has the greatest number of Nobel laureates. It has the greatest number of Nobel laureates—so the Nobel laureates say—not so much because of the facilities that are there, though of course they are prominent, but rather because of the collegiate atmosphere among the student body and the ability to bounce ideas back and forth to develop them.

What we have developed in Australia is an idea that as long as I get a piece of paper with the word ‘university’ on it then it came from a university. No. In some instances, it might have just been an academic institution. I have no problems at all with someone offering a course online. When you finish it, you can get a piece of paper. But do not call it a university degree. It might get you into what you want to get into. It might make you an accountant like me, a journalist, a doctor or a solicitor. But acknowledge that you have not been to university; you have just acquired academic knowledge in a certain specific field. You have not developed much beyond that.

Maybe we have too many universities; maybe that is the issue. Once upon a time, only about five per cent of Australians went to university. Maybe we now have too many people going to university. What I have a problem with is this juxtaposition where we want everybody to go to university but we do not acknowledge what a university is about and the historical premise that a university is built on.

Senator Williams, Senator Nash and I will move an amendment that allows sporting facilities to be covered by an amenities fee—but sporting facilities alone; that’s it. Why? Sporting facilities are part of any university and, if the university cannot cover the costs of those facilities, then who should? Where will that money come from? Obviously the cost of this biggest drain on universities—we have seen it working its way into research projects and other academic areas—has to be covered. The universities are not going to sit idly by and let the facilities run down, but they are being drained of their capacity to fund other areas. If we take sport out of the equation then people can make their minds up about the rest. This is, I think, a reasonable position. The argument that sport should not be part of university life has to be sustained against any argument that sport should therefore not be part of high school or primary school or that we should not have a playground at the kindergarten.

You have to have a mechanism that encourages people, in a non-discriminatory way, to be participants in wider social development. It is not about being champion or representing Australia; it is just about dragging people out from the corner of the library, where we all know a lot of them sit, and saying, ‘You have to engage in a broader context than just sitting there.’ When you become a doctor we expect you not only to be proficient academically but also to be proficient socially or to have the capacity to mix in a broader social context. We have to hope that the development of that person’s desire to mix in a broader social environment becomes the benefaction that they give back to the nation at a later stage of their careers. Whether they become a member of their Rotary club or Apex club or St Vincent de Paul or they join the Army Reserve—whatever they do—we hope that we can encourage that person when they come out of university to be more fully engaged in society. We do not want universities to just be home to a form of parasitic self-indulgence—that it is all just about me, what I can get out of this and how much money I can make later on. No, it is about the great benefaction the nation gives to you, because a huge amount of the cost of universities is, of course, borne by the taxpayer. As a student you benefit from the labours of people outside the university. People who will probably never get the chance to go to university are sponsoring you to become a doctor, an architect or an engineer. There is an expectation that, whilst you are at that university, you will develop a wider engagement which will take you to a place—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Joyce has the floor!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

where, hopefully, when you return to society you reinvest back into the community and the nation of Australia that which has been invested in you at university.

So my colleagues and I have come up with a very reasonable amendment. Everybody will say that we should have included this, that or something else, but everybody acknowledges that the largest cost factor for a university at this point is sporting facilities. Everybody acknowledges that sporting facilities are intrinsically part of an academic institution. And I hope that most people acknowledge that what we hope to achieve at university is the greater development of the individual beyond the academic.

We have proposed a mechanism which, if accepted by the parliament, would give some recognition to university as a business, being able to cover what it ultimately has to pay out of its own pocket. It seems strange that at the moment we are in a position where, because the university cannot pay for the sporting facilities, the taxpayer must. We have the taxpayer, who is already sponsoring the university’s courses and overall structure, having to reach into their pocket again to pay for its sporting facilities. Surely, in a user pays system where people have made the choice, they have not been forced, to attend that institution they must acknowledge that they should cover—in a very small way, mind you—the costs associated with the running of that institution.

I am concerned for regional universities such as Charles Sturt University, Central Queensland University, the University of New England, the University of Southern Queensland and James Cook University if we do not manage to create some mechanism to cover the cost of their sporting facilities. You have to remember that the University of New England is one of the older universities in Australia, but the costs faced by that university for such things as trying to support the gymnasium and having to replace the roof just cannot be covered out of its ordinary budget. There are only about 4½ thousand students there. Our amendment clearly provides that, if you live in a remote region and are studying at university by correspondence, it is not expected that you pay. But if you attend university as a full-time student there is an expectation that you pay.

It is going to be interesting to see how the vote goes. I am a realist—I think this will fall over—but we have offered an opportunity. I acknowledge that there are differing views, but we have offered the opportunity for some method of progression. If that method is not accepted, it is no fault of ours. We tried as hard as we possibly could. We think that our amendment recognises what university is about. It recognises the principle that a business should be allowed to cover its own costs. It recognises that a university is more than just an academic institution; it promotes social interaction, which is absolutely critical to the development of a student who will later invest in our nation. I hope it is supported by the chamber.

Debate interrupted.