Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that subsections 19-67(3) on schedule 1, item 6, stand as printed.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister relating to section 5 of the bill. There is a prohibition in section 5 of the bill on using the student services fee for the support of a political party or for the election of a person as a member of a legislature of a Commonwealth, state, territory or local government body. My friend Senator Ryan discuss this yesterday, you may recall Madam Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do, Senator.

Could the minister inform the Senate as to what type of activity is prohibited under this provision? Is it to be strictly read—being money contributed to a fund used by a candidate for their election or to a fund controlled by a political party—or should the provision be read rather more loosely as activity which could or tends to influence the way a voter may vote in an election?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill requires higher education providers, the collectors of the fees, to spend student services and amenities fees only on allowable expenditures, those listed in subsection19-38(4) of the bill. None of the allowable expenditures in this section support the fee being spent on opposing political parties or opposing the election of someone to a Commonwealth, state, territory or local government body. Subsection 19-38(1) prohibits providers from allowing the fee to be used to support political parties or to support the election of a person to a Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or a local government body.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her response. I understand that funds cannot be used to support the election of a candidate for a political party. I appreciate that. In effect, as I understand it, it means that an organisation which receives funds pursuant to this bill cannot, for example, support a Labor, Liberal or National Party candidate. I accept that but can it support a political cause? For example, the Work Choices campaign is not a political party.

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

Or the carbon tax campaign.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the carbon tax campaign. GetUp! would be another example. I take what you say and I understand that funds cannot be used directly for a political party, but can funds be used for a political cause such as the one Senator Cormann mentioned—no carbon tax, Work Choices or some of the political cause?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, I do not believe so. As I said in my earlier remarks, it can only be spent on allowable expenditures which are listed in 19-38(4) of the bill.

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

With all due respect, Minister, that is not good enough. To say 'I do not believe so' is no good. You need to a stronger statement than that. Your belief is not an adequate assurance to this chamber that compulsorily collected funds from all students across Australia will not be used and abused to fund political campaigns irrespective of whether the people who are forced to pay the tax support the cause being prosecuted. The point that Senator Mason has raised is very important because the qualification around not being able to use these funds to support the election of a candidate to the Commonwealth parliament or various other is very narrow. The way we read it on this side of the chamber is that it will not prevent the abuse of those funds collected from students across Australia being used and abused to fund political campaigns including those campaigns not support by a great majority of students across Australia.

Why should students across Australia be forced by this government to fund political campaigns and political causes whether it be a cause in favour of Labor's bad carbon tax or a cause against any number of campaigns that may come up on campus from time to time? Of course, all students are free to join those causes; all students are free to contribute their own personal funds to those causes, as long as it is of their own free will and accord. The more general question I have for the government is this: what have you got against freedom? What have you got against freedom of association? Why do you want to force students across Australia to sign up to causes they do not support? Why should students across Australia not be free to make their own choices as to whether or not they want to contribute their own funds to a particular cause? These are very important issues and, quite frankly, the protections in this legislation against the abuse of student funds by having them used towards political campaigns are completely inadequate and they should be strengthened.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that it seems for Senator Cormann I need to reiterate that the items listed in proposed section 19-38(4) are quite specific as to the nature in which the expenditure can occur. We are talking about specific issues such as providing legal services to students and caring for the children of students, and they do not stray anywhere near the mischief that is being suggested by the opposition.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister's comments; I honestly do. But, as Senator Cormann has eloquently put, proposed subsection (4) says:

Subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for a purpose that relates to the provision of any of the following services:

That is not the totality of things that the money could be spent on. It is not exclusionary. Does that make sense? Minister, if you look at subsection (1) you see it says:

A higher education provider must not spend an amount paid to the provider as a *student services and amenities fee to support:

(a) a political party; or

(b) the election of a person ...

That is specifically exclusionary. Proposed subsection (4) simply says those services can be provided. But other ones can be as well.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

It says:

Subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for a purpose ...

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Well, if that is the case, why is proposed subsection (1) in there?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Proposed subsection (1) is there for clarity. But the main point, the point I was referring to earlier when I gave the assurance that the bill requires higher education providers to spend student services and amenities fees only on allowable expenditures listed in proposed subsection (4), was about proposed subsection (3), which highlights:

A higher education provider must not spend, for a purpose other than that specified in subsection (4), an amount paid to the provider as a *student services and amenities fee.

The section in proposed subsection (1) to which Senator Mason refers is simply there for further clarity. But Senator Mason can be assured, by the comments in the discussion that we are having now and the comment that I made at the outset, that it is the government's firm view that student services and amenities fees be spent only on allowable expenditures listed in proposed section 19-38(4) of the bill.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you but this is the problem: one could drive a truck through that list—and I am not a particularly good lawyer. Let me point to this example: take proposed subsection (4)(f) about 'promoting the health or welfare of students'. Now, taking promoting the welfare of students, what is to stop a student group saying, 'We have to support the carbon tax because that promotes the welfare of students'? I am sure you follow the argument, Minister, and that is the problem here: this list is so broad and so crudely drafted that it really does not limit student expenditure at all.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think on this point I will reiterate what I have said earlier, which is that it is the government's view that the sort of mischief that the opposition is suggesting is well and truly dealt with by these provisions.

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

Minister, I have a quick question: how much of the revenue collected through the student tax will end up with the National Union of Students?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless the NUS chooses to provide services under (4) that may be none.

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

So why is it then that the government's chief tax collectors, represented by the Chief Executive Officer of Universities Australia, told the Senate committee inquiring into this bill that they cannot guarantee that money would not go to the National Union of Students? That is the evidence we were given. Your chief tax collectors cannot provide a guarantee that the money would not find its way to the National Union of Students and, of course, we all know the highly political track record of the National Union of Students. We know what the National Union of Students has done in the past. We know what the National Union of Students is likely to do in the future. Again I stress that I encourage the National Union of Students to pursue all of the causes they want, but students across Australia should not be forced to make sacrifices to fund—so financially struggling students across Australia should not be forced to fund—the political activities of the National Union of Students. Even your chief tax collectors effectively say, as Senator Mason said earlier, that you can drive a truck through the sorts of commitments that the minister has just made that no money will end up there unless it provides services. That is just not true. It brings me again to a broader question. What is wrong with voluntary student unionism? What is wrong with freedom of association? What is wrong with the principle that students should only be required to pay for the services they actually access? What is wrong with service providers on campuses being required to be responsive to the genuine needs of students? Why should services on campus have this overall blanket over them where they do not have to worry about what students want or need because they have got the guaranteed cash flow, courtesy of this latest Labor Party tax grab? What is wrong with a circumstance where we have got services on campus that are responsive to genuine student needs and students are paying for the services they want to access and are not paying for everything else—not paying for political campaigns? What is wrong with that?

I ask the minister whether she has actually assessed and reviewed the experiences in my home state of Western Australia, where in that great state we had students, for the longest period of time, being able to benefit from freedom of association and students being able to benefit from the tax cuts that were delivered to them by successive coalition governments—first, by the Court government at a state level and then by the Howard government at a federal level. Has she looked at what has happened to the provision of services on campus at the University of Western Australia and various other universities? The quality of service provision and the take-up rate dramatically improved. Instead of this sky-will-fall-in scenario that Labor senators are painting—where, supposedly, student unions and clubs collapse when there is no compulsory tax—services and unions on the campuses in Western Australia continue to thrive. Yes, they had to adjust their so-called business model. Yes, they had to start to worry about what it was that students were looking for—they could not just ignore the demand for services as they existed on campus—and be responsive to genuine student needs. That is a good thing, I would have thought. Why should we go back to the bad old days where all students across Australia were slugged with a tax to fund the idiosyncrasies of a few? That is not appropriate. Yet this is what we are getting, again, from this ideological, tax-grabbing Labor government.

Students across Australia need to understand that under a coalition government they would pay less, under a coalition government they would be more free and under a coalition government they would have freedom of association—all the things that this Labor-Green coalition government is proposing to take away from them with this legislation. I want to know from the minister—and she has not responded to this before—what this government has got against the concept of freedom of association. Why does this government want to force students to be part of causes they do not support? Why does this government want to force students to fund campaigns that they do not support? What was wrong with the campuses in Western Australia where there was a period of 13 or 14 years of freedom of association? Are you really suggesting that student services in Western Australia are inadequate or nonexistent?

I point to one particular piece of evidence from Ms Drakeford from the National Union of Students when she sought to criticise voluntary student unionism. She said, 'The Australian National University’s gym membership has gone up by 500 per cent since VSU.' That is terrible, isn't it! Because we now have voluntary student unionism, students actually choose that they want to join a gym. They are prepared to pay a fee to join a gym. Gym membership has gone up by 500 per cent. How terrible that students across Australia are no longer funding access to gym services for those who go! How terrible that students not going to the gym are no longer funding access to the gym for those who do! That is a terrible thing!

Yesterday, this government was complaining that the price of coffee has gone up, the price of drinks at the bar has gone up, the price of food has gone up—and now people have to join the gym. How terrible. The only way you can stop that is by forcing a whole bunch of students who are not going to access those services to pay for those who do! Why is that right? Why is that the way that this government wants to go? It is not as if we are talking about rich people; we are talking about students. We are talking about students who work week in and week out to make ends meet, and this government wants to slug them with another tax. It is completely inappropriate.

I say again to students across Australia who are listening to this debate: this Labor-Green government wants to take your freedom of association away, this Labor-Green government wants to slug you with another tax and this Labor-Green government is quite happy for your money to be used to fund causes and services which you do not support. We on the coalition side of the parliament think that is highly inappropriate. That is really the crux of the matter. I am interested in your answer to my various questions, Minister.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, with respect to the hypothetical question on the NUS, that has been dealt with. The provisions in subsection (4) of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 have been designed to eliminate the very concerns that the opposition are raising about political activity to focus expenditure on services and amenities, and this is why the Group of Eight have supported these measures. This bill is designed to allow for the better provision of student services and amenities. It has been broadly canvassed and takes into account the experiences across universities, across Australia, across the board. That is why, other than the opposition, these measures are broadly supported.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to 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—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or Aboriginal kids.

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

or Aboriginal kids, as Senator Mason says. Whoever it may be, you are demanding of them a compulsory fee for which there is no justification. In the time remaining in this debate, let us hear the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the government, actually answer those questions that have been put during the committee stage and those that were put through the second reading debate. If you do not, then you stand utterly condemned.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to 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.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage Senator Bernardi to have a look at clause 19-38(4) of the bill, where is listed exhaustively the sorts of matters that are regarded as related to appropriate student services and amenities and student welfare, as opposed to political activity, which this bill seeks to ensure funding is not directed to, as I mentioned in my earlier comments. Aside from that, we could continue to debate at great length the philosophy of applying user charges. I do not think that there is any point in that, other than to say that it is the government's view that an education provider can seek to gather resources in order to deliver certain types of student services and amenities as opposed to political activity, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

Progress reported.