Mr ABBOTT (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs)(6.02 p.m.) —in reply—My first political involvement was at a demonstration. It was an anti-Kerr demonstration on the campus of the University of New South Wales.

Mr McMullan —Who's side were you on?

Mr ABBOTT —I am pleased to say I was an anti anti-Kerr demonstrator because I thought that Sir John Kerr was being unjustly vilified. Anyway, I take the point made by the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) which is obviously right: there is more to life than just money, and there should be more to university life than simply passing exams. I welcome his contribution to this debate on the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997.

The bill, as the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) said, is a very uncontroversial one. It transfers responsibility for the University of Canberra from the Commonwealth to the ACT government and it also provides to the Australian Maritime College the ability to make by-laws to control its own parking. I should point out that this bill in no way diminishes the Commonwealth's funding obligations to the University of Canberra.

The bill has had a rather long march through the legislative process to fruition this evening. It was in April 1993 when the University of Canberra first sought this transfer from Commonwealth to territory jurisdiction, because the university believed that it would be better integrated into the ACT government's education strategies if it came under the ACT's jurisdiction. It believed that, in this way, there would be a closer identification between the university and the ACT. It believed that it would serve the purposes of the university to have as its parliamentary champion, as it were, the ACT minister for education, rather than the federal minister who had many other things on his or her plate. I guess the university thought that it was perhaps better to be a big fish in a small pool, than a small fish in a big pool. Legislation was finally brought into the parliament in late 1995 by the former government, but it lapsed as a result of the election, so this legislation is now before the House.

This legislation is a sign of the government's commitment to the ACT. It is a sign of successful lobbying on the part of Professor Aitken, Senator Margaret Reid and many other people. From the government's point of view, placing the University of Canberra under territory jurisdiction puts it in the same position as nearly all other universities, with the exception of the Australian National University.

These universities are juridically responsible to state and territory governments, even though the Commonwealth provides the vast preponderance of funds. I am sure the ACT government is appropriately grateful for this chance to exercise stewardship over the University of Canberra while the Commonwealth continues to provide the money.

Turning to the second aspect of this bill, in late 1993 the Australian Maritime College in Launceston was troubled by a very serious problem. It seems that the adjacent University of Tasmania campus introduced parking restrictions on its students and, as a result, some of those students chose to park in the grounds of the Australian Maritime College.

The Australian Maritime College then sought legal advice on its ability to control parking on its own grounds. I am going to read, if I may, some of that advice, because it is important that everyone understands exactly why the government is taking up the parliament's time with this legislation. When the AMC asked the lawyers for advice, it posed this question:

Does the College have power to make traffic regulations that are enforceable?

The lawyers answered:

We note the provisions of Section 24 of the Maritime College Act 1978 which allows the Council to make statutes . . . with respect to the . . . (a) management, good government and discipline of the College and of the institution conducted by the College.

It further allows . . . for the imposition, by or on behalf of the College, of penalties upon students of the College or persons employed by the College for contravention of, or failure to comply with, a statute with respect to a matter referred to in paragraph (a).

However, the lawyers went on to say:

It does not contemplate, by inference, penalties upon "outsiders" such as trespassing students from the University or any other people illegally parked upon College property.

The lawyers then advised as follows:

If one turns to Section 24(1)(j) which provides that statutes may be enacted for "any other matter necessary or convenient for giving effect to this Act" then one can see that it was obviously the intent of Parliament to provide general powers to the College to govern its own affairs. Its own affairs must, by definition, include the management of its grounds. Nevertheless we are concerned that some legal challenge could, conceivably, be mounted to any parking scheme by reason of the unfortunate wording of Section 24(1)(b) which refers to penalties being imposed only upon students or staff. As a matter of practicality it might be highly unlikely that the scheme would be challenged but nevertheless we feel obliged to point out the possibility.

That is what the lawyers said, and that is why this act has come before the parliament. The Australian Maritime College can use an action in trespass against anyone parking improperly on the grounds, but it is always much easier to impose a fine—and hence this legislation.

If, as the good Lord says, not a sparrow falls without the knowledge of the Father, I am sure the voters of Australia will be delighted to know that not a car is illicitly parked in the grounds of the AMC in Launceston without the benevolent intervention of the federal government. I commend this important bill to the parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Bill—by leave—reported to the House without amendment.