Mr PYNE (9:37 AM) —It is interesting to follow in this debate the member for Lawler, who spoke late yesterday afternoon on the subject of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , particularly with respect to VSU because the member for Lawler coincidentally was the final President of the Australian Union of Students, that organisation that failed in the mid-1980s. There are some semblances of comparison between the member for Lawler and the last emperor of China, because he and she both presided over a vast, morally bankrupt, scandal ridden, inept and ultimately failed organisation—namely, in the case of the member for Lawler, the Australian Union of Students.

This was an organisation, Mr Speaker, which during its time—probably not under the member for Lawler; hopefully, she would not have entertained such appalling practices—funded organisations like the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Communist Party of Malaya, declared that marriage was a form of prostitution and gave money to the Shining Path organisation in Peru. This is the sort of organisation that the member for Lawler associated herself with as president in the 1980s. It was a mark of great victory for the non-Labor side of politics that, as students, they were able to defeat and ultimately close down the Australian Union of Students.

But, turning to this bill, the idea of compulsory associations strikes at the heart of every Liberal. All citizens should be free to choose whether or not they belong to an association. For too long university students have been denied this fundamental right. The bill pres ently before the House corrects this inequality and delivers the right to freedom of association to students. The coalition government, with the help of the Labor member for Dickson, has already extended the right of non-compulsory unionism to workers through the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The act did not benefit students, as they are not employees of the universities, but they are still entitled to the same right of freedom of association as is every other Australian, and yet the Labor Party and the student unions are trying to deny them that same right.

The coalition government is, on the other hand, committed to asserting the rights of students to freedom of association in the higher education sector. We believe that students should not be compelled to fund organisations that they do not support. Students deserve to enjoy the same rights on campus as they do off campus, and this legislation will ensure that they enjoy that right. Indeed, student unions are about the last group still claiming that they are entitled to compel people to belong to them. If the Labor Party wishes to participate in genuine policy development, it cannot continue to hoodwink Australians into believing that employees and students are incapable of understanding and protecting their own interests without the compulsory involvement of unions.

This bill also provides students with greater choice over what goods and services they buy. Consumer choice in what goods and services you can purchase is a right expected by most Australians. Student unions on most Australian campuses compulsorily acquire from students, as a condition of enrolment, an up-front fee to pay for services they may not need or wish to use. The fee can range from $90 to more than $300, as at Monash University, and over the course of a four-year degree it can amount to more than $1,000. Unlike HECS—the Higher Education Contribution Scheme—the student union fees cannot be deferred until such time as a student is financially able to pay them back, and they are the same for every student.

The timing of the fee is usually the time when students can least afford it. At the start of an academic year, students have many substantial and often competing costs such as textbooks and stationery. For some students, particularly those from rural areas, there are also accommodation costs such as tenancy bonds and furniture purchases to consider. Voluntary student unionism will put money back into the pockets of students so they can decide what sorts of services they want to spend their money on. Under the current system, the system that Labor supports, students do not have that choice. On most campuses, these decisions are made by the student body at the whim of the student union. Students deserve to enjoy the same consumer rights to purchase only the services they want on and off campus, and this legislation will ensure that they have that fundamental right.

At present, on most campuses students are forced to fund sporting facilities regardless of whether or not they play sport. Similarly, students are compelled to contribute to student entertainment irrespective of whether they have the time or the inclination to participate. At most universities it is mandatory for students to subsidise the regular publishing of union newspapers even though they may not read or subscribe to their views. What happens to students who challenge this compulsorily acquired up-front fee? Put simply, they are denied the opportunity to graduate at a university. This legislation will remove the last compulsory up-front fee charged at university entry to most Australian students.

But Labor's double standard on this is well documented. The 1998 election platform for higher education stated that `up-front undergraduate fees are undesirable' but then they contradicted themselves by also saying they opposed giving students freedom of association and supported the compulsory acquisition of student money. It is a case of complete hypocrisy. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs recently illustrated this point when he quoted the member for Werriwa saying:

I first read the document—

the higher education policy—

in the car going from the Frankston launch to Melbourne to go home.

Clearly the Labor Party has so little regard for his views that they chose not to even bother to give him the policy before the launch of the document. It is little wonder that the increasingly frustrated member for Werriwa has gone to the back bench—but only, I would imagine, for the meantime.

There is only the one compulsory up-front fee for most students, and the Labor Party stands behind that policy. There is no confusion with the coalition government's position. The bill before the House will remove a financial hurdle to higher education for students on low incomes. It is a much better system to allow students to manage their own financial affairs. Individual students are the ones who are best placed to know their own financial priorities. They are certainly better placed than the officials of student organisations. Voluntary student unionism will also lend itself to the financial flexibility of allowing students to spread their expenditure over the year, better reflecting the fact that their income is also spread over the year.

At present, most student unions are unrepresentative and unresponsive to the needs of the students they purport to represent. The legislation before the House will improve this situation by ending the monopolistic and uncompetitive features of student unions. The structures that are currently in place force students to pay for services they do not need or wish to use.

Compulsory student unionism also fails to recognise that the nature of university campuses has changed dramatically over the last decade. There is an increasing proportion of students who study part time or externally and are forced to pay for services they cannot use. In some instances, external students can be paying well over $200 a year for those inaccessible services. The failure of student unions generally to cater to the needs and interests of this increasing niche market is just one example of why we need to change the current arrangements. The challenge for student unions is to be responsive and representative of student needs. The status quo has certainly not achieved this.

The Western Australia state government sought to find a better system in 1994. Volun tary student unionism was introduced by that state in 1995 and, despite a brief disruption to its operation caused by the former Labor government's scandalous abuse of taxpayers' money through the notorious SOS legislation, it has proved to be successful. It has meant that student unions in Western Australia have had to be smarter in how they utilise their resources and in what they offer students. In Western Australia, the experience has been that student unions are following the student dollar by offering a range and a quality of services which are likely to be of value and benefit to students. For example, in 1994 the University of Western Australia student union offered 27 different types of services under compulsory student unionism, but in 1997 under voluntary student unionism the same student union was able to offer 45 different types of services.

Student unions have the ability to add to the unique culture of a university campus. Organising social events and activities and providing the infrastructure for a network of associations are some of the contributions that student unions have made and can make in the future. Student unions are also unique in being able to coordinate services targeted specifically for student needs. Voluntary student unionism will not only make student unions more accountable and transparent, it will ensure that they target these services to meet student needs. Under the government's policy initiative, student unions will fulfil their potential and add to the cultural dimensions of campus life while simultaneously preventing the profligate use of students' precious resources on causes or services that students neither want nor need.

Under the current system of compulsion, student unions provide so-called services such as newspapers which have in the past, in very recent times, explained to readers how to inject themselves with heroin, how to successfully shoplift and how to get away with drink-driving. This is the system that Labor stands behind and wants to protect.

Opponents of voluntary student unionism claim that the government is silencing student dissent. This is a gross distortion of the situation. The legislation before the House makes absolutely no reference to the silencing or restricting of freedom of speech. The fact is that universities are the cradle of leadership. There will always be student politicians and they will always be vocal and controversial. The opportunity to represent, to put forward ideas and to participate in the political process is what motivates student politicians, not modest honorariums—although in some cases they are not-so-modest honorariums.

Opponents of voluntary student unionism attempt to draw a correlation between taxes and student union fees. It is a superficial argument. Income earners are generally means tested to determine if they are in a financial position to contribute to the Treasury, which in turn finances things of universal benefit. With student union fees there is no means testing. Every student pays the same fee regardless of their station in life. Student union fees are not means tested or tiered in terms of liability. The poorest university student is liable for the same amount as the wealthiest.

As an adjunct to that argument, it is worth noting that, in Western Australia under voluntary student unionism, emergency loans and guild loans are still available at Edith Cowan University and the University of Western Australia respectively because those universities have decided that that is a service they want to provide their students and they want to subsidise that service out of their profit making services. That is exactly what student unions should be making the decisions about.

Many advocates of compulsory student unionism say that students currently have a form of voluntary student unionism in the shape of an option to be a conscientious objector, but they ignore the fact that the fee still has to be collected although it can be paid to a charity rather than the student union. But if you do not pay the fee you cannot graduate at the end of your university term. When I was at university, we had a student called Brendan Harradine who refused to pay his student fee and took the matter as far as the Supreme Court of South Australia. It was found that, if he did not pay the fee, he would not be able to collect his degree and practise as a lawyer—an absolutely despicable state of affairs.

Opponents of voluntary student unionism also peddle misleading arguments when they contest that student union fees are not applied for universal benefit. What do student unions do for part-time or external students in rural areas to justify fees of up to $200 or $300 a year? The benefits are not universal and, under compulsory student unionism, are applied to a mixture of worthy or in fact unrepresentative or indulgent interests.

The 1998 edition of The Australian Good Universities Guide to Australian Universities indicated that more than 150,000 Australians are studying externally through universities. At four of Australia's 38 public universities, there are more external enrolments at undergraduate level than on-campus enrolments. At Central Queensland University, which has its main campus in the member for Capricornia's electorate, 56 per cent of enrolled undergraduate students are studying externally. Nearly 80 per cent of postgraduate students at Central Queensland University are external students. So how can the compulsory fee be described as universal for all of those students, part time or external, who are not even on the campus to use the services—so-called—for their benefit?

Mr Bruce Scott —Great point.

Mr PYNE —Thank you. These figures are just scratching the surface. Part-time and mature age students are a significant group who do not always have direct access to the supposedly essential services provided by student unions. Australia is competing for fee paying external or full-time international students. The emphasis of their choice will be on the quality of education and the cost. We cannot expect to be completely competitive if we continue to slug external, part-time international students with union fees of a few hundred dollars a year. How can we justify asking external international students to pay compulsory fees to subsidise cafeterias, campus newspapers and entertainment for the rest of the student body, which they cannot access?

Recently I was speaking at the Adelaide University on the subject of voluntary student unionism and, after a rather willing debate stacked with proponents of compulsory unionism, a German international student came up to a group of resistance people who were haranguing me and made the point that in Germany they have all the facilities for students that are provided at Australian universities. They have the campus life, the cafeterias and the sporting associations—they do all the things that we do—and they have never even considered having a compulsory fee to fund student unions. They just expect that students will be able to raise the money or that students will spend their consumer dollar in such a way that those services can be provided. He was bewildered that we still held to this outdated view that compulsion was required to have students participating in service provision.

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has been very vocal in her support for compulsorily charging fees of between $90 and $350 a year. She claims to stand up for the interests of young people but in the next breath wants to slug university students with the only compulsory up-front fee that most students have to pay at university. A trademark of Senator Stott Despoja's career has been her ability to create a dislocation between appearance and reality. She argues that reforming compulsory unionism on campuses will contribute to a psychological disincentive for young people to participate in tertiary education. Is there any wonder that the public are taking her less and less seriously?

In considering where to study, students are far more likely to consider factors such as the reputation of the particular faculty and the university, the curriculum of the particular course of study, the possibility of postgraduate study, perhaps even the geographical location of the institution and, of course, the likelihood of getting a job after they have finished their university degree. The status of a university's student union is important only from the perspective of the student politicians who adhere to it. The compulsory nature of the university fee has no bearing on that culture. Indeed, Senator Stott Despoja's views on compulsory student unionism are at odds with the founder of her party, the Democrats, Don Chipp, who was a fervent supporter of non-compulsory student unionism.

I would like to draw the House's attention to some comments made by Senator Harradine in a committee hearing on the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 when he said:

I too am concerned about the history of payments made by certain student bodies for purposes other than the purposes for which these bodies were established, namely to protect and promote the welfare of students.

He also said:

Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation here in which a student could be compulsorily levied money which could be applied not for purposes associated with the rights, responsibilities or indeed the welfare of the students but for other party-political purposes or issues by ideologically motivated organisations.

Senator Harradine is right. In the course of his service to the parliament he has seen successive generations of student unions fail to adequately represent and provide welfare for students. The government's voluntary student unionism policy will address the concerns of Senator Harradine. I would hope that, when this bill comes before the Senate, Senator Harradine would support the government in the interests of students and in the interests of student unions.

By introducing VSU we will be helping student unions to be more relevant, more responsive and hence more popular with their students. Voluntary student unionism will allow student unions to fulfil their potential and will add to the cultural dimensions of campus life. But it will prevent the profligate use of students' precious resources on causes or services that students neither want nor need. By its very nature, VSU will make student unions more accountable and will lend itself to more transparent operations. Voluntary student unionism is about giving students choice in the associations they join and in the services they buy. I commend the bill to the House.