Dr SOUTHCOTT (3:59 PM) —There was a time when all universities were sandstone and all university students were full-time undergraduate students. People studied at universities in their own state. They lived at home or they lived at residential colleges. But what happened in Australia? We saw a great expansion of universities under the Liberal Menzies government in the 1950s and the 1960s. Universities like the University of New South Wales and Monash University were established—and Flinders University, in my electorate of Boothby.

If we look at the way higher education has changed over 20, 30 or 40 years, what do we find now? There are more students than ever before who are studying part time. There are more students who are re-entering higher education or entering for the first time after a period in the work force. There are more students studying externally. Deakin University in Geelong is a very large provider of external student services. Over the last 20 years we have seen a dramatic increase in the numbers of overseas students studying in Australia. For students in many countries in South-East Asia and for students in India, we are either No. 1 or No. 2 in terms of their preferred destination.

The problem is that the idea of a compulsory union fee dates back to the days when all students were undergraduates, when they were full time and when their life was primarily on campus. This does not cater for someone who is studying part time after work. The last thing they will want to do is get involved in clubs, societies, sporting clubs and so on. They should at least have a choice. Someone who has a family may not necessarily want to get involved in the whole range of extracurricular activities that are offered. You can come into parliament and wave around any number of surveys about what students actually want, but I believe most students want a choice and that is why the Labor Party is afraid of this. That is why the student unions themselves believe that next year people will not take up the student union option.

We have seen some movement on the issue, and I was quite encouraged when I heard that the Labor Party was supporting VSU. Then I looked at all the services that it would like protected. The list covers basically the full range of services. It is essentially the status quo.

Under voluntary student unionism there is the opportunity to bundle services. For example, people could get a package which would allow them to access sporting services. If they want to, people will be able to get a package where they can subscribe to the student association services, if that is what they want. They can get a package for club and society membership. There is a whole range of ways in which the unions can deliver these services. But it will be up to the unions to be more entrepreneurial and to look at how they are going to offer the services.

In March 2006, when the university year begins, students will still have the same amount of money in their pockets. They will have exactly the same amount of money in their pockets under voluntary student unionism. But, if the legislation is passed, they will have a choice about where they spend it. They will have a choice. If they want to take out a full union membership, they will have a choice. If they want to take out sporting memberships, they can actually go directly to the sporting club and take out membership there. Many of these clubs have a rate for a union member and a rate for a non-union member. There will still be the opportunity to take part in the same activities that they want to take part in.

The member for Casey, a colleague, a good friend and a long-time campaigner on this issue, gave a speech on this issue to Liberal students, followed by an opinion article in the Australian. He said of 18-year-old students:

I sometimes wonder why there is so much passion about this debate. I cannot remember exactly who it was, but someone once said that the reason student politics is so vicious is that there is absolutely nothing at stake. But this comes down to two very fundamentally different views of the world, on the government side and on the opposition side. We believe very strongly that individuals should have the freedom to choose. We believe that choice is important. People on the other side would like to see everything organised—to see things directed. They would like students to have no choice and to just have to pay a fee.

Let us look at the sorts of things university services fund. One area is clubs and societies. A well-known lurk used to be—and it probably occurs now—that at university you formed your own club, your own society, and signed up as many people as you possibly could. Then you would get a grant from the university union. In one year, a number of my friends formed the ‘Days of Our Lives Society’. The idea was to get as many members as they possibly could; then they would be able to hold a party, get a grant and put on a keg. They got 600 members. It was the largest club on campus. The next year it was the Chocolate Appreciation Society. ‘Sign up, pay $2, and, if we get enough members, we’ll get a very large grant from the university union. We’ll have a party and provide as much chocolate as we can possibly provide.’ When I was at university, I was lucky enough to be vice-president and president of the medical students society. It was a great society. It had a long tradition. We had a ball; we had a dinner; we had all sorts of functions. We were basically autonomous and self-reliant.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Jagajaga’s memory, apparently, has failed her.

Dr SOUTHCOTT —The great thing was that the left-wingers in the students association said: ‘You’re holding a function. Send us an application. We would like to give you some money.’ The way the Left sees the world is just different to the way this side of parliament sees the world. We are happy for people to get on with their lives and do what they want to do. They are actually happy to have money—not their money but students’ money—being dispensed in the way that they dispense it.

Sporting clubs are a very important issue. There is a great tradition of university sport in this country. When we actually have a look at the finances of the different sporting clubs, what we find is that the amount of money that they receive from university unions is very small. Clubs I am familiar with, which have turnovers of $100,000, receive in the order of $7,000 from their university unions. These clubs will be fine in a voluntary student unionism environment.

We have seen an enormous increase in the number of overseas students coming to Australia. That is increasing year on year. Yet what we see with overseas students is that higher education providers are required to provide many of the services for them anyway, so they should be fine.

When we actually have a look at how a student fee is distributed, of the $297 student fee of Adelaide university’s union, the amount that goes to the sports association and the grounds is about $50—out of a $300 fee. The amount that goes to the students association is $41 of a $300 fee. My point is that students should be able to decide which services they actually want. We have heard a bit about the experience in Western Australia. About 30 to 35 per cent of students chose to join.

Child care, is actually subsidised by the Commonwealth government. We provide subsidies for people through the child-care benefit. At the University of Adelaide, 58 per cent of the child-care places are actually taken by staff. In my own electorate, there is a child-care centre on the Waite campus, which is principally a research facility. These places are not taken up by undergraduate students; they are actually taken up by full-time workers.

Lastly, in closing, we have heard a lot about all the student services that will go. One thing that we never hear defended is the money that is being spent by the National Union of Students in federal election campaigns—$250,000 in last year’s federal election campaign. (Time expired)