Mr SLIPPER (11:51 AM) —As I think Billy Hughes said when he was accused, at a significant celebration, of having been a member of all political parties in the parliament bar one, ‘You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.’ If one were referring to the Australian Labor Party, I must confess that in 2005 I would have to echo the words of the former distinguished Prime Minister of Australia Billy Hughes. One would have to draw the line at the possibility of joining the Australian Labor Party.

I think it is particularly important to recognise that the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 is all about freedom of association and freedom of choice. The ALP has long been a supporter of compulsory student unionism. While the member for Jagajaga is now seeking to vary that longstanding support for compulsory student unionism into a form of compulsory services fee, one ought not to lose sight of the fact that it is the Australian Labor Party that wants to compel students at Australian tertiary institutions to be part of an organisation and to pay money which will be used for certain purposes.

I have listened very carefully to the members opposite—to their remarks about many of the virtues of the services provided by student unions and student guilds. I have listened to their claim that many services would not be provided were it not for the presence of those student guilds, associations or unions. I really do not have a problem if someone wants to join those associations, if that person voluntarily elects to do so and, as part of doing so, naturally pays a fee. My difficulty with the proposition being proposed by the member for Jagajaga is the element of compulsion. As a person who takes a libertarian approach to some matters, I very strongly support the right of someone to join a union, whether it be a student union, a student association, a student guild or, for that matter, a trade union, but equally I believe that in a democratic nation we ought not compel anyone, we ought not conscript anyone, to be a member of a union, and we ought not to conscript the fees that that person would have to pay to be used for certain purposes, however desirable.

We all know of the large numbers of external students who never visit the university campus. The honourable member for New England represents the University of New England. The University of New England has quite an admirable program of external degrees, giving many people right throughout the nation the opportunity of a tertiary education. But many of those external students would never visit the campus at Armidale or, if they did so, they would do so rarely. In my view, it would be entirely inequitable for those students to be forced to make a contribution to the costs of running facilities at the University of New England. I only mention that particular university because the member for New England is here, but a similar rule and a similar arrangement could apply to other tertiary institutions throughout the country.

I find it amazing that in 2005 the Australian Labor Party could actually stand up and support compulsory membership or a compulsory contribution towards the provision of services for students at institutions. The government does remain committed to genuine freedom of association—the right to join a union or not to join a union—and the same rule applies not only to trade unions but also to educational unions or student unions, term them as you wish. I believe in true freedom of association, and it is important that those associations in the student arena should be able to provide services of a sufficient standard to make people want to join them, but I do not believe in the element of compulsion. If people want to vote with their feet, if they are dissatisfied with the services provided or, for that matter, if they are not going to use the services, then I believe it is entirely inequitable that those students should be compelled to write cheques to benefit people who will use those facilities, when they themselves have chosen not to or are unable to do so.

I have long been on the record as supporting the principle of voluntary student unionism. We all know about some of the appalling misuses of student funds by student associations and unions over the years. Those funds have been used for political purposes, quite foreign in many cases to the attitude of their student body. Many students are forced to pay a compulsory membership fee to a student union. They play no role in the activities of the union, and often a militant minority is able to hijack the agenda of the student union and use the funds compulsorily acquired from the student body for purposes diametrically opposed to the principles of the bulk of that student body. We have had a situation where people have had to pay up to $600 a year for membership of a student union and there are great penalties for those who do not pay, such as enrolments being cancelled or results being withheld. It does seem almost unbelievable that a student who has studied hard for a number of years and has endured the other hardships of tertiary study—such as, in many cases, separation from their family and financial struggles—can have their goal of a tertiary qualification blocked at the last hurdle by a dubious debt from an unrelated, unrequested and unwanted membership fee.

The bill before the House, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005, seeks to put fairness back into the tertiary arena. Those who wish to join a union may do so and those who do not wish to join a union do not have to join. As I said earlier, I am impressed with many of the facilities provided by student unions, but there ought to be no element of compulsion on the part of students either to join the union or to pay a fee to provide for services at the tertiary institution if the student chooses not to make that contribution.

From July 2006, student union membership will be voluntary, and students who enrol after that date will no longer be subjected to fees that must be paid. From 2007, all students in all universities, public and private, will benefit from these provisions. Gone will be the days of students struggling to find the extra money to fund the fees. Gone will be the days when a student’s results will be held to ransom by the non-payment of the fees. From mid-2006, we will return to a true sense of freedom of association on Australia’s university campuses.

This is an important piece of legislation. I have absolutely no concerns about it. It enacts what I believe to be an absolute principle—that is, the principle of freedom of association in a democratic society; the freedom to join or not to join a union or student guild. Equally, it is important that no student be forced to make a contribution to services or facilities if that student chooses not to do so. While an argument could be made that on-campus students who use the facilities ought to be contributing towards them—I have no problem if they voluntarily choose to do so—I think it is entirely inequitable, inappropriate and antidemocratic that students who in many cases live thousands of kilometres away from the institution and never get to use the facilities ought to be compelled to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMullan)—It being 12 noon, in accordance with the resolution previously put, I call the minister in reply.