Mr ANTHONY SMITH (12:28 PM) —This amendment moved by the member for New England is a lazy amendment. It shows that he has not done the work at all. It is an amendment that would maintain compulsory membership. It is an amendment where—as his good friend the member for Kennedy, who sits next to him, said—he seeks to split compulsory fees for what he thinks are political activities from sporting and catering activities. If you listened to the member for New England, and indeed the member for Jagajaga and those opposite, you would be forgiven for thinking that catering, sport and all of those things were actually invented by universities, that they do not happen in the rest of society. This debate, and the amendment moved by the member for New England, characterises so many things about those opposite. It is a pity for the people of the electorate of New England that he has joined those in the Labor Party in denying students choice.

That is what this debate is about. In Australia, students who are 18 years of age are entrusted to have a drivers licence, enrol to vote and purchase goods and services in an international economy, with one exception—that is, union membership on campus. Without it they cannot attend a lecture, they cannot attend a tutorial and they cannot get a degree, and now the member for New England thinks that, somehow, there is some cute way that he can split these things and that somehow students must be forced to join a student union.

There are those who doomsay about voluntary student unionism, including the previous speaker, the member for Calare, and those opposite, but in their speaking to this amendment you do not hear a word of criticism about student unions today. You do not hear a word of criticism about the Melbourne University Student Union, which, with compulsory membership, went broke. What sorts of services did students get for their money at Melbourne University, whose union went broke? With Laborite activists running that union, what sorts of catering services and what sort of value for money did those students get?

Those opposite and the member for New England have this implicit notion that if you take the truly dangerous step, in their frame of mind, of giving students on Australian campuses a choice, they will not join a student union. That is their assumption. They say, ‘Students of Australia cannot be entrusted to decide for themselves whether to join a union.’ The National Union of Students has consistently said that this legislation that the member for New England is seeking to amend should be withdrawn on the basis that surveys they have done show that 84 per cent of students oppose it. If that is the case, 84 per cent of students would join a voluntary union. What is there to fear about giving students the choice to join any union that provides any facilities? What is so frightening for those opposite about letting students determine the sorts of services they want on campus? That is what this bill will do. For those opposite, it is truly radical to give an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old the choice to join a union. What is so wrong about letting students decide on the sorts of services they want? Why should the member for New England decide those sorts of services? That is what this debate has been about.

Mr Crean interjecting—

Mr ANTHONY SMITH —It is great that in this debate we have the dinosaur of the Victorian division of the Labor Party here, who of course was sustained for so many years by the people he now in his final days here tries to protect. The member for Hotham was sustained by Labor students who, of course, have now turned on him in his own seat. This is a long overdue bill. (Time expired)