Mr NEUMANN (4:53 PM) —I speak in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. A previous bill, in similar form, was defeated in the Senate in August. I say that with sadness and regret because this bill is necessary to assist in the proper running of universities, to give students access to the kinds of services they need. Regrettably, the defeat of the previous bill showed that the coalition has not moved on since the battles so many of them fought in the sixties, seventies and eighties at universities across the country. Their opposition to this legislation is ideologically driven and not evidence-based. You can see that from the words that dripped from the mouth of the member for Indi, from the sarcasm and satire that came from her when she was talking about this issue.

This opposition is really not about student needs; it is about the coalition being ideologically driven by an opposition to one word. That word is ‘union’. The coalition’s attitude to the university sector was clearly evident with its absolute desire to impose Work Choices on the sector, linking university funding entirely to the imposition of AWAs on lecturers, tutors and administrative staff. That is the coalition’s response to the challenges and difficulties in funding and maintaining a viable tertiary sector in this country.

So the legislation here is not being opposed because it is bad legislation. It is being opposed because of the extreme conservative position that has been held for decades by so many opposite. The legislation is about restoring equity, accessibility and accountability to the university sector and is about helping students, particularly those in regional and rural areas. It is an absolute shame that at various conferences the National Party passed resolutions to support the compulsory nature of assistance to university students and opposed this type of legislation earlier this year. They know full well that the services provided by student unions in universities located at Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Ipswich, Toowoomba and elsewhere are vital in the areas of physiotherapy, child care, sport, recreation, culture and legal services. They are critical.

The coalition was driven by conservative ideology in its imposition of voluntary student unionism in the university sector. That came to a head in 2005 when we saw the coalition’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. It effectively resulted in a university association, union or guild being prevented from charging a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities and services that were not of an academic nature. Students go to universities to do tutorials, attend lectures and engage in research but there are other aspects of university life. Many of them are at colleges and come from rural areas like Cunnamulla, Charleville, Birdsville, Mount Isa and Weipa in rural Queensland. They also attend universities at places like Rockhampton, Cairns, Townsville, Ipswich and Toowoomba.

Many of those students live on campus or live with other students in rented accommodation close by and they use the university for all aspects of their recreational, sporting and cultural lives and in pursuit of the arts. They need assistance because often they are away from mum, dad, family and friends who would normally provide that kind of assistance. They might have played football, basketball, netball or hockey, or might have sung in the local choral society or the local rock band. It is university which gives them the opportunity to be involved in these types of activities.

The Howard government knew when it passed its legislation back in 2005 that there would be problems. To assuage the National Party and Senator Fielding, transitional assistance of about $100 million was given to universities through three competitive funding programs. If the Howard government believed its voluntary student unionism obsession was not going to have an adverse impact upon university services and student services at regional and rural universities, why did it provide transitional assistance? Why did it listen at that stage to the National Party and provide that kind of assistance? They knew. The former Prime Minister John Howard and those people who sat at the cabinet table knew. They knew that student services in rural and remote areas, particularly in places like WA and Queensland, which are the most decentralised states, would suffer. That is why they provided that assistance. So do not come into this House and say, ‘It would make no impact,’ because the truth is it made an impact.

We took to the last election a policy that we were going to restore campus amenities, restore services and make the system much better than it was. We are going to ensure that Work Choices is eradicated from the tertiary sector. But we are also going to ensure that student services are restored to what they were. That is what it is about: restoring the kinds of necessary services, such as medical and health assistance, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, sporting and cultural facilities, that universities once enjoyed and student unions provided free of charge to many of the people there. I think university unions do a great job. If we are going to say that we live in an independent, democratic and free society, they should be allowed to function in that way, free from interference and the dictates of obsessed, conservative governments who have an ideological opposition to them. Those sitting on the opposition benches must have very sad experiences at university because so much of their vitriol is aimed at, and so much of their time is spent attacking, student unions. Students in higher education need to get access to those amenities and services. They are crucial. They also need to get access to the kind of democratic student representation which is critical.

The legislation we are discussing here, despite what the member for Indi had to say, is not about a return to compulsory student unionism. The legislation makes it clear. I wonder whether she actually bothered to read it. We are not changing, for example, section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act, which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. That is not happening. We also have detailed guidelines, and it is very clear what they are about. We talk about such politically motivated activities as child care, legal services, clubs and societies, sport and recreation facilities, food and beverage provision. How can these things be considered to be politically motivated? How can they be considered to be the kinds of things that student unions should not provide? What is so wrong with those organisations providing them? The guidelines make it crystal clear that this fee cannot be used to support a political party or support a candidate for political office. They say it very clearly. The guidelines state that they ‘impose a similar prohibition on any person, including an organisation, who receives any such funds from the provider’ for doing so. It is there in black and white. The member for Indi must not have been looking at those guidelines clearly because she has not made reference to what the guidelines actually say in writing. The guidelines make the case clear.

I think the university sector needs greater support. The government, unlike the previous Howard government, are engaging in greater support. We are delivering tremendous support through our Better Universities Renewal Fund. We provided universities with $500 million in 2008 to support infrastructure in key, priority areas. We are doing that with better libraries, laboratories, information technology, student places and student amenities. We have also increased childcare assistance to parents who are studying at university or TAFE—$23.9 million. The jobs, education and training childcare fee assistance has been extended from one year to two years and provides parents who are undertaking study, training and job search activities with flexible and low-cost childcare support.

What did the coalition do in relation to those sorts of things? Did they invest to that extent? Did they give support in that way? They did not. A study has been undertaken, people have been consulted and an assessment has been made of the impact of the coalition’s obsession with voluntary student unionism. On November 2007, after one year of voluntary student unionism, we had a report prepared. It was done by the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association and Peter McDonald, a very important demographer. The report, entitled The i mpact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students: summary report, was based on evidence, not ideological obsession.

Mr Ciobo —Obsession with freedom.

Mr NEUMANN —This is what that summary report said, and it is worth noting for those opposite. A bit of evidence, a bit of empirical data, is what they need—not ideological obsession but evidence.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

Mr NEUMANN —It might help the member for Moncrieff, who keeps injecting. It might give him some assistance. I suggest he sit back and just listen. We released this summary report. We undertook consultations from February 2008 and we invited submissions from stakeholders. The summary report says:

That was the case with the University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and other organisations. The University of Queensland, for example, had to redirect funds to help the student union with funding for sport because the costs had gone up enormously. That is the case across the country.

The opposition should have a look at the study. I doubt whether they actually consulted it. It also found that there was a reduction of $166 million in funding from amenity and service fees, expected to rise to $200 million in 2009. It found that there was a loss of 1,000 jobs, a 30 per cent reduction in employment. How can those opposite say that they are committed to the sector, they are committed to jobs and training and they are committed to providing services for students at university when they presided over that? Those are the consequences of their obsession.

This legislation really is good. It is about bringing back assistance to the sector. I have spoken to Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Alan Rix, from the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I had a long conversation with him about this particular issue. In an email he sent to me, he had this to say:

That is from someone in the sector, from the University of Queensland, who is held in high esteem—a pro-vice-chancellor, a well-known academic in Queensland and a well-respected person in the community. That is what he has to say about this. Do we hear those opposite quoting anyone from the sector? No, they spend their time deriding student unions and the people who stand up for the students who are struggling to get through university. They spend all their time casting aspersions upon them.

We have got to provide solutions for more funding to go back into the sector. We recognised the negative impact of voluntary student unionism, and that is why this legislation came before the House and then the Senate earlier this year. Regrettably, because of their ideological opposition, those opposite opposed it in the House and voted it down in the Senate, and we can see from the shadow minister that they are going to do that again. That is really a shame. It shows that those opposite clearly do not support the sector—and we see that again in the legislation relating to income support for students that is currently before the Senate. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about this as another example of the coalition not supporting the university sector and students who are struggling, particularly those from rural and regional areas. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear that about 150,000 students who receive youth allowance will not get the proposed $2,254 start-up scholarships to help them meet the costs of their study if the legislation that is before the Senate is blocked, and students who would otherwise be eligible for a $4,000 relocation payment will not be able to receive this. These would be the consequences of the coalition’s behaviour and belief with respect to the university sector and students.

The coalition say it is because they want to support choice, but we know what their view on choice and freedom is. Work Choices is the greatest example of the coalition’s belief in choice and freedom. It is freedom for the rich, but those who struggle, those from the working class and others who do it tough to get to university are on their own. That is the coalition’s attitude to university funding.

As I have said, many universities—Griffith University, the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology—have said they have had to redirect funds from other avenues to their consolidated revenue, and other universities have had to use funds from research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall in funding for campus services. Without the passage of this legislation, we will see services decline further, and some, sadly, are likely to fold. I urge the National Party, who claim they are the party of the bush, the party that represents the regions, to do the right thing by regional students who attend the universities I mentioned earlier—

Mr Lindsay —Who do not use any amenities—

Mr NEUMANN —They should do the right thing. And members from the Liberal Party should do the right thing as well, because they know how important it is to provide services on their campuses and they know that this legislation is balanced, sensible and practical. That is what it is. It is important legislation, and they should support it. If they want students in places like Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Ipswich to have access to information, health advice and legal advice, physiotherapy, and sporting and recreational facilities—if they are concerned about making sure students are fit and healthy in completing their university courses—and have access to cultural, drama and theatre and other groups that are important to university life, then they should support this bill. Students also need access to independent, democratic student representation. They need access to the kind of assistance that will help them.

This legislation will allow universities to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee capped at $250 per student per annum, indexed annually. That is not a large amount but it is an amount that will make a big difference. It will help to fund student services and amenities, including those in regional areas of Queensland.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of members on the opposition benches who represent those regional and rural areas, particularly in Queensland, just what they have to say about such services in their areas, and seeing whether they have the fortitude and the faith, and the commitment to their communities, to support this legislation. I look forward to the National Party having the integrity and the guts to stand up for students in rural and regional areas, particularly in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales, and do the right thing by helping those students get through university.

Let us make sure that on a bipartisan basis we can provide a sustainable, robust solution to addressing the ongoing cost difficulties with student services, amenities and representation. That will come if this legislation passes the House and the Senate. It will not come if those opposite continue to pursue the battles of the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties.