Senator STOTT DESPOJA (1:21 PM) —Today, a number of students in different states and territories around the nation are protesting against the federal government. They take this action not, as we have seen in previous months and years, to protest against yet another attack by the government on university funding, a HECS increase or cuts to student assistance, but to defend their very right to organise and to criticise those types of education funding cuts. They do that because the government has signalled an intention to extinguish vital campus services and facilities provided by student unions and student organisations.

The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, has made it very clear that he is prepared to blackmail, to threaten, the very funding base of universities generally in an attempt to carry out his planned implementation of so-called voluntary student unionism. I note that some conservative members of this place have even put stickers in their Senate office windows saying `VSU—it's about students, not student unions'. In fact, this debate is not about student welfare; it is about political revenge. It is about silencing dissent; it is about silencing your political opponents.

Senator Tierney —It's about freedom of choice.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —The National Union of Students, the Council of Postgraduate Students Associations and dozens of student organisations around this country have been critical of this government's funding cuts to universities generally. And rightly so; there is a lot to be critical of.

It is a sad day when the education minister decides to shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message. But that is quite typical of this government. You have only to look at other organisations that have had funding cuts or been defunded entirely. I refer, for example, to the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, which clearly has been a strong advocate of youth issues and has provided policy advice and research to government, yet it has been defunded—because of the times, we presume, when it may have been critical, and even constructively critical, of government policy making.

The government cloaks its campaign to silence the student voice in the rhetoric of freedom of choice. I note that an honourable senator interjected earlier about the idea of freedom of association, and I will get on to that. The government has also suggested that somehow the student amenities fees—the fees that are collected and go to student organisations—are somehow a disincentive to study. It is a bit ironic when we see that this government has introduced and hiked up student fees and charges to the highest level in our history for public education in this country—even higher than in the pre-Whitlam days. So this government is quite hypocritical in that claim that it is concerned about fee increases, charges and imposts on students.

The second point that this government makes is that universal membership of student organisations contravenes the principle of freedom of association. Since the late 1970s, pro-VSU campaigners have relied, to cover their ideological motivations, on the assertion that universal membership is a form of compulsion. But those who choose to mischievously use this argument of freedom of association should be aware that, on 30 October 1989, the Supreme Court of South Australia, in my home state, held that universal membership of a student organisation was not in breach of any human right to freedom of association.

Universal membership is based on the recognition that all students do have some core common interests as students and that student organisations have always considered all students as their members, as entitled to vote, that they are elected and that they are involved. So they are democratically involved in that process. Universal membership means universality, not compulsion.

When students enrol in a university, they are enrolling in a community—the university community. Everyone understands that participants in any community have rights and responsibilities. Within the university, the rights of students are created, defended and, indeed, extended by the student body. I refer, for example, to appeal procedures that have been won by student organisations, access to resources and participation in the total governance of the university.

Student control of student affairs has always ensured the extension and protection of students' rights. As in any other community, students have rights and responsibilities. One of these responsibilities—and I think a right— is membership of a student organisation. This responsibility is enshrined in university statutes and is recognised as fundamental to the functioning of the student community. Student organisations, in turn, have their responsibilities to their members which they must meet. They must be democratic; they must be financially accountable; and so on.

If a student were forced to be a member of, say, the Liberal Club or the Labor Club on campus, it would be a contravention of freedom of association. However, democratic student organisations are different in that they have a role in securing the rights, freedoms and conditions of study favourable to students.

In fact, in article 29 of the United Nations declaration—and I note that this particular clause is never quoted by pro-VSU campaigners—this point is recognised. It is one of the same UN declarations to which they often refer, but not this one in particular. Article 29 reads:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his [sic] personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his [sic] rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Also never quoted by pro-VSU campaigners, who may or may not be members of the current party in government responsible for making education less accessible, is article 26, which reads:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

The Democrats support the opportunity for campus life to flourish and for students to get the most from their universities. That is why we have opposed funding cuts, fee increases and attacks on student organisations. We believe that student organisations are the lifeblood of campuses. They ensure that students can develop as people, not just as pupils. They do this by enabling them to participate in a whole range of areas—campus media, activities, sports, theatre, religious groups, politics, et cetera. They do this by the provision of a university community. Like a community, like ratepayers, like councils, they do this by levying a charge which is analogous to the payment of a resident's council rates.

Local councils are also political, and many have been critical of policies that emanate from state and federal governments, such as the lack of underground cabling, aircraft noise, et cetera. Local councils and shires deal with much more than the proverbial `roads, rates and rubbish'. Indeed, I would add the word `representation' to that old phrase.

Like student organisations, many councils run cultural and recreational activities. Like student organisations, they provide political representation and leadership—and yes, sometimes on controversial issues. That is an integral part of the role of student organisations as well as councils.

We will defy and oppose any attempt by the government to interfere with the workings of these democratically organised student unions and student organisations. We defend the right of students to be critical of government policies and to have their freedom to organise, to educate, to be critical. We certainly oppose any attempt to emasculate not only their rights and responsibilities but also those vital services which we believe are the lifeblood of campus life. As I said, they extend from subsidised catering, child care and meeting rooms right through to sporting and recreational facilities.