Senator STOTT DESPOJA (3:40 PM) —First of all, I thank my colleague Senator Bartlett for giving up his time in this debate. I was not expecting that we would be speaking on this issue. As some honourable colleagues have mentioned, some outrageous claims have been made in this place today that cannot go without rebuttal. Today is a national day of action on so-called voluntary student unionism. I say ‘so-called’ because there is nothing about voluntarism or freedom of association inherent in these proposals or even in the legislation that has been put forward by the government. This is about emasculating student services, amenities, representations and advocacy—all the things that are vital parts of campus life and that are provided to students today by virtue of the payment of a universal services or amenities fee.

As has been pointed out by Senator Lundy and others, this matter is about an ideological obsession. It may be about settling old scores—I do not know. I do not particularly care whether it is about some politicians or former student politicians, and I acknowledge that I am a former student representative. It is not about the baggage that some of us may or may not carry; it is about suppressing dissent. I think the real ideological agenda here is: ‘We don’t like the idea that some people may vehemently disagree with the policies of this government, so let’s get rid of their funding’—as in the case of NGOs and other representative peak bodies that have been defunded under this government. They say: ‘Let’s take away the universal services fee from universities that students pay themselves. Let’s remove the prop of some students, particularly disadvantaged students and poorer students’—not to mention students from areas such as regional, remote or rural campuses—‘let’s take away the vital services that give them a university experience.’ I say ‘university experience’ because I am sick and tired of this chamber passing legislation that has as its very subtext an anti-intellectualism.

These days we view university degrees as a commodity. Students come in and out on conveyor belts. They are not given time to participate in other aspects—the lifeblood—that are a university experience. We are told: ‘No, we don’t want them involved in student radio or newspapers. They’re bad. Student representation—we don’t need it. Political organisations—they’re just wrong.’ What about advocacy and representation, things that students would not necessarily be able to afford themselves?

The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee heard evidence—and I will not reflect on the committee’s deliberations—but we know that students cannot afford to bring a lawyer to a hearing when they face some kind of difficulty or if they are being challenged with respect to their studies or their marks. What about child care? People keep saying, ‘We can get private companies to come onto campuses and provide other services that might assist students in their studies.’ Subsidised child care and catering are often things that cannot be run at a profit—not necessarily at a profit and not necessarily at cost. That is where student organisations, student unions, guilds or associations provide vital services, particularly for those traditionally disadvantaged students. But when did we stop thinking about universities as a holistic experience? What is so wrong with thinking about an academic aspect of university life as well as about broadening your horizons from a social, political, religious or artistic perspective? That is what the great institutions of not just this nation but the world are founded on.

That is why you will find the Oxbridge models. You will not find Cambridge and Oxford implementing this kind of change. I recall asking people about this. I think we are the only country in the world doing this. Once again, Australia is coming up with a wonderful first—a unique position. Australia is going to be one of the first places in the democratic world to singlehandedly destroy the tradition of university life. I think that is shameful, and I am glad to see that there are some backbenchers, and some National Party members in particular, who are concerned about this, not just because of the loss of sporting services—as important and integral as they are, not only to universities but to the entire community—and not just because of the job losses but because of what it means to the very definition of university life.

If the minister is happy to preside over that, good luck to him, but some of us will go to the barricades opposing it. I believe Senator Ellison said in question time today: ‘We are going to remove student funds. They can raise their own funds in order to fight governments.’ You watch—they will, and they will be a force to be reckoned with, as opposed to the kind of peaceful and civic demonstrations and protests we see from students now. Wait and see what happens in the future. But it is not about that; it is about vital services. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.