Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This debate highlights the stark differences between the Rudd government and the opposition: a government that is making practical changes and responding to the needs of the Australian community and an opposition that is ideologically focused, whether on Work Choices or still on student union ballots that went on in the seventies and eighties. We are a government committed to building an education revolution, from the early childhood sector through to primary schools, with our Building the Education Revolution that we announced recently with our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, through to high schools with our trade training centres, through to the VET sector and through to universities with our commitments there. This legislation is an important part of the overall education support and investment that we are making.

The bill establishes practical measures to support students at universities and introduces a VET FEE-HELP scheme to support more students studying diplomas and advanced diplomas. The legislation is about allowing universities to implement a student services fee of up to $250, and this can be indexed annually going forward. It allows universities to do that.

The government is very practical about this. It recognises that we are in some difficult economic times and that people may have some difficulty paying this fee. That is why students who have difficulty paying it will be able to access assistance through a new HECS-style loan component of the Higher Education Loan Program, Services and Amenities HELP. In implementing this charge, the university will have an ability to vary the charge depending on whether students are full-time, external or part-time. I studied at university as a full-time student, and as an external student and as a part-time student. Back when I studied in the 1980s, do you know what the university used to do? The university charged a different services rate depending on whether you were an external student, a part-time student or a full-time student. But that is not what the opposition are saying, because they are only interested in a scare campaign on these issues. Universities will take a practical approach to this, as the government has. They want to see this services fee reintroduced.

We have made very clear in our outline on this legislation that the fee will be used to provide important services including welfare programs, counselling, student advice and support, sport and recreation and other important services, in some instances, like child care. These are important services and, sadly, universities—as the member for Herbert and others opposite have pointed out—have continued to provide those services. But they have done that by taking money away from teaching and research to prop up services that are critically important to the universities. They recognise that. That is why, generally, universities did not support the coalition when they implemented their VSU legislation.

This legislation, as I said, is not about an ideological agenda of reintroducing compulsory student union fees, as the opposition continues to seek to assert. It is not about an ideological agenda of introducing student union fees or student association fees. They are expressly not part of the student services charge. The minister has made that clear and members on this side of the chamber continue to make that clear, but members opposite continue to run a scare campaign. Those opposite bring up historical anecdotes from the 1970s or 1980s or even, in recent contributions from the member for Herbert, from that very bipartisan group, the Liberal students association, about the National Union of Students getting moneys in this way. This bill expressly prevents that happening. We need to be honest and upfront about this bill. This bill expressly prevents that happening. It is about providing for a student services charge of up to $250 to provide welfare services and sport and recreation—those basic services that all universities see as core business for themselves in running a campus that has a community and environment that supports research and supports students getting a decent education.

As I have said, this legislation expressly prevents these charges being used for political purposes. That may not be in the opposition’s speaking notes, but they might want to have a look at the legislation and the actualities in relation to this legislation. The charge can only be used for services as outlined in the guidelines. We made clear that the sorts of things I have already mentioned—we are still doing consultation on the guidelines—cannot be used for student representation services. It expressly prevents that. The bill does provide a framework where we will have student representation at universities, but let us not confuse the two. The $250 services charge cannot be used for that. That is expressly outlined—

See this speech in context