In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (6:24 PM) —I rise to oppose the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. It is no surprise to coalition members that one of the first agenda items of the Gillard government is the introduction of a compulsory fee for students of $250 per annum, and indeed the provisions of this bill index that fee so that this tax on students will continue to rise. Considering what we have seen in the first tranche of legislation from this government, it is fair for us to assume that the taxation of students, imposing higher fees and charges on those seeking to further their education, is indeed the top priority of the Australian government. That is very disappointing—every student in the country can look at this and say, well, this is the most pressing priority of this parliament. Ensuring that this fee for services is charged is something that this government regards as more important than the so-called greatest moral issue of our time, climate change; it is more important than financial services reform and relieving pressure on families. We have to rake in more money from students allegedly to provide services.
I note that similar legislation failed twice in the previous parliament. It was rejected because it was seen, quite rightly, as an attempt to reimpose compulsory student unionism. The government now argues that this bill is somehow better because all it seeks to do is charge a $250 fee, and it prescribes how that can be spent by university administrations. I do not see how it is better. I do not see how it is better to say that now a university administration can charge this services fee and then spend it in the ways prescribed by this legislation, and that that will produce a better outcome than having a body controlled by students doing it. It seems to me to be an odd and specious argument.
It is interesting to note that these services, being the justification for this fee, are paid for whether the student wants them or not. It is important to note that this is actually written into the legislation. Subclause 19-37(5) states:
(5) that a higher education provider requires a person enrolled, seeking to enrol, with the provider to pay for a period starting on or after 1 January 2011 to support the provision to students of amenities and services not of an academic nature, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of those amenities and services;
That is exactly why I oppose this legislation. We are levying students to pay for services, as it says here in the legislation, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of these amenities and services. There could be nothing more ridiculous than levying these people in this way. The member for Parramatta spoke about people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I came from western Sydney; I actually grew up in North Parramatta and Carlingford. I went to Sydney University and I know that many of my friends and I found that the ability to go to university was hindered by compulsory unionism and the $300 to $400 fee paid every semester to the university union. Yet it is argued that somehow the levying of a fee for services and amenities that students might not use will benefit people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We really understand what this bill is about. It is revitalising what Labor student activists have always sought, and that is what they define as activism on campus; having student life. That is code for taking money off hardworking students and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to support political activism.
This legislation says that you are not allowed to use the money levied to finance federal, state or local political candidates. Of course what is missing in that definition is a reference to third-party political campaigns or entities. Clause 19-38(4) lists a number of things that a university may spend this compulsory fee on. What is not prohibited by this legislation and what is not prohibited in section 1 is funding of third-party campaigns, such as those by organisations like GetUp! that seek to influence the political debate and to change the nature of our society. I think that that is quite deliberate. That is a deliberate move by this government to leave out third-party campaigns, unions and other organisations. In part 4, what we see is that helping students obtain employment or career advice or help from unions is not prohibited by this proposed legislation in the House today. We all know the reason for that: the transferral of hard-earned student dollars to unions and third-party organisations to engage in the political debate.
What we have seen since the introduction of the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism regime has been students having their own money to use to choose their own goods and services on campus. Those services have continued to be provided in a fashion that is in line with the demand for them on those campuses. If anyone here in this place is seriously suggesting that the union on any single campus in this country provides better food than a private provider could or is seriously suggesting that their childcare services were better than those of private providers or that other services that can be easily provided by private providers—especially in metropolitan areas—were better provided by a student union then I would like to hear that argument. That was not the experience at the University of Sydney. In fact, union-provided food was regarded universally by the student body as a bit of a joke; it was a constant source of amusement over many years. And it was not a service that could not have been provided by independent providers on campus at a better standard and at a cheaper price.
The words ‘regardless of whether a student wants or needs a service or amenity’ are written into this legislation. That is the key flaw in this particular bill.
Proposed section 19-38(4) states that subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for certain purposes. It also reveals what I think are several flaws in this proposed bill. Once again, the government is picking the winners on campus—what activities can be funded and what activities cannot be funded by this fee. Once again, we see a nanny state approach to all the legislation that comes before this House from this government: ‘We will decide what services students need.’ And of course there is a list.
When you look at this list, it is not simply confined to health services or childcare services—the things that we hear so much about from those opposite. We know the statistics. What we are talking about is one per cent of students or less who need or use those services. We are not talking about the vast bulk of students; we are talking about a very small minority. On this list, there are things like supporting debating by students. We are actually charging people from low socioeconomic backgrounds $250 to support debating by other students. Is that a service that is so vital and so desperately needed that we need to fund it by a compulsory levy whether a person needs that service or not?
Let us have a look at what else is on this list. We are supporting artistic activities by students. Yes, of course we would be. The Labor Party would of course compulsorily levy people who work very hard to go to university so that some students can engage in what they describe as art. Who will decide what that artistic activity is? We do not know that. But we do know what kind of quality of art it will be. And we will be paying for it. When you look down this list, it is not a list of vital do-or-die services without which there would be people out on the streets or children not cared for. It is art. It is debating. It is all of those sorts of things.
Even sport and recreational activities are problematic. I want to address this very briefly. I am a big supporter of sport. I play sport. I use sports services. And I pay for them. This concept that somehow the general population of the student body, which includes many students who have to work or come from average backgrounds, has to somehow subsidise elite rugby and other sports on any campus in this country has always been a flaw in compulsory unionism. It remains a flaw in this legislation before us today, as sport is exempted. Taking the hard-earned money of one group and giving it to another group to support their chosen activity is a problem. There is nothing wrong with sport on campus. It is a fine tradition and institution. But if money is taken off others without their choice or consent then it is a very flawed system. We are going back to this idea that the government will decide what services students need, and particular people with an agenda inside this government will continue to prescribe lists like that in proposed subsection (4).
We also see in here a list of advocacy and other services. These are things that, as the Labor Party’s drafting in this bill suggests to us, students may not want and may not need. I would suggest again that 99.9 per cent of students will never want or need these services, and yet all students will be required to pay for them, for a small amount of activity.
I want to turn to some other events in relation to this legislation. There has been a huge rush in bringing forward this legislation before the House today. I have spoken about this being defeated two times before in the previous parliament. But the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training rushed its inquiry into this legislation. That committee had a government majority and they gave just six days for people to make submissions, thereby denying many individuals—students or other people around this country—the right to say what they think about every student being charged a compulsory fee for services and amenities that they may not want or need. The stated reason was the rush to put this bill through before the 2011 academic year. But when I look at the list of reasons I do not find that compelling.
We know what this is about. We know that political activity has dropped on campuses. The funding of third-party political organisations has dropped on campus. That is a good thing. People on campus are now free to vote or not vote in elections and to participate or not in political life. What we see in the voting returns on campuses around the nation is that very few students vote for these organisations. They do not choose to participate in political activity. That is the way that it should be. We should not force or compel people to pay a fee for services that they may not want or need and then have that money given to a political organisation that they may not support or may not choose to be involved in. It ends up being for the edification of those people involved in politics. I am one of those people, but I do not support this.
I want to record that, in their submissions, the Australian Liberal Students Federation, led by Sasha Uher, made a fantastic contribution to this debate, highlighting many of the practical reasons why this legislation will be detrimental to students around the country. University campuses are no different than any other part of our society. The concept that this bill will somehow improve standards of services for people when you are taking $250 out of the pockets of every student is flawed.
This bill means $250 less for textbooks, study materials, transport, the cost of living and, at best, means more HECS debt. This is where you come to the very odd position taken by the Labor Party: they oppose HECS and HECS debt increases when, really, HECS is designed in the understanding that education is an economic asset and improving your education improves your ability to obtain remuneration in our economy today. Therefore, we say you ought to make a contribution for the economic asset that the government is giving you and that society is providing you with. It is a reasonable and fair scheme that is working well.
But the Labor Party of course do not agree with the principle that you ought to make a contribution to your own education and that if you are going to receive such an economic asset and do better in your life you ought to return something to the system. Then they say, ‘We have in this legislation a provision which says we will have a fee help scheme.’ We do not need a fee help scheme if there is no compulsory fee. We do not need a fee help scheme if we allow people to have the $250 back in the first place to make their own decisions about student services and things on campus. When you think about every provider in this country that would be keen to get onto a campus to provide their goods and services at the cheapest rate they possibly could—because you are talking about young people, young consumers, people who will set their consumer behaviour for life—it is a golden opportunity for our campuses and universities. One of the great concerns of the coalition, and one of my great concerns as a coalition member, is that in our university and private sector funding for universities we do not encourage the system they have in America—scholarships, private sector involvement, more money being generated into education—which is the way to go.
There is no disguising what the Labor government is up to in this legislation. They see the taxation of students as one of their first priorities for the new government. This is the new paradigm: higher taxes and charges for our young people in Australia. I am happy to oppose this bill.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (1:47 PM) —Remembrance Day marked the 92nd anniversary of the signing of the armistice which ended World War I. On November 11, at 11 am, many of us stopped what we were doing to remember the sacrifice of more than 102,000 Australians who have been killed in war. On the Sunday before this year’s Remembrance Day service, many local veterans and people from across the community in my electorate of Mitchell also gathered at a service in Castle Hill. It was deeply moving to see the respect and sincerity that so many in our community hold towards those who have served and continue to serve our country.
It was, however, extremely disappointing to learn that Remembrance Day was largely ignored by some universities and government agencies and by many in the corporate sector. One interstate government agency, for example, regarded the observance of one minute’s silence as ‘potentially culturally offensive’, until community sentiment led to a change of heart.
It is so important that, so many years on from World War I, we continue to remember this important sacrifice of so many Australians. Our men and women in uniform continue to serve in often difficult and dangerous environments. This year the names of 10 Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan were added to the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial.
I join the calls of my colleagues, particularly Senator Michael Ronaldson, in ensuring that government agencies and departments, in particular, continue to ensure that Remembrance Day is observed on the 11th of the 11th at 11 am and that, even so many years later, we do indeed take seriously the sacrifice of so many brave Australian soldiers.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:38 PM) —I want to thank the member for Braddon for raising the trifecta of reasons as to why we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The insulation scheme is a fantastic reason why we should think, pause and carefully consider the impact of government decisions before we take them. The Building the Education Revolution scheme and the absolute rush to get projects out and handed to the New South Wales government meant that, in my electorate of Mitchell, we had two libraries built for a school of 90 pupils at the cost of $900,000. That could have been prevented by a cost-benefit analysis, by rationally examining how we were going to deliver those services.
The cost of the National Broadband Network represents the single biggest expenditure of any project in Australian history, so the member for Braddon has really raised the trifecta about why we are here today. If it were the case that, as those on the government side are consistently stating this place, the member for Wentworth’s objective was to delay or even to destroy the National Broadband Network, why would he be urging the government to do a cost-benefit analysis to consider the benefits versus the costs of implementing this program responsibly? If that were the case, the member for Wentworth would not be suggesting a deal which said, ‘Let’s pause and reflect, from a serious perspective such as that of the Productivity Commission, on how this could work, how it could be delivered and how we could best provide this broadband service to Australians.’
The experience of the member for Wentworth in business and investing leads him to understand that we need to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. We need to pause at these junctures when we have such a massive expenditure plan and say, ‘Let’s have a look at what we will get for that investment, because otherwise we will end up with a government program just like the insulation scheme or the BER where money is needlessly wasted and time and effort is spent delivering services that could have been delivered in a much better way.’ We have heard from our rural members here today that rural areas will not get the services they need even with an expenditure of $43 billion—the member for Calare is exactly right.
Why are we doing that? I come from an inner-city electorate, and there is pair gain in my electorate. I heard the member for Wakefield talking about pair gain, and of course that needs improving. Yet many inner-city areas are well serviced—there are people who do not need 100 megabits per second—while there are rural and regional areas that definitely need those services, and I endorse the remarks of those who say, ‘Why would we spend $43 billion and not service those areas of Australia where it is very difficult to provide these services in the free market?’
There is a large role for the market in the provision of broadband and telecommunications. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the experience of the member for Braddon that telecommunications in this country have been progressing in a fashion that has allowed people to better afford goods and services from telecommunications companies over time. It is not the case that the market is failing so badly that we need a massive government monopoly through an injection of money of $43 billion, a sum beyond the wildest dreams of any single investor or other provider of services in this country’s history. That is not just my view; we have heard in question time about the views of the OECD, but we have not heard about the fact that the OECD has this week criticised the NBN monopoly and called for a rigorous analysis of this $43 billion. Why wouldn’t they? The sum of $43 billion is a lot of money in anybody’s language, and it is very unusual for the OECD to call for such an analysis of a domestic policy.
The Alliance for Affordable Broadband, the AAB—which represents a cross-section of the telecommunications industry and includes in its membership infrastructure based carriers, fibre, wireless and carriage service providers, all of whom have things to gain and lose through the National Broadband Network—has written an open letter today begging the government to consider the cost-benefit of the NBN. The AAB’s members say that they can provide services in a reasonable and cost-effective way to much of Australia. In addition, the Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, has proposed an innovative scheme that has been tried in other major cities around the world.
So there are plenty of options here; there are plenty of reasons to pause and consider. The member for Wentworth’s objective in suggesting we do so is not to destroy the NBN. If a cost-benefit analysis would destroy the National Broadband Network, perhaps we ought not to be proceeding with the NBN. Perhaps the government ought to pause and think about that. Doing a cost-benefit analysis is a worthy task. The Productivity Commission can do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and taxpayers can get the peace of mind that they deserve.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:30 PM) —I rise tonight to speak about Showground Road, a road of great importance to residents in my electorate. This week we were privileged to hear about the allocation by the New South Wales government of $1 million towards the funding of Showground Road in Castle Hill. It might surprise the House to hear me praise the New South Wales government, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I can see you looking at me with shock—but it is a welcome development that $1 million has been allocated to such an important arterial road in my electorate.
It is that case that my electorate has the highest rate of cars per household of any federal electorate in Australia. It is not something we are proud of. We also have the highest rate of couples with dependent children and we are one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, which mean that infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, is of vital importance. In noting this development this week, I want to congratulate in particular the member for Castle Hill, Mr Michael Richardson, who has made an enormous contribution over many years in highlighting the problems with Showground Road. Showground Road links the Castle Hill central business district and Windsor Road. Over 45,000 vehicles use this road every day. It is appalling to note that this vital road link in my electorate which is only 1.2 kilometres long has a single lane each way.
It is a great shame that in modern Australia we cannot build better infrastructure. In a major city like Sydney, infrastructure is well behind schedule and billion-dollar costs are associated with the fixing it. It is the case that when a federal government is proposing to spend infrastructure money and when we have a Minister for Infrastructure and Transport whose electorate is in New South Wales, we ought to have a better understanding and appreciation of how vital infrastructure is to a major city like Sydney. One of my great laments about this federal Labor government—the past one and this current one—is that the infrastructure minister has not allocated money to Sydney, the biggest city in Australia, for infrastructure spending. Infrastructure is such a problem in our state.
The New South Wales government has a roads budget of about $4.7 billion that includes roads like the Pacific Highway and serious arterial and country roads all across the state. We are spending so much on a national broadband network, yet there are projects that affect the daily lives of my constituents, tens of thousands of them going begging, when really the money could be better spent on vitally needed transport infrastructure.
We have received this $1 million for survey and design planning. It is a welcome development. I want to note the contribution of Michael Richardson. He has worked hard with all levels of government in my electorate—whether it be local government or state government, or indeed the Queensland Investment Corporation that is proposing a major redevelopment of the centre of Castle Hill—to have a rethink about how to fund infrastructure, how to ensure that everybody makes a contribution to upgrading the infrastructure at the time it is done.
One of the great things I like about suburbs in Perth is that they are rolling out infrastructure—train lines and roads—with the suburbs as they go. We all know that Sydney has not been planned in the way it ought to have been, and growth has been allowed. Special infrastructure levies have been charged on properties in my electorate for many years and infrastructure has not been returned to my electorate in kind for those extra charges. My electorate pay a high rates of tolls to and from the city on private motorways. We have no problem with private motorways as long as they work. When they do not work and tolls are so high, and you do not get value from them, infrastructure and Sydney planning have failed.
In an electorate with the highest rate of car dependency in Australia, in one of the fastest growing communities in Australia and with the highest rate of couples with dependent children, every adult and every family in Mitchell has a car. We do need money for infrastructure funding and I welcome the New South Wales government initiating this planning process. It is long overdue. However, they have missed this opportunity: just 1.2 kilometres of road, a small thing in the scheme of things that governments do—a thing that is done by other governments in places all around the world. It is time for reform of how we do infrastructure in New South Wales and Australia because we should be able to build 1.2 kilometres of road much cheaper than what they have planned and in a much shorter time frame.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:39 PM) —I commend the member for Fowler on his very fine remarks and I associate myself with those remarks. He is a fine person.
I turn tonight to what is still the most important issue in my electorate of Mitchell. In my first words in the 43rd Parliament I want to reflect the ongoing concern of my electorate about rail infrastructure in Sydney. When I think about the rail infrastructure promises which have come over many decades now from Labor state and federal governments, I also turn to the words of the Prime Minister in the last week of the election campaign which gave rise to yet another series of concerns about whether promises on rail will be met in Sydney. That is because we have had a decade of announcements about the Parramatta to Epping rail link and about the north-west rail line. Indeed, during the federal election campaign we were stunned in Sydney one day to hear that there would be a Parramatta to Epping rail link. I remind the House that this was first announced in 1998 with a completion date of 2006—so it was going to be finished four years ago.
In 2003, the Epping to Parramatta rail section was deemed too expensive and was cancelled. Then, of course, in the federal election campaign we heard that the federal government would contribute $2.1 billion for the rail link from Parramatta to Epping. The opposition rightly pointed out that this had been an announcement cobbled up on the back of a ballot paper and we learned subsequently that there was no modelling or planning or any other information provided to departments—in fact, the state departments were completely in the dark. When we looked for the detail of what would be regarded as a very important infrastructure project, there was none to be found.
My electorate has the most families in Australia with couples who have dependent children. We are one of the of the fastest-growing corridors in Australia and we have been waiting for a rail line. We also have the dubious distinction of being No. 1 in cars per household of any electorate in the country because there are no transport alternatives. In the north-west of Sydney we have been promised a rail line for just short of 15 years. It is a vital infrastructure project. Yesterday in her address outlining the government’s commitment, the Governor-General said:
… to this end, the government is investing $37 billion in transport infrastructure through the Nation Building Program over the six-year period to 2013-14. The government’s commitments include major urban rail projects in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, the most significant investment in public transport yet made by the Commonwealth.
I could not let this opportunity pass tonight without reflecting that my electorate has the worst transport alternatives of any area in this country today. It is one of the fastest growing areas of our country. It has the highest rate of families and car ownership and no public transport alternatives. Transport is the No. 1 concern and people in my electorate are rightly sick of being committed to about public transport alternatives. They are tired of promise after broken promise. We hear talk about carbon reduction and about doing practical things to stop climate change; yet successive Labor governments break promise after promise over real practical measures such as a rail line which would fix this issue. I note that the member for Parramatta is here tonight. I say to her that it would be great to hear her speak out in relation to getting rail infrastructure projects for Sydney because the No. 1 concern of people in north-west Sydney and in her electorate of Parramatta is improving transport alternatives in the Sydney hub.
Hearing the Governor-General outline the government’s plans was interesting. Couple it with, ‘All bets are off,’ as the Prime Minister said, or key government promises made before the election ‘no longer necessarily apply’ because of the new environment created by the hung parliament. The Prime Minister of the country outlined that key promises no longer apply. I put on the table tonight that my electorate and the people of Western Sydney and north-west Sydney expect this government to keep to the promise it committed to prior to the election to build the Parramatta to Epping rail link. People expect this government to deliver better rail infrastructure because it makes these announcements and it lauds them. If you announced you were going to build a main line, if you announced you were going to fund it and if you announced before the election that this was your top priority, then people in this country would expect you to go ahead and do it.
New South Wales Labor is facing a wipe-out at the next state election in March 2011 precisely because of this—it does not meet the commitments it gives repeatedly to electorates. That is one ingredient which is leading to that circumstance. I say to this government that the people of Mitchell expect better transport infrastructure. The federal government is planning it and I ask that it delivers it.