Sarah Henderson

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3047:

(1) Schedule 2, page 29 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A At the end of subsection 19-38(1)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

1B At the end of subsection 19-38(2)

Add:

; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or

(d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity.

I want to make a couple of important points. The coalition did seek to remove from the bill the requirement that 40 per cent of the student support and amenities fee be allocated to student led organisations. We did seek to remove that from the bill, and that was not successful. We would ask the Senate to support this amendment because we are proposing, with this amendment, an important safeguard to prohibit the use of student support and amenities fee funds, SSAF funds, for student elections, student protests or protest related activities, because what we want to ensure is that these very valuable resources directly benefit student welfare and essential services.

I am concerned that the government may vote against this amendment, and I really do not understand the basis for that, because this is very much an ideologically driven provision in the first place. It also overlooks critical concerns of the universities about not just the misuse of funds but also the incapacity of some student led organisations to appropriately deliver critical services to students. Without this amendment being passed by the Senate, without these important safeguards, we face a situation where these funds could be used for improper purposes.

We have seen on university campuses, since 7 October 2023, horrific levels of antisemitism, shocking protests and shocking behaviour. The thought that moneys from students were being directed to student led organisations for the purposes of improper activities, including antisemitic activities, is frankly abhorrent. We don't believe that this should be permitted, and not just in relation to antisemitism but in relation to any sort of protest activity. These funds need to be safeguarded for the important purpose for which they are being paid by all students, and that is to ensure that student needs are properly supported—important needs like health care, mental health support, legal support and other services on campus that students will call upon.

I do want to add, in relation to this provision in the bill generally, that Universities Australia recommended that 'changes to how the SAFF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by UA members'. Charles Sturt University indicated that it could not support the SAFF changes without further amendments and argued that the model 'may not be workable for regional and/or multicampus institutions, or those with a high proportion of part-time or online students'.

The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton said:

The general issue raised by a fixed allocation of funds to third-party organisations is how this intersects with the legal obligations of universities regarding services of a non-academic nature. Specifically, if the university relies on student-run organisations over which it has limited direct control, is it risking non-compliance with other statutory requirements?

Let's not forget that we're talking about a very substantial amount of money here. In 2023, more than $278 million in student services and amenities fees funds were collected by 44 providers, and the Department of Education's submission to our inquiry into this bill noted that more than $110 million of this amount was allocated by providers to student led organisations.

The issue is that universities are being robbed of the ability to ensure that these funds are directed appropriately so that, if some of these funds are provided to student led organisations, they have the capacity to provide these services. I do note that, for smaller and regional unis, this is a particular challenge. They don't have very large student led unions and other organisations like the bigger universities. But, then again, this is not surprising from the government, because we've seen the government, in the ESOS bill, back-in the big end of town and back-in the G8 universities at the expense of the regional and smaller universities. Now the threats that the government is making in relation to the ongoing use of Ministerial Direction 107 will compound that shocking unfairness and disadvantage. We know what happened this year as a result of MD 107 and how much regional universities suffered.

As I say, this is an important and sensible amendment. It safeguards the funds for the purposes for which they are intended. It doesn't fuel or fund any sort of protest activity on campus, and, as we have seen, the coalition is deeply concerned about the gross mismanagement of antisemitic protests on university campuses since October 2023 and, frankly, the weakness of leadership we have seen from this government. We call on the Senate to back this amendment.

Mehreen Faruqi

This is just the next step in a long, concerted and pretty shameful campaign by the Liberals, and in particular Senator Henderson, to silence dissent and protest on our university campuses. Protest has, historically and always, been a core part of democracy on university campuses, and students have been at the forefront of so many social movements, from justice for Palestine, to climate justice, to First Nations justice and everything in between. Attempts to control and silence students should never be tolerated. The Greens will not tolerate this, and we will be opposing these amendments.

Anthony Chisholm

The government also will not be supporting this amendment. I refute the allegations from Senator Henderson regarding the leadership that Minister Clare has provided in regard to antisemitism on campuses. Concerns of how the SSAF can be committed are unfounded. It is yet another example of fearmongering, and we're accustomed to that from those opposite. Section 19-38(4) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 provides a list of things that SSAF can be put towards—things like providing food and drink, sporting activities, caring for children, promoting health and welfare of students, and so on. It does not provide for protest.

The legislation also includes requirements of providing and collecting SSAF. These are the same legislative requirements which have been in place since 2012. There are no changes to eligible activities. Providers must comply with the legislation. If they don't then the Department of Education can take compliance action.

Sarah Henderson

Firstly, I absolutely refute the allegations of Senator Faruqi. This is not an attempt to subvert legitimate protest on university campuses. This is an amendment which preserves these funds for their proper use—that is, for the health, welfare and wellbeing of students on campus. I said nothing at all, Senator Faruqi, about shutting down protests other than, of course, that the universities have done an appalling job in not shutting down antisemitism. Things are better than they were, but it's been a shocking 12 months. This does not go to the legitimate right of students to protest. What this amendment is all about is ensuring that these funds are used properly and that they are used for the health, the wellbeing and the legitimate needs of students. It's not for engaging in printing vile posters or engaging in transport costs so that students can go to the Land 400 protest, as I understand and am told occurred in the case of one university student led organisation. We want to make sure that this very significant amount of money reaches where it's meant to go.

I will also address the comments of the minister. I appreciate what the bill provides in relation to health and welfare, food and drink, and all the rest of it, but the bill does not prohibit these funds being used for protest and protest activity. If the government shares our concerns—and I think the government should share our concerns—then it should back this amendment. If your intention is to not support protest activity, not to support printing costs to be printing vile posters and not to support all the other stuff that's gone on in universities, then the bill fails to make that clear. It's not prohibited. This makes it crystal clear that those sorts of activities—you'll note in the amendment that we've limited the scope of these activities fairly narrowly. If you share our concerns about using these funds properly, you will support this amendment.

I will finish by saying that I totally disagree with the way that you've reflected on the Minister for Education, Mr Clare. Mr Clare on many occasions has failed to show adequate leadership when it comes to combatting antisemitism on Australian university campuses. He never once publicly spoke against the encampments, despite the fact that they were fuelling and inciting horrific levels of antisemitic hatred. He never once raised publicly the concerns about members of Hizb ut-Tahrir menacing Jewish students on campuses, which was frankly abhorrent, particularly under circumstances when the University of Sydney was on notice that those people were on campus and for many weeks did nothing until it was exposed in the media. Minister Clare never said anything about the two visiting Israeli academics who were effectively locked in a room, barricaded, in what was the most appalling conduct at the University of Sydney. You can make the motherhood statements you like, but I'm afraid Minister Clare has a very shocking history in not appropriately safeguarding Jewish students and not appropriately speaking with moral courage and clarity in relation to antisemitism.

Going back to this amendment, I would say to you, Minister, if it is your intention that these funds not be used to support protest activity, which could of course be used for very improper purposes, then I would urge you, please. I don't expect the Greens to support this amendment, but I do expect that the government would be responsible enough to support this amendment. It's a responsible amendment. It reflects the proper purpose of these funds. It's the right thing to do, and I would ask the government to support this amendment.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3047 be agreed to.

Summary

Date and time: 7:08 PM on 2024-11-26
Senator Pocock's vote: Abstained
Total number of "aye" votes: 24
Total number of "no" votes: 29
Total number of abstentions: 23
Related bill: Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au