Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I would like to congratulate the minister at the table, the Hon. Duncan Kerr, who in my view ought to have been given a much higher position than that of parliamentary secretary in this government. Having said that, I agree with some of what he said. I must say, though, that I disagree with much of what he said in relation to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. This bill is really just a piece of Labor ideology. I suppose we are going to see more of this sort of legislation introduced as we proceed into the term of this government.

Some of the changes proposed in the bill may, as a consequence of its enactment, remove the safeguards that promote accountability, business efficiencies and staff flexibility. These include requirements that tertiary institutions comply with certain workplace relations requirements and also that specific governance protocols be adhered to so as to ensure these institutions are eligible for additional government funding. This is underpinned by the theory that the allocation of these funds is accompanied by a requirement to use the funds wisely and responsibly. The removal of these governance protocols in particular also could have the potential to open the door to a reduction in the transparency of the operations of universities, which are largely taxpayer funded, and counteracts what is a natural expectation that the use of government or taxpayer funds by universities ought to be scrutinised very closely.

The higher education workplace relations requirements included that staff were able to be offered the choice for their work to be managed through an Australian workplace agreement alongside other available choices of a collective agreement or a common-law contract. Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, you would be aware that an Australian workplace agreement gave a staff member who is highly qualified and a respected academic or operational employee the opportunity to negotiate a salary and conditions in line with what the staff member believes that he or she is worth. He or she would be able to negotiate on his or her own terms and utilise his or her own skills rather than be subject to a collective agreement or other contractual arrangement that the staff member feels may not be in the best interests of the staff member or may not best meet the wishes of the staff member.

The opportunity to choose an Australian workplace agreement as an alternative to others was one of the very sensible inclusions enshrined in the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This was an option that may not have been offered if not for the legislation but it was an option that gave the employee greater flexibility in the workplace. It also gave the employee the opportunity to make arrangements mutually satisfactory and assisted to encourage openness and freedom of choice for employees when it came to these particular matters. Australian workplace agreements also had the benefit of encouraging and fostering better and more direct relationships between employer and employee, encouraging the comfort of staff by delivering to them more flexibility and personal control over their respective work conditions—greater flexibility in workers being able to negotiate conditions to their liking—and the ability to reward outstanding employees. The need to reward outstanding employees is a very important principle because, unless employees are able to be appropriately remunerated and rewarded for levels of competence, capacity and diligence, it could well be that tertiary institutions will not be able to attract the quality of staff member or employee that the institutions need to be able to compete as first-class tertiary institutions in the world tertiary education marketplace. With this requirement being removed—that is, the ability to negotiate—a concern may arise that some valued employees will not be satisfied with their work conditions and may feel that those conditions are not on a par with what they would like, and we could see a situation where those people are lost to the tertiary sector.

The bill also affects governance issues. It does make sense to set requirements for these institutions to ensure that they promote best governance practices. Amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in 2005 included requirements such as ensuring university councils included membership with a wide range of expertise and considerable commercial and business experience. It is important that people who are administering educational institutions do have business and commercial experience, because, let’s face it, one of the reasons that higher education institutions such as universities exist is to turn people out who are suitably qualified to play their role in the commercial marketplace and the commercial workplace in Australia. If you have suitably qualified people, then that gives our nation the skills it needs to compete around the world. It also gives the people who graduate successfully the capacity to have a long and successful work life.

The requirement to include on university councils people with a wide range of experience, including commercial and business experience, was not a requirement that aimed to control or limit the governing body of an institution. Rather, it was designed to open up the collective mind of the institution to ensure that it did not become bogged down in specific or narrow viewpoints or bogged down in a specific way of doing things. It follows a theory that variety in membership works to encourage a wide range and number of views and to promote wider discussion to enable institutions to have the very best chance of success.

Other governance protocols included suggestions as to the number of people on the council of an institution and a limit for those on councils to a period of 12 years, which helped to foster a regular sense of renewal and turnover, keeping the council fresh and maintaining a direction in line with the requirements of our changing communities and society.

Some of the changes included in this bill are ideologically based—such as the removal of an employee’s choice to be employed under an Australian workplace agreement—while others will remove safeguards to the efficient and open operation of these facilities and institutions.

The opposition is not opposing amendments relating to workplace relations changes, consistent with the position taken by the opposition on other workplace legislation introduced into the parliament and subsequently carried. We are also not opposing amendments that do not relate to the national governance protocols. The legislation also covers a range of subsidiary matters, which is occurring increasingly in this parliament.

I am pleased to participate in this debate and I would sincerely ask the government to take on board the opposition’s concerns with respect to improving this legislation before the chamber.

See this speech in context