Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Corangamite on his excellent contribution to this important amending legislation. It gives me great pleasure to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. Put simply, this is part of our promise to get rid of the remnants of the Howard government’s insidious industrial relations scheme. It is part and parcel of our promise and commitment to do a number of things as a government which, I was very pleased to see last night, were fulfilled—very much so—in the budget presented by the Treasurer on behalf of the new Labor government of Australia. Importantly in terms of industrial relations, this amending legislation will remove the results of what really could only be called an arrogant government bullying of workplaces and workers, and in this case unwarranted intervention in our universities and other higher education providers.

The amendment of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 effectively repeals section 33-17. This currently requires higher education providers to meet the higher education workplace relations requirements and the national governance protocols as a condition of their Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding for student places. What are or, indeed, were the consequences of section 33-17? Failure to meet these requirements outlined in section 33-17 fundamentally results in a reduction of a provider’s Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding for student places. That is what the consequences of this section are if you fail to carry out the requirements. Labor’s bill clearly will remove this condition.

In essence, firstly the higher education workplace relations requirements require universities such as my own, the University of Tasmania to implement the Howard government’s ideologically driven workplace relations agenda. Secondly, in practice the governance protocols require adherence to what is effectively a one-size-fits-all model of how to run a university—a straightjacketing, a uniformity. Section 33-17 is demonstrative of what choice meant under the Howard government—effectively, little or no choice.

Under section 33-17 a provider would have its basic Commonwealth Grants Scheme amount reduced by approximately 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the minister that it had complied with both the higher education workplace relations requirements and the national governance protocols as at 31 August each year. The higher education workplace relations requirements—I would use the acronym if I could pronounce it; I think it is HEWRRs—consist of the following five elements: so-called choice in agreement, including the requirement to offer Australian workplace agreements to all employees; direct relationships with staff which prohibit automatic third-party representation—this stuff is all very familiar; workplace flexibility—fair enough; productivity and performance—fair enough; and freedom of association. The national governance protocols, or NGPs, are a set of standards primarily covering the size and composition of governing bodies and the duties of governing body members.

The abolition of the higher education workplace relations requirements and the NGPs accords with this government’s public commitment. The government indicated in a white paper on higher education in July 2006 that ‘workplace relations and governance conditions attaching to funding will be removed’. Unlike the Howard government’s unmandated Work Choices legislation, this government made it clear, as I mentioned earlier, that we would indeed remove these conditions related to that section. No equivocation, no doubt, no ambiguity about what we have done here.

For those interested, let us be clear what Labor’s amendment bill does. First and foremost, will removing the higher education workplace reform requirements stop universities offering AWAs? Indeed it will. Removing the requirements that universities meet the higher education workplace requirements as a condition of funding will remove any requirement that universities must offer AWAs to employees. As soon as chapter 7 of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme guidelines, which contain the prescriptive elements of the higher education workplace relations requirements, as well as the national government’s protocols or NGPs, including the mandatory offering of AWAs, is removed the day after registration, universities will no longer be required to meet the requirements as a condition of funding under the CGS. So repealing section 33-17 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will make the government’s intention to remove the requirements as a condition of funding absolutely clear. Universities will be subject to the government’s transitional workplace relations legislation.

It may be asked whether, if the proposed amendment does not pass the Senate prior to July 2008, universities will be forced to comply with the higher education workplace relations requirements as at 31 August 2008. The answer is no. As soon as chapter 7 of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme guidelines, which contain the prescriptive elements of the higher education workplace relations requirements, as well as the NGPs, including the mandatory offering of AWAs, is removed, universities will no longer be required to meet the requirements as a condition of funding under the CGS. Removing the relevant guidelines and repealing 33-17 of the act will remove the HEWRRs and NGPs as a condition of university funding.

Do these changes go far enough? The answer is yes. Removing the relevant guidelines and repealing 33-17 of the act will indeed remove the higher education workplace relations requirements and the NGPs as a condition of university funding, as mentioned.

What about these national government protocols, the NGPs? There is the question of whether these will signal that the government is not interested in university governance. That is far from the truth, far from the facts. All universities have already taken the steps necessary to comply with NGPs and all the amendments to state and territory legislation that were necessary to underpin them have been enacted. There is no need for ongoing compliance checking. The government will continue to encourage universities to adopt good governance practices. This will include pursuing options for a non-legislative focus on the governance standards in response to the forthcoming report of the review of the NGPs by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.

I note with interest that Universities Australia put out a press release in relation to this legislative amendment on Tuesday, 13 May 2008. I would like to share that with members of the House because it reinforces Labor’s intention and indeed action in moving those amendments. The statement reads:

Universities Australia supports the government’s action in this session of parliament to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) as a legislated condition of funding for universities.

Further, Universities Australia chair Richard Larkins says:

Universities Australia would welcome the removal of the HEWRRs as an indication from the government that it is happy to loosen existing prescriptive requirements and allow universities to pursue their missions as self-governing bodies.

The statement goes on to say:

‘Universities Australia looks forward to other restrictions being eased or removed across a range of Commonwealth funding and regulatory activity. Universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government, such as postgraduate coursework and international student initiatives,’ Professor Larkins said.

Finally, it says:

In relation to the national governance protocols which could also be removed by this change to the Higher Education Support Act, it is the view of Universities Australia’s vice-chancellors and chancellors that members of governing bodies of universities should not be subject to more prescriptive requirements than apply to directors of bodies governed by corporation law.

The statement by Universities Australia, the rationale provided by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education and the detail of this amendment clearly indicate that this government wants to work in cooperation with the universities, but is by no means not showing interest in proper governance protocols and indeed productivity and flexibility in their workplaces. But they want to do this in negotiation and in cooperation. The former government’s quite pronounced intervention in universities, laying on the stick with very little carrot, was demonstrated in its other interventions in other areas of Australian governance, no more so than in health, particularly in my electorate. The Australian people prefer to work in a cooperative manner rather than be bullied by interventions and other big-stick approaches.

In conclusion, I would also like to place on the record—apart from my support of this amendment, of course—my support for and recognition of the work of the University of Tasmania in my state. Although it is the one university in Tassie, it provides three campuses. I am pleased to say that it gives considerable support to our campus at Burnie, very much a regional campus, which was formed in 1995. I recognise the work of Simon Crean in setting up the university campus at Burnie and also providing much-needed places for that university. I would invite anyone who is visiting my beautiful part of Tasmania to go up to the university and have a look at the campus and the services they provide. One of the great advantages is that it has smaller class sizes and more one-on-one contact with teaching staff. It is no different when people are in teaching and learning situations in schools: the smaller the class size and the more one-on-one contact people have, the better. The campus’s students have an opportunity to study closer to home. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that you are well aware of the pressure on people to leave rural and regional Australia to study elsewhere. This campus provides the opportunity to be much closer to home, to retain their contact with and keep their skills in their local communities.

The other great thing about this university campus is that it works very closely with the communities that it represents and serves. It provides a raft of undergraduate bachelor and associate degree programs and postgraduate degree programs. They are not full courses, of course, because they have to leave after one or two years, but the University of Tasmania is working towards having full degrees provided at the campus. I do recognise the work of the University of Tasmania and I particularly recognise the work of the Burnie campus.

I am very pleased to support this bill to allow greater flexibility, fairness and cooperation with our university sector and to get this mantle of Australian workplace agreements and penalties off the back of universities so they can get on with what they do best and provide a bit of diversity rather than uniformity, which the former government tended to impose on these universities. It is with pleasure that I support the bill.

See this speech in context