Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Well, perhaps we could be forgiven for thinking that the coalition are a little confused as to whether they do or do not agree with or believe in Work Choices anymore. But my understanding from the shadow minister for education is that they are pursuing this motion to retain the protocols. That is what it is about. It is about the protocols, not the HEWRRs. But of course the HEWRRs are caught up in that as well. Clearly the opposition have the numbers to pass this motion. There is no question about the numerical realities in this place, of which we are all aware. The coalition have the numbers to pass this motion. So today we are appealing to members on the crossbenches, such as Senator Fielding and perhaps some within the ranks of the coalition, to very closely consider the impact and the implications of the disallowance motion before us today.

I gather that the coalition will move an amendment during the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008 to remove reference to the HEWRRs from the legislation but keep the protocols in place. I trust that Senator Mason will explain in further detail if this is not going to be the case. On that basis, quite rightly, Senator Mason has addressed the protocols issues today. I will seek to address the issue in my remarks.

I begin by drawing attention to something which I suggest to Senator Mason—if I may, Mr Acting Deputy President—was somewhat of a misrepresentation. It is one thing to quote institutions and universities who may have benefited from or had positive comments about the protocols process, but the statement that came from Universities Australia, representative of all the universities in this nation, on Tuesday, 13 May—yesterday—says very clearly:

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.

My understanding is that they are quite happy—or they accept—that the protocols can and will be removed under this government.