Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will also not be supporting this disallowance moved by Senator Mason. I have to say that I am actually disappointed to see it. On 24 November, I thought we saw the end of what was, I think, a very black era in terms of this country’s history. We have heard a lot from the new Prime Minister about his commitment to education. I have a lot of criticisms about whether or not that is a genuine commitment to education—and public education in particular—but I did hope that we would see no more of the sorts of attacks on universities that we saw from the previous government.

HEWRRs, the higher education workplace relations requirements, were a classic example of that. There were many. We saw, over the range of changes that the former government made to higher education, more meddling in the activities of universities and schools as well—you cannot get your money unless you have a flagpole. There was a quite extraordinary level of intervention going on by government education ministers who wanted to say exactly what happened in our educational institutions. The now Leader of the Opposition had a particular criticism about a cappuccino course at a particular higher education provider. Whether that related to his own culinary tastes or what he thought should go on in higher education, he wanted to have a say in it. The level of intervention that the former government sought to have in the higher education sector was quite extraordinary. I had really hoped that those dark days had passed.

That is why it is so disappointing that we are in here having to have this debate about reintroducing that kind of interference into the operations of higher education institutions and universities in this country. The disallowance motion that we are dealing with today deals with the two aspects: the higher education requirements and the governance issues. I just want to make a few comments in relation to the higher education requirements. The argument that we heard from Senator Mason was, ‘This will not reintroduce HEWRRs because AWAs are no longer in the system.’ HEWRRs, the higher education workplace relations requirements, were not just about AWAs. That was the first and primary point on which many of us focused because of the concerns we have around removing the ability of employees to work and collectively bargain together to get the best conditions in their workplace.

But the higher education workplace relations requirements also went to other issues in terms of the role of the unions in the negotiating and bargaining process in a university environment. Personally, and on behalf of the Australian Greens, I think there is a really important role that the unions can and do play in the negotiation of wages and conditions for staff in universities. I think it is a fundamentally important role and it should be recognised by the government. That was one of the things that the HEWRRs did. They not only talked about bringing AWAs and Work Choices into the university system but also sought to diminish the role of trade unions in the workplace.

I remember the University of New England, in Armidale, in my home state, where, as a result of these requirements, the union had to operate out of a campervan in the car park. They had been kicked out of their office space at the university because it was trying to meet the HEWRR requirements. The union can play a very important role on behalf of academic and general staff in relation to not just wages and conditions but also grievance procedures. There are a whole raft of different measures that are important workplace standards where the union can play an important role. The argument that this is not about reintroducing HEWRRs and Work Choices into universities because AWAs do not exist is spurious, because HEWRRs are broader than just AWAs. You might have your argument about whether or not you are a good lawyer and what is going on with AWAs, but the higher education workplace requirements were far broader than simply dealing with the issue of AWAs. They sought to remove many of the things that academic and general staff were able to do, and those things are fundamental and important rights for employees in any workplace.

We are talking about universities in particular here and what they need in order to improve their workplace conditions, salaries and wages, as well as a whole range of other areas, including, as I said, grievance procedures and standards. Another part of the workplace requirements went to the issue of pattern bargaining. Let us take as an example a university academic who wants to transfer to another institution. Significant differences exist among universities in terms of the kind of remuneration academics receive. I do not think there is a problem with having some standards in academic pay levels. This makes sense not just within an institution but across the board because it allows for cross-fertilisation of academics from a range of different higher education institutions. Benefits can come from these people participating across the higher education sector, but this was one of the aspects that HEWRRs sought to remove. There are benefits for the staff and the universities from having standards in the pay scale. There will always be some arrangements with individual academics that will be different. This is the whole debate about AWAs and how that occurs, but there are actually some benefits that come from having standards across the board.

I think it is disingenuous for Senator Mason to say that we are not going to put Work Choices back into unis, because this is not just about AWAs. So much more in the higher education workplace relations requirements was about diminishing the role of academic and general staff and about diminishing their say in their working environment. What is so important about their working environment is that it is a university, and we are talking about quality education. This is the other issue that I want to go into generally. I have many problems with governance issues, and I will go into some of those as well. The governance protocols and, indeed, the HEWRRs, were not designed to improve the quality of education in institutions, but I think that should be fundamentally important. Yes, they dealt with other aspects, and some of those aspects are important, but at the centre of how we reform these institutions should be improving the quality of education in that institution and how that institution is able to engage with the students who attend it, the academics who do research in it and others who work in it. The governance protocols—