Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

All decisions on the HEWRRs were made directly by the minister, leaving no opportunity to review those decisions. Additionally, the minister was able to unilaterally change the requirements at any time. What an unprecedented level of government interference in the higher education sector! I imagine that someone who did not know of the Howard government’s regressive agenda in this sector would find it very difficult to believe that legislation which allowed for such a huge level of government interference in micromanagement of staff in Australia’s higher education institutions was created—and, further than that, passed—in this chamber. What an abomination it was that the government could use its Senate majority to get into the nitty-gritty of daily management and hiring and firing of staff in universities! Honestly!

When the original legislation establishing the HEWRRs had been created, there was widespread criticism. Of course, that criticism from the sector was ignored by the then government, just as they ignored criticisms of their Work Choices legislation and criticism about VSU, voluntary student unionism—because the sector knew full well what implementation of VSU would mean for it. Of course, the then government ignored criticism of Work Choices to their peril and detriment, and we saw the result of that particular piece of ignorance on the part of the former government in November last year.

I would like to reflect that when the original legislation was introduced in the Senate it was referred to a Senate committee, and there was fierce opposition to the legislation evident through many of the submissions and hearings into that legislation. Some of the criticisms raised at those hearings, particularly by the National Tertiary Education Union, were that the HEWRRs failed to address the real workplace issues being faced within universities, that they lacked appropriate accountability and parliamentary scrutiny, that they created uncertainty and confusion and provoked industrial dissonance within universities, that they gave the federal government unprecedented and unwarranted capacity to interfere in the operation of higher education institutions and that they did not assist Australia’s higher education institutions with respect to the quality of learning, research and outcomes for students and employees. They were specifically focused industrial relations initiatives designed on the basis of placing conditions on access to funding to allow the government to force its industrial relations agenda on the sector.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, now known as Universities Australia—which, of course, is the body that essentially represents the management and administration of the universities—also opposed the introduction of the HEWRRs. In their submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education, that organisation said:

The HEWRRs are very intrusive in terms of universities’ capacity to manage their internal affairs. The HEWRRs proposal constitutes a ‘one size fits all’ approach, whereas the AVCC takes the view that the focus should be on desired outcomes, rather than specific industrial processes and particular industrial instruments.

But, as I noted previously, this criticism and many others were completely ignored by the former government. The coalition was determined to implement its ideological industrial relations agenda in as many sectors as possible, and it saw the higher education sector as one where it could possibly have some success. I was pleased to note the vehemence of the opposition from the sector to the government’s agenda, and of course it came to fruition in the low take-up of AWAs in the sector. HEWRRs required universities to implement the Howard government’s workplace relations agenda. Failure to meet the HEWRRs and the protocols resulted in a reduction of the provider’s Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. This bill will finally remove that requirement from the legislation.

It was outrageous that the former government forced universities to run workforce management in their regressive way or face reduced funding. Somebody before me mentioned bullying. A lot of people have mentioned bullying in this context, and it was bullying at its worst. It is a great thing that Labor is now in government and is able to clearly say that we will not stand for that sort of bullying and interference in the workplace. The removal of the HEWRRs legislation will not only put an end to this bullying and improve workplace relations in the higher education sector but also, very importantly, give funding certainty to the higher education sector. When they were restricted by the harsh HEWRRs, universities were unable to plan into the future for fear that they would have their funding cut and therefore be in a budgetary situation where what they wanted to do to improve educational outcomes for their students could not be done—because who knew what else the former government were going to foist on the sector?

I note that one of the key standing orders in our parliament is to make certain that bills that appropriate money contain no other measures. The reason for that was in the practice of early governments—in earliest times, I am advised—to tack measures to appropriation bills so that if those measures were passed they would necessarily bring with them other more unpopular measures that would not otherwise command the assent of the parliament. So, in the development of our parliamentary democracy, it was decided very early on that a spending bill could not have tacked onto it other kinds of measures.

Yet, it was seen fit by the former minister for education and now Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan Nelson, to tack measures that the universities would have rejected onto their funding allocations so that the only choice they had was to accept a level of poverty in terms of the courses and arrangements they could offer or to accept the ideological agenda of the government of the time. The universities have suffered under those arrangements for a considerable time—I think, for about five years—and it is not something they have been able to ignore. On 13 May this year, Universities Australia issued a press release stating in part:

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.

“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” …

In addition to these significant changes that are supported by the sector, this bill also makes a number of technical changes. These include amending the act so that the approval of a provider that no longer meets certain criteria may be revoked. For example, if the provider no longer has its central management and control in Australia, this bill enables approval for that provider to be withdrawn.

The bill also includes the addition of a transitional mechanism so that existing funding commitments made to providers under the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund can be honoured now that the new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund has been established. Arrangements for quality auditing of higher education providers will also be amended.

The bill amends the act to allow the Commonwealth to designate additional bodies to perform this role, such as state and territory government accreditation authorities. Further, the amendment will enable the Commonwealth to specify the higher education providers that those bodies can audit. The bill sets limits on the providers that can be audited. Currently, if a body were designated to conduct audits, it would be able to audit all higher education providers, including universities. By state and territory government accreditation authorities conducting audits at the same time as they currently conduct their normal registration and approval processes, the administrative burden on private providers will be reduced. This is a very practical initiative to enable the sector to manage itself much more efficiently.

Our approach has been subject to consultation with private providers and a trial process with two state accreditation agencies, those agencies being in Queensland and Victoria. That consultative approach, that suck-it-and-see approach, has been very well received in the sector and is indicative of the way the Rudd Labor government does business—that is, we like to make our policy based on evidence and we go out into the sectors to discover what they need and how best we can implement what they want to enable them to provide a better education system for our young people.

The Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan Nelson, was a disgrace as a minister for education. This bill is evidence of our attempt to redress the wrongs that the now Leader of the Opposition perpetrated on the higher education sector. He was part of the Howard government, who made it clear from the beginning that education would not be an area that would be prioritised. In his first federal budget in 1996, the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, cut university operating grants by a cumulative six per cent from 1997 to 2000. That funding cut resulted in a significant $850 million loss to the sector, a sector that should have been supported by the former government because it is absolutely integral to the social and economic wellbeing of our nation, our children and working families.

I conclude by saying that, while I am very pleased to support this bill, I know that it is just one part of the Rudd Labor government’s education revolution, which is a multifaceted revolution designed to ensure that Australia has the best possible education system from childhood to adulthood. Every child in Australia will benefit from the Rudd Labor government’s investment in education.