Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That Amendment 2 to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines No. 1, made under section 238-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, be disallowed.

Put simply, the coalition is seeking the Senate’s agreement to disallow these regulations in order to reinstate the very important national governance protocols that applied to universities and other higher education providers up until the making of these regulations by the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard. These national governance protocols were developed in consultation with the higher education sector. They stipulate various requirements for a best practice regime for university governance. Indeed, at the compliance date at the end of August last year universities and higher education providers were complying with the requirements of the national governance protocols.

The issue is very simple: it is about continuing the accountability of universities to the minister, and through the minister to parliament, for the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. What is not at issue is the reintroduction of the higher education workplace relations requirements. As honourable senators would be aware, AWAs and, therefore, higher education workplace relations requirements cannot be reintroduced at Australian universities because that type of workplace agreement does not now exist in Australian law. I am not a very good lawyer, but subordinate legislation cannot create legal architecture for a law that does not exist.

By way of background, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines No. 1 introduced certain conditions for universities to receive increased levels of Commonwealth funding—2.5 per cent in 2005, five per cent in 2006 and 7.5 per cent in 2007. In February of this year the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, amended the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines No. 1 to remove the conditions for additional Commonwealth funding. The effect of this motion, if passed by the Senate this afternoon, will be to disallow Ms Gillard’s February changes to the regulations and to restore compliance with the national governance protocols as a condition for providing additional funding to Australia’s universities.

Ms Gillard’s change to regulations to remove the funding conditions has been an interim measure, as the minister is currently seeking to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to remove altogether the principle of conditionality of funding. I know the debate occurred this morning in the House of Representatives, and I suspect that the debate on the bill will be with us very shortly—perhaps as early as tomorrow.

The opposition believes that the national governance protocols are playing an important role in the management of our universities and should be retained. They were introduced in 2004 following the recommendation of the Higher education at the crossroads review conducted by the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, and now Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson. But they also echo recommendations of various reviews of higher education at both the federal level and the state level going back at least 15 years. The purpose of the protocols is to apply some corporate governance—which is, Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, an issue I know interests you—standards to university governing bodies, which of course administer moneys from the Commonwealth.

The protocols, for example, deal with the size of governing bodies so that they are efficient and manageable, or deem the members of governing bodies to be trustees so that they act in the best interests of the university as opposed to acting as a representative of a specific constituency they otherwise represent. For example, the guidelines refer to:

Protocol 1: the higher education provider must have its objectives and/or functions specified in its enabling legislation.

Protocol 2: the higher education provider’s governing body must adopt a statement of its primary responsibilities, which must include:

a) appointing the vice-chancellor as the chief executive officer of the higher education provider—

and so on and so forth. This is a compliance list of best governance practice for Australia’s universities. I actually have some experience of this, and I know Senator Carr does as well. Both of us served for a couple of years, I think, on the council of the Australian National University. While I would like to believe that I made some worthwhile contribution, I think it is fair to say that I learnt more from the ANU council than they learnt from me. I was more an enthusiastic amateur than a director of a company. What has happened, and what has been done in consultation with the universities, is the building up of governance protocols to better manage universities.

I might add I thought that Senator Carr’s role in the ANU council was distinguished. But, again, I was representing the government and Senator Carr was then representing the opposition—we were representing certain interests outside the university. Part of the aim of the governance protocols is to ensure that it is only people who have the interests of the university at heart that are members of the university’s governing body. So people that represent, for example, the government, the opposition or indeed trade unions or big business should no longer be on the council simply by virtue of being members or representatives of a certain interest group. Those days are over.

Removing these protocols as a condition of increased funding would remove the incentive absolutely for universities to strive for and to excel in best practice. It is absolutely imperative that universities, which receive billions of dollars in public funding, manage that money in the most professional way that they can. It is also imperative that the people of Australia, who provide the funding through their taxes, can rest confident that their money is being spent in the most professional way.

Furthermore—and this is important—universities are themselves supportive of these protocols. Let me quote from the University Chancellors Council-Universities Australia joint submission to the review of national governance protocols last year. It says:

The view of the Chancellors and Vice Chancellors is that the existing National Governance Protocols have worked well and that little variation is needed at this stage.

Secondly, it goes on to say:

It is clear, however, that the effect of the Protocols has been positive overall and has prompted improvements in a number of areas, including in some cases the induction and continuing instruction of members of governing bodies. They have also been helpful in clarifying the respective roles of governing bodies and the executive in the governance framework.

Finally, in case this is raised in debate this afternoon, on the question of if the protocols have had any negative impacts on universities, the chancellors and vice-chancellors had this to say:

Not of any significance. They have increased the costs to Universities of compliance. However, to this point, Chancellors and Vice Chancellors have not seen this as a matter of major concern.

So let me make this clear once again: the opposition does not oppose the government’s attempt to remove funding conditions as they relate to the industrial relations requirements that I mentioned before. It has clearly happened with the removal of AWAs as a lawful form of workplace agreement. But I understand that the National Tertiary Education Union have engaged in a bit of a scare campaign. I was looking at their press release before and they said:

If this disallowance motion is successful, about $300m of university funding will once again be made conditional on universities complying with the controversial Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and National Governance Protocols.

That is wrong. Dr Carolyn Allport, National President of the National Tertiary Education Union, said today:

While the Coalition is claiming its objective is to maintain the governance protocols, if it is successful in its disallowance motion next Wednesday the effect will be to immediately reinstate both the HEWRRs—

that is, the workplace relations reforms—

(effectively WorkChoices for universities) and the National Governance Protocols.

As I mentioned, I am not a good lawyer, but that is plainly wrong. The industrial relations reforms, the AWAs for universities, are impossible now because the legal architecture for their reintroduction does not exist. I think the legal term in relation to this regulation, the reference to industrial relations and the higher education workplace relations reforms, would be otiose—in other words, irrelevant.

Quite simply, old Work Choices AWAs cannot be reintroduced because they no longer exist. Universities cannot offer a type of workplace agreement that does not exist in law. It is as simple as that. I know Mr Smith, the shadow minister, the member for Casey, made this very clear back in March of this year. He has been at pains to make it quite clear to the government and indeed to the higher education community that this has nothing to do with the reintroduction of AWAs at universities. This is all about ensuring that the national governance protocols remain and that those governance protocols are a condition of further revenue for universities.

But this scare campaign about Work Choices and industrial relations is merely a distraction from the fact that the government seeks to remove all accountability mechanisms from university funding. Furthermore and moreover, this disallowance motion would not be necessary if Ms Gillard, the Minister for Education, had not jumped the gun and decided to change regulations back in February, instead of waiting to amend the act, which is currently for debate in the House of Representatives.

In conclusion, I will not hold up the Senate any further this afternoon but will simply say that the coalition is concerned to ensure that the national governance protocols are reinstated in the regulations. What this will do for Australian universities is ensure that they partake of best practice and that Australians can feel comfortable that there is accountability in the university sector.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason has given us an insight into his experiences on the Australian National University Council, and I appreciate his reminiscences. I would have to agree with him that our performances were very different. Nonetheless, Senator Mason, I am disturbed that the coalition are so out of touch and so locked into the past that they choose to proceed with a disallowance of this type and then try to suggest to this chamber that they are not really about reintroducing AWAs; they are only interested in the national governance provisions of the previous government’s regulations with regard to the operations of universities.

The truth is that the regulations that he speaks of lock together the national governance protocols with the higher education workplace relations requirements for publicly funded and private providers with approved national priority places. That is set out in the relevant regulations at 7.15—with regard to the national protocols, for instance—and 7.12, which goes to the industrial relations matters. The industrial relations provisions of the regulations which were contained within the national governance protocols were an integral part of the coalition’s approach to the mismanagement of universities. The simple facts in life were this: when in government the coalition took the view that universities were not to be trusted, they could not be relied upon to manage their own affairs, they should not be treated as autonomous academic institutions and they should be micromanaged by the minister.

In essence, the coalition believed that the intellectual elite of this country were hostile to them and that they were to have their capacity to exercise their responsibilities as persons running our national academic institutions circumscribed by the Big Brother of the Liberal Party education ministry. They took the view that university vice-chancellors could not be trusted because they would end up with a sweetheart deal with the NTU. Senator Mason is a former academic. I do not know what scarred him so badly or what terrified him so badly that his whole psychology has been warped by the experience. It is tragic that this sort of frustration has led to such a distorted view of public policy. We have seen it with many of the others and Senator Abetz is a classic example. His experience as a student politician, a failed student politician, led him to the view that universities were places of sin—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are for some.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, perhaps you could enlarge on that, because there are obviously other aspects of this debate that I have not fully appreciated. What we have here is an attempt by the coalition to try to slide out from their preoccupation with the past, their obsession with a hostility towards universities and academics and their obsession with ensuring that they stick their fingers in wherever they can to try to prevent—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is getting more sordid by the moment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he has talked about his evil experiences at universities, and I look forward to him explaining exactly what they were. We have seen a pattern emerge right through the Liberal Party frontbench of being scarred while at university and taking out their frustrations when in government. We are seeing the continuation of that pattern right now.

We understand that the Liberal Party experimented with many things. We understand that they experimented in their youth with various drugs of addiction. We know their gambling addiction is part of it. Of course their greatest drug of addiction has been the AWA. They are obsessed with trying to control working people’s lives. They are obsessed with ensuring that the government intervenes in the workplace in such a way as to limit the capacity of reasonable people to enter into negotiations about their working conditions. They are unable to actually show some basic respect for people’s capacity to organise their own lives.

What we have seen here is just how out of touch the opposition remain. They are out of touch with working Australians. They are simply locked into the past. They have lost their way and have no way of finding a way forward that gets them past their obsessions. Australians made it perfectly clear on 24 November last year that their choices did not involve Work Choices. The coalition failed to hear that message. They failed to understand that wages and conditions should not be wound back by draconian measures that saw our academic institutions, our universities, treated as wayward children, to be corrected by the know-alls on the other side who had bad experiences when they were young boys.

What we have is a situation where the next generation of Australian workers know that they are entitled to do better than the previous generation. They are entitled to have job security. They are entitled to enjoy better conditions than their parents received. They are entitled to opportunities that allow them to negotiate the future for themselves. This is a message that the Australian people have understood and directed to this parliament, but it is not a message that the coalition benches have heard. They simply do not understand that the Australian people do not want the continuation of Work Choices.

The interim leader of the coalition, Dr Nelson, acknowledges that it was a big mistake to try and reinstate the 19th century law of master and servant in the 21st century. He says he will not repeat the mistake. What is Senator Mason doing in here today?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m talking about university governance.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should not believe a word from them when they try to tell you that this proposition is just an administrative matter. ‘We are not really interested in returning to Work Choices. We simply want these new protocols where we tell the universities how to manage their affairs, where we say that universities are not entitled to ensure that enterprise negotiations are run on a proper basis.’

I heard Senator Mason. I am sure senators here would find this to be true: they have an obsession with Work Choices. You can hear their moans at night when they dream about Work Choices, because they thought it would be here forever. What people are entitled to know is that this proposition is simply an attempt by the Liberal Party to reintroduce Work Choices by stealth. The government wants to get rid of the higher education workplace relations requirements, which were part and parcel of the national protocols for higher education. These measures of course were an expression of the Howard government’s hostility towards and paranoia about universities and their hostility towards academics, whom they regarded as the intellectual elites of this country. They forced universities to impose Work Choices and AWAs on campuses and to accept the extraordinary notion that they should be treated as if they were some sort of junior high school—that the minister for education in the Commonwealth should act as a traditional director of education used to in state governments. Anyone who dared to defy these edicts was to have their funding threatened. Their funding was to be cut if they did not respond to the extraordinary obsessions of the Liberal Party.

This government’s approach is entirely different. We take the view that we ought to trust and we ought to respect universities. We ought to respect the people who are building the skills and who are creating the knowledge for the future of this country. More than that, we take the view that universities are critical to this nation’s future. That is why we are making such a massive commitment to higher education in this year’s budget. Universities should be subject to the same industrial relations laws as every other institution in the country. But that is not the view of the Liberal Party. Their view is that they should treat them like junior high schools used to be treated in the 1950s.

We say that universities should be free to run their own affairs and respond to the needs of the communities that sustain them. What we want to see is more diversity in higher education, not less. We want to ensure that there is academic freedom and we want to ensure that there is institutional autonomy. We want to ensure that we respect the rights of our researchers to actually get on with their jobs. That is why we are working with the sector to develop the best practice approach to university governance. That is why we are negotiating mission based funding compacts that recognise each university’s unique circumstances while holding all universities accountable for the delivery of agreed outcomes. That is why we are moving to revise the Commonwealth Grant Scheme guidelines and to amend the Higher Education Support Act to get rid of the previous government’s punitive higher education industrial relations requirements, which were embedded in the national governance protocols. Universities Australia, the body that represents all the universities in this country, fully supports the government’s reforms. It points out that our universities achieve most when they are able to get on with doing their job, when they are able to undertake their proper function as autonomous academic institutions.

Amendments to the legislation will be debated in due course in this chamber. The minister for education wants to repair the guidelines that currently exist and, of course, this disallowable instrument is seeking to obstruct our capacity to do that. The motion that has been brought before the chamber by Senator Mason proposes a flat refusal to accept the judgement made by people of this country last November. It is a case of purely ideological bloody-mindedness. It is symptomatic of an opposition bereft of new ideas and wedded to their old ways. It is very much time that the people opposite me here weaned themselves off Work Choices once and for all. It is time they admitted their addictions to these distorted views, which were in fact a very, very dangerous drug. It is time they understood that they do not fool anyone by trying to pretend that the national governance protocols do not embed the principles of Work Choices.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, that is a furphy!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, you do not fool anyone when you are imbibing from a bottle concealed in a brown paper bag. No-one can help you if you do not want to help yourself.

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

I rise on behalf of the Democrats to debate the disallowance motion moved by Senator Mason that is before us. The Democrats will not be supporting the disallowance. The amendment to which this disallowance motion actually refers had the practical effect of removing the expectations that the universities would implement the national governance protocols and of course the higher education workplace relations requirements, or HEWRRs as we refer to them, which were brought in, as we have heard, by the previous government. Both the HEWRRs and the protocols clearly attempt to set governance and workplace relations procedures in universities according to the ideology of the previous government. Senator Mason is nodding along.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just smiling.

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

I am not sure if that is because this is hardly surprising coming from me as the higher education spokesperson for the Australian Democrats or whether you are agreeing with the fact that these were ideologically driven policy reforms under the former government. Initially, universities were offered a financial bonus and incentive for complying with those particular processes, and that is one thing. But of course, as we recall, the previous government soon turned the bonus that was offered into a penalty for noncompliance, which had the effect of bringing in a much more paternalistic approach. The HEWRRs are basically Work Choices for universities. So Senator Carr has a point when he talks about this being the last vestiges of Work Choices, which I thought, incidentally, the coalition had decided to get rid of.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they haven’t.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

I think, Senator Mason, you will have the opportunity to respond, if you have not used all your time.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will.

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

I am sure you will. Mr Acting Deputy President, it is like the gang’s all here really, isn’t it? It is the usual suspects on this issue. I had no idea of the extent of your ANU involvement, Senator Mason, although I do know—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s got more to tell us! He’s got a lot more to tell us!

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

But some of us are aware of his former role as an academic. I would have thought someone with such a close association with the university sector, particularly in Queensland, would have been at the forefront of the fight for institutional and academic autonomy. Having said that, it is a bit like we are living in an alternative reality at the moment, just looking at the motion and the principles behind it. There is a lot of irony in this place at the moment. With this motion and the legislation to which it refers, we have got the Labor Party at the forefront, it seems, of arguing for institutional autonomy and reduced red tape and, on the other hand, we have now got the coalition calling for a prescriptive, big government approach.

It is an irony that the previous government was the only one in the OECD to reduce funding for higher education over the period of 1995 to 2004 and yet at the same time felt inclined to dictate terms to the higher education sector, arguably more than any preceding government. The level of interference in institutional and academic autonomy and the amount of ministerial discretion afforded to the minister for higher education under the previous government was unprecedented, quite extraordinary.

I also find it ironic that the previous government campaigned for universities to become more diverse but then instituted generic rules of governance for the entire sector. It is quite something that a political party which frequently claims that government does not know best and should get out of the way as much as possible would support regulations that seem to do the exact opposite.

My party is uncomfortable with an approach that tries to enforce a governance model upon universities and then—and this is even worse—penalises them if they fail to comply. It suggests that universities somehow cannot be trusted to manage their own operations in a way that is beneficial to themselves and the nation. We need to remember that universities, while dependent on public funding—and we have all seen how that has been drastically reduced proportionally over many years—are operating in what I thought the Liberals would find attractive, and that is a so-called competitive market. They have a vested interest, presumably, in self-improvement. They do not have to have it dictated to them.

I acknowledge that some universities have said that the protocols process has in fact improved their system of governance. That is welcome. I make two points following that. Firstly, if the protocols have done their job, why does the opposition insist on their being retained? Why does the opposition feel they need to be retained now if they have had the impact that the opposition desired them to have? Secondly, how can the opposition be so certain that the governance rules laid out in the protocols are so right for each and every university that a financial penalty should be imposed if they are not adopted?

Despite the positive feedback from some universities about the protocols, the sector is broadly opposed to their retention because they subject universities to a very prescriptive formula. I support the principle that universities should be accountable for the public funding they receive, but I believe this could be handled in a much more sensible and better manner than through the blunt instrument that is the national governance protocols.

We should be focused on the outcome we want for our investment of public money, not the process. Presumably that outcome is a successful, well-managed and accountable university institution. How the university achieves that, in the main, is going to be up to them. In fact, prescribing specific governance rules could actually reduce the opportunities for university governance bodies to explore their own innovative and diverse ways of running their organisations.

The government ought to approach this as an investor. I think that, of all the protocols, No. 10(c) offers a useful model in this regard. It stipulates that the university:

... documents a clear corporate and business strategy which reports on and updates annually the entity’s long-term objectives and includes an annual business plan containing achievable and measurable performance targets and milestones.

That contains all the government needs to know.

The university could establish a business plan, with targets and milestones, that was agreed to by the Commonwealth. It would then report against those each year and the government would make a determination on future funding agreements on the basis of how well those milestones had been met. So there would be a specific formula—target, goal, whatever it may be—that was designed by the university institution itself. This, or a similar approach, would be focused on the outcome, and that clearly would be university performance. It would not and should not, in my view, be concerned with how the universities go about achieving those goals.

It will be interesting to see how the concept of ‘university compacts’, to be instituted by the Rudd government, will operate and what it actually involves. Will it focus on an approach similar to the one that I have outlined? We do not know the detail at this stage, and many of us look forward to getting some detail of that. I am not sure if the government even knows the detail on the university compacts at this stage. But it is certainly an interesting idea. It could encourage excellence—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason interjecting—

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

while allowing universities to achieve it in different ways, which would be a good result. I hear some guffaws on the opposition side. I just want to make it very clear: when it comes to higher education issues, I will judge either side on their merits. I do not give praise to either side lightly on issues of higher education. I do not give it unless they deserve it. I am willing to state on record that the Democrats believe the compacts idea is an interesting one. Of course we would like to see more detail and of course we would love to hold you to account if that process is not good.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you’re here.

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

I am not sure if I will be here personally to do that, Senator Carr, but I will probably be snapping at your heels from somewhere else. The issue of higher education has followed me through the Senate, but it was a passion long before. Nonetheless, I do have an interest in seeing that we have quality higher education, well-funded education and accessible education in this country, and hence the reason for many of my concerns with the previous government. But I was always happy to acknowledge where they did some good things, too—when they did them.

Even if the protocols are to be retained, there is no reason or justification to attach a financial penalty to universities for noncompliance. Universities may very well respond favourably to advice from government on improving governance. It is something which vice-chancellors are currently discussing among themselves, as I understand it. But the national governance protocols have too much of the big stick about them and, for that reason, we do not support this disallowance motion before us today.

I heard the minister refer to some of the budget measures as indicative of a commitment by the new government—the Rudd government—to supporting higher education. I want to put on record that, of course, we support any money that goes into the sector—whether it is for capital works, teaching and research or ‘student amenities’, although I do not know exactly what that will mean in the context of the budget. But when this government wants to be serious about an education revolution, it has to include in the budget and other policy measures a commitment to removing the barriers to participation in education, specifically at the higher education level—and that clearly means fees and charges—and, of course, it has to invest in student income support. If it does not, its criticism of the former government means nothing.

Student income support was one great lost opportunity in this budget. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I suspect that Minister Carr knows that, because I know that he and I have had many debates about these issues over the years. You cannot have an education revolution without removing barriers. You cannot have an education revolution without investing significantly in the human capital, not just in the capital infrastructure. You cannot have an education revolution when you have interference in institutional and academic autonomy that is unprecedented. The government’s intention through the legislation that we will be debating—maybe not tomorrow morning, Senator Mason; I do not know at this rate—over the remaining sitting weeks of this Senate period has worthwhile objectives. We look forward to supporting those objectives.

I am disappointed to see this last-minute attempt to salvage some aspect of the previous government’s higher education policy come at us—particularly from Senator Mason, who I thought would know better. Nonetheless, we will not be supporting this disallowance. To hark back to the dark days of institutional interference in higher education is something that I would have thought the former government would want to leave behind. It is embarrassing. It is unnecessary. It is undesirable and it is anti-intellectual. That is something that characterised aspects of that government.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason interjecting—

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

Absolutely! The idea, Senator Mason, that universities, on whom we are relying to be part of this education revolution, need to be not mollycoddled but punished into improving their governance seems quite extraordinary to me. Nonetheless, the Democrats will not support the motion before us. While we are in this place and we are debating higher education legislation, which is due in the next couple of weeks, we will be attempting to hold this government to account in the same way that we attempted to with the previous government.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about fiscal accountability?

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

That is what I am saying. It is not the only thing, but I think it needs to be central to the way in which it operates. I did not see that in relation to many of the former government’s changes but just in the two that we are talking about today—the higher education requirements and governance.

Senator Mason, you said at the beginning of your remarks today that the governance protocols had been developed in consultation with the higher education sector. I do not think that is a genuine representation. You may have a slightly different perspective on what the higher education sector incorporates and therefore that consultation. I remember reading many submissions. I remember going to universities. I visited almost every university in this country and talked with people there about the higher education review—the Nelson review as it was called—and the implications of that for universities. There were submissions; there were Senate inquiries. Many of the issues which those Senate inquiries dealt with, particularly in relation to governance, were about the role of academics, staff and students on university councils. For me, this is what is important about a university council. Arguments can be made, and you have started to make some of them already, such as: you are on the ANU board and are representing the government, Senator Carr is representing the opposition, the unions are representing themselves and businesses are representing themselves.

That is an argument that can be made and we can debate the detail of that, but that is an argument, as you defined it, about interest groups. That is an entirely different argument from that of the role of academic staff, general staff and students on a university council. A university exists because of the staff and the students at that institution. It is fundamentally important that they are able to be involved in the governing body—the council that makes decisions about how that organisation operates. You can make your argument about government, opposition, unions and business, but I separate that entirely from the argument about the absolutely important role that academic and general staff and students have to play on university councils.

Part of the impact on institutions from the one-size-fits-all approach of these governance protocols was to diminish the number of representatives from the student body and the staff body, whether they were academic or general. Whatever arguments you might have about financial governance or fiscal responsibility, having representation of students and staff on university councils is important, and it must be ensured. I was not aware that it was part of UNESCO’s recommendations concerning the status of higher education teaching personnel where they talk about the right of university staff and students to be actively engaged in and critique the functioning, management and governance of higher education institutions, including their own. I see it as fundamental. I was not aware that that was the level at which it had been adopted by the 1997 general conference of UNESCO. I think that is fundamentally important to how the governance of universities needs to operate.

The Greens’ criticism around the national protocols of governance is that they are part of a corporatisation of universities. There are various different financial arguments for that, but I do not see the corporatisation of a university as being about improving necessarily the quality of the education that is provided at that university. There are all sorts of arguments about that—they are a big entity; the way in which they operate; the management of them—but I think central to their operations needs to be the quality of the education. I do not think it is just about governance. We have seen a range of other changes. Calling somebody the CEO is bringing a different approach to the way in which that university operates.

If we are interested in the quality of education, if that is the driving motivation, then that is about ensuring that there is adequate funding, research facilities, support, access, and support for students in order to have that institution able to thrive and really provide quality education and to ensure that students are not working so many hours a week that they are not able to get the benefits of a quality education. They are the sorts of things that we need to ensure are there, rather than changing the name of the vice-chancellor to CEO. If we are interested in higher education as the fundamentally important premise behind improving the quality of the education reform that is made in the sector, that needs to drive it, and much of the change that we saw elsewhere was not about driving that. It was a privatisation, a corporatisation. Indeed, we see that of course with the funding, and others have made comment about the reduction in funding that happened under the Howard government. Really it just removes your ability to produce quality education, but I think some of these structures are similarly not designed to improve the quality of the education.

So, for a whole range of those reasons—whether it be about the right of employers and their workplaces to come together and the union to play a role there that is fundamentally important, in order to ensure that we are about improving the quality of university institutions and the education that occurs there and ensuring that staff and students have a voice—I really hoped we could see the end of not just the higher education workplace requirements but the government’s protocols in their current format. That is because I see them as about diminishing all of those things: the voice of students; the voice of staff; the rights of academic and general staff about negotiating their wages and conditions; and the corporatisation of our universities, rather than the flourishing of quality higher education in this country. I thought we had seen the end of those dark days. I am really disappointed to have to be here representing the Greens to say we are going to have to vote against these changes we thought we had already gotten rid of, but we will vote against them again today.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Carr, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Nettle for their contributions to the debate. For the first time in eight years, I was nearly rendered speechless but, believe me, I have recovered my composure and I am back. In terms of history—I just want to touch on this—it was the coalition governments post World War II that created the great Australian university system. Whatever Senator Carr might think about the Liberal Party, the National Party, the coalition and universities, I do not think he could call Sir Robert Menzies or Sir Paul Hasluck anti-intellectual and anti-university. They actually established Australia’s great university system. I just thought I would mention that for the record.

I pick up the point made by Senator Carr, touched on by Senator Nettle and also by Senator Stott Despoja, about Work Choices. This debate has nothing to do with the reintroduction of Australian workplace agreements in Australian universities. That is a legal impossibility. You cannot introduce by a regulation the architecture for the reintroduction of agreements that cannot be offered under Australian law. The capacity to offer AWAs in Australian law no longer exists. So let us just cut out the furphy, the misrepresentation, that this is some sort of backdoor mechanism to reintroduce AWAs into the Australian university system.

Secondly, in relation to Senator Nettle’s points about unions and so forth being involved potentially in the governing bodies of universities, I understand her point, but the protocols specifically address this point. The protocols deem the members of governing bodies of universities to be trustees so that they act in the best interests of the university, as opposed to as a representative of a specific constituency they might otherwise represent. Again, the ANU Council is a good example, where I represented the government and Senator Carr the opposition. Whether it is big business, trade unions or whatever, what the protocols demand is that everyone acts as a trustee of the university and acts in the best interests of the university and not as a representative of some other specific constituency.

Whether it be politicians or parliament in the short term, whether it be trade unions or indeed big business, that is not the point. This is all about the accountability of the expenditure of public money, billions of dollars a year, by Australian universities. That is why these national governance protocols were introduced. That is why the Australian university system helped draft them. That is why they found them useful, and that is why most of them have been complied with. This is all an absolute furphy. This is a backdoor mechanism for the trade union movement to become part of university governance bodies. I have not heard the university vice-chancellors get up in some chorus and say, ‘We welcome that.’ They do not welcome that at all, and neither does the Australian public. These national governance protocols are all about the accountability to the minister, to the Australian parliament and to the Australian people for the expenditure by Australian universities of billions of taxpayer dollars per year. It is that simple.

I look forward over the next few days to whenever the debate comes up about the substantive bill, because I will be making these points again, perhaps even more earnestly. But I am a bit disappointed with Senator Carr trying to roll the issue of Work Choices in with national governance protocols, in either a misunderstanding of or an incapacity to understand the distinction between the two issues. It is a great disappointment, and I am delighted on behalf of the opposition to be able to move this disallowance motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Mason’s) be agreed to.