Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, with your education background, I know how interested and concerned you are with the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. It is an honour to speak about it in front of you today. Like the previous speaker, the member for Blair, I am very pleased to speak in support of the higher education support amendment bill, a bill that could be paraphrased as ‘sending down the HEWRRs’. This bill will overturn part of the Howard-Costello ideological crusade to infect Australian workplaces with harsh, extreme, unfair and impractical workplace laws. That last word, ‘impractical’, is most important. Unfortunately, the previous government was so hell-bent on this ideology that they even forced Australian workplace agreements on universities and then had the hide—the hide of a rhinoceros—to call it choice. When members opposite talk about choice, obviously the ‘Hobson’s’ is silent.

The bill before the House today revokes section 33-17 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This Hobson’s choice piece of legislation tied universities’ funding to their implementation of higher education workplace relations requirements, colloquially known as the HEWRRs, and also the National Governance Protocols, the NGPs. When I was growing up, whenever it rained in St George, which was not very often, my mum would always say, ‘Send it down, Hughie!’ So it is amazing that we have now got some legislation that is about sending down the HEWRRs, although I do not think it is connected to the previous word Hughie, which I think is a corruption of Jupiter or something like that.

Under this strange piece of ideology, in practice, a university would have its basic Commonwealth grants scheme amount reduced by about 7.5 per cent—that is, a higher academic institution would have its funding cut by about 7.5 per cent if it failed to satisfy the previous minister that it had complied with HEWRRs and NGPs. In other words, the Howard-Costello government held universities and higher education providers to ransom. Either they had to pursue the former member for Bennelong’s and the current member for North Sydney’s approach to workplace relations or they would suffer a significant financial penalty. I say that percentage again: 7.5 per cent. It is still hard for me to accept that, in this millennium, a government would be committed to taking money out of higher education or any education establishment rather than pouring money in. Furthermore, universities and higher education providers were not able to compete on an even playing field with the universities down the road unless they chose to undercut the rights and conditions of their workers.

Universities are already under significant financial pressure after nearly 12 long years of neglect when we saw the funding ripped out of the higher education sector. The OECD’s Education at a glance 2007 report—a very respectable journal—found that public investment by the Howard-Costello government in tertiary education between 1995 and 2004 declined by four per cent, while in the other OECD countries it increased by an average of 49 per cent.

I have got a couple of university degrees. I have got a diploma of teaching and a law degree and an arts degree, so it is completely unbelievable to me that a university system could be attacked by a federal government. That is such a shameful legacy that the people opposite need to hang their heads in shame every time this legislation is discussed. In terms of a plan for the future, they were going to base their plan for the future on the horse and cart, basically, rather than the smarter approach to education. When I was at university, I was either too busy for student politics or too busy studying—and I would like to say that I might be misleading the House. But maybe the people opposite had a different experience when they were at university and because they had a bad history of student politics they felt it necessary to wreak some revenge on universities with VSU legislation and the like. That record of ripping money out of our universities over the last 11 or 12 years is a shameful legacy.

Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd Labor government has a long-term enduring commitment to the importance of higher education in our universities, and we saw some of those measures unveiled in Wayne Swan’s budget last night. We believe in the future. We are not trying to make up for gripes or grievances from our university days; we actually have a plan for the future, a plan for the nation. I think it is important for members to be familiar with the history of this Hobson’s choice section 33-17. It is a history that needs to be hung around the necks of those people opposite like a dead albatross. Who was it who introduced this unfair legislation to the parliament? You do not have to go to your history books, because it is the former education minister, the current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson. It is the same opposition leader who is now trying to scratch away from this policy like a veritable scrub turkey. Now he is trying to leave the dungheap that he created behind. It is just another example of the flip-flop characteristics of his personality.

The main element of the John Howard-Peter Costello higher education workplace relations requirements was for universities to offer Australian workplace agreements to all employees—yes, all employees, not just the academics at the top of their game who might be on a decent wage. It was actually being imposed on all the employees in the universities, and we have heard from the previous speaker, the member for Blair, of the consequences for people who have no bargaining power and no opportunity to negotiate with their employers. The fact that these requirements were included in legislation in the first place is a sign that even back then the former coalition government knew that workplace agreements were toxic. They knew that AWAs were so unpopular with employers and staff that the only way to get universities—and obviously with universities we are talking about many educated people, informed people who have perhaps a little bit of clout in terms of understanding industrial legislation—to consider offering AWAs was to hold a gun to the heads of the universities through legislation and those severe financial penalties that I outlined earlier. This was more about prosecuting an ideological agenda than sound public policy. The John Howard-Peter Costello government thought it knew better than university leaders and staff how to run their institutions. The people who were actually involved with running modern-day academic institutions were not consulted. How wrong John Howard and Peter Costello were. Their ideas added to administrative workloads, but for no gain whatsoever.

The passing of this bill will ensure that universities no longer be required to offer AWAs as a condition of funding under the CGS. It will ensure full Commonwealth grant funding for universities. In my electorate of Moreton, Griffith University has suffered because of section 33-17 and the John Howard-Peter Costello higher education workplace requirements, the HEWRRs. It has imposed a huge administrative burden and a huge cost on the university in setting up an industrial system that was unmanageable, unwieldy and unfair. It beggars belief why the previous government would force such an expensive system on already cash-strapped universities. As I mentioned earlier, there had been that real decline compared to other OECD countries. This is a time when universities actually needed a helping hand. Instead, all they were offered was a boot on their throat. Griffith University, the university in my electorate, and all other universities, were forced to waste huge amounts of time, money and staffing to implement this unwanted system, this bizarre ideological pursuit.

I am advised that Griffith University did nothing actively to force AWAs on their staff. Rather, they did what was required under the antediluvian legislation when the gun was at their head. In fact, the very day that Griffith University signed off on their latest collective agreement was the very same day that the Howard government’s higher education workplace relations requirements kicked in. It was a collective agreement negotiated fairly, with justice and with dignity, and one that all the participants agreed to. But, instead, the gun was put to the university’s head, and Griffith, like other universities, was hamstrung by the requirements which forced them to offer AWAs to all staff. But how effective was that system? Only a handful of Griffith University staff took on a workplace agreement. And even though they were academics and knowledgeable in their academic areas, those areas were not industrial law and so some of them had no idea what they were signing up for. They were offered AWAs but, although they are literate and academic, they did not understand the documents that were put to them.

In fact I heard a story about one senior academic staff member at Griffith who took on an AWA inadvertently after returning to Queensland from a stint overseas. He came back to the university, thought things were much the same as they had always been, was offered a job contract, effectively, but did not read all the details and so inadvertently signed up to an AWA. He was employed in 2006 under an AWA at a 2005 pay rate. It was not until 18 months later, when he was talking to his colleagues and found out he had not got a pay rise like all the other staff, that he realised what was going on and that he had signed up to an AWA. I am not suggesting there was duress or undue influence or anything like that. But it goes to show that if an academic, who is educated and has resources, does not understand what they are signing up for then what chance does someone like an uneducated cleaner have? Under the Australian workplace agreement that this academic had signed, even though he had 18 months without a pay rise while his colleagues did progress, he had no protection whatsoever. He was just another victim of John Howard and the current member for North Sydney’s unfair workplace laws. This was certainly not the fault of the university, just the result of that unworkable, unfair system. I know the higher education sector will welcome the passing of this bill. I have certainly been approached by many academics over the past couple of months who are very keen for that to take place because the bill ensures university funding is no longer tied to Brendan Nelson’s HEWRRs.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Griffith University for their part in hosting the Moreton 2020 Summit on 5 April. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic, Professor John Dewar, and his capable senior staff ensured that more than 400 people from my electorate on Brisbane’s southside had a chance to rock up and have their say and explore real solutions for Australia’s future. That is the way to proselytise an idea: invite the public along and talk about things. That is the way to use academic institutions, rather than holding a gun to their heads and ramming something down their throats—if that is a mixed metaphor, I apologise. Universities should work hand in hand with government and their communities; they should be given a helping hand, not the hammer that was used by John Howard. This is exactly what universities should be all about. It is not a university’s job to implement the union-busting agenda of a coalition government, and those opposite should be ashamed of their role in that. As we have seen in this parliament since November last year, there have been ample opportunities for them to scrape Work Choices off their shoes but, no, while they can still smell it they have not agreed to do so. I look forward to a productive and healthy relationship with my university, Griffith University, and I am proud that such a progressive institution was acutely involved in the Moreton 2020 Summit. It was a fantastic event and I look forward to those ideas being implemented in the lead-up to the end of the year.

Returning to the legislation in front of us, the higher education support amendment bill, I think it sends a strong message that the Rudd government is serious about restoring a fairer workplace relations system in Australia. It will also remove the unnecessary administrative burden for universities—running around doing something that had no productive benefits—at a time when they are strapped for cash. As the Group of Eight universities have said:

There will be a much reduced compliance, bidding and reporting burden placed on universities and greater flexibility over the use of resources.

I will also quote from a media release from Universities Australia, which is the peak body. The release, issued on Tuesday, 13 May, says:

Universities Australia supports the Government’s action in this session of Parliament to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements—

Nelson’s 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,” Universities Australia Chair, Professor Richard Larkins said.

That is basically saying: to do what they do best. Professor Larkins continues:

“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 ...

That dry academic language—‘universities have been their most dynamic in areas least directed by government’—does not tell the story of how hamstrung they have been and how that has been such an assault on what universities do best.

The universities will be subject to the government’s fairer and more balanced transitional workplace relations which are also before the House. This government understands how to consult with industry, how to consult with unions, how to consult with the community. We do not try to rush things through quickly. We certainly will not be having the farce of one day’s consultation, like John Howard did in the past. More importantly, we went to the electorate seeking approval for what we stood for in terms of industrial relations and then we received a mandate in November last year to implement that. That is unlike the 2004 experience, when there was no mention of industrial relations in any of the political propaganda, and then all of a sudden, after election night and the Senate result, John Howard was a born-again industrial relations advocate. It was a shameful display in terms of his contribution to the Australian community. So, from now on, the universities will be subject to a much fairer regime. Thankfully, this goes hand in hand with the Rudd government’s approach to the future, which is: we believe in a future beyond election night 2010 or 2011, whenever that might be. We have a plan for all of Australia for all of the future, not just through to election night. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for addressing this matter so quickly and, in doing so, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context