Roundabout or crossroads?
10 May 2002
By David Carey
Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson recently released a discussion paper on universities. Federal Secretary David Carey argues that the omission of important stateholders from the reference group diminishes its credibility.
THE Community and Public Sector Union, the union representing the tens of
thousands of general staff in universities is rather sceptical of the latest
higher education review.
We think the scope of this review is just too big.
If the department and the Minister are genuine and serious about all the nine
matters for "consultation" the review is set to examine, then, we believe that
its breadth is too wide to keep a practical control, or focus, that will lead to
a useful outcome.
Also, this review process is probably not going to be the
best tool to apply to some of the jobs that the Ministerial discussion paper
says need to be done.
The omission of important stakeholders from the
reference group, diminishes its credibility and undermines confidence that it is
an unbiased exercise or has an ulterior purpose.
How long will it be before
the stakeholders, interested in each area, after they gather their ideas, put
their case, debate the points, run out of steam, leave only those "agendas"
standing which are championed by the most resilient or powerful protagonists? A
lot of people are going to be disappointed.
The union believes that the
focus on "governance, management and workplace relations" is a good example of
the cause to be sceptical about the utility of process, and perhaps, the
genuineness of the review. The complaints of problems are overstated and in some
cases trivial.
The Dawkins Green Paper 1987 covered some of the same
territory in its staffing chapter. We recall " ...existing arrangements for the
employment and remuneration of academic staff do not provide the flexibility
required by the higher education institutions for efficient management..... "
and on it went for about 56 paragraphs of the whole of the rest of the chapter,
leaving the last three for general staff .
Scant reference, again, in this
Crossroads paper, is given to the general staff and, again, we have the emphasis
on the need for more "workplace flexibility".
The question you have to ask
those putting these propositions in the Crossroads paper, is just what has
everybody been doing for the last 15 years? Is it really a problem? Just what
are these rigours of "traditional ...industrial structures" that the discussion
paper fears? Why haven't 15 years of structural change and enterprise bargaining
fixed things?
Our view is that these statements are simply repetition, of an
ideological position which has a burning importance for the people who hold it,
but it's implementation is one of the least priorities, and has little relevance
to fixing the major problems of public higher education.
The propositions in
the "workplace relations" section are clearly not written from or with a close
knowledge of the reality of workplace relations in a university, nor perhaps
industrial relations in general.
The suggestion, that there might be even
faculty level wages bargaining, in the context of a discussion paper ostensibly
directed to efficiency, is astounding, and truly worrying.
Each and every
vice-chancellor, university human resources administrator, general staff and
academic union delegate, would blanch at the prospect of further devolution of
what is already a costly and inefficient industrial relations process. Just
remember the hours, the staff time, the endless meetings, the papers drawn up,
the sub-groups, the "staged" conflicts, the real debates. What was the result?
There are amusing aspects to the paper. It is suggested that there are lax
practices at some institutions in the monitoring of staff attendance. Really?
The CPSU has no evidence that general staff are not reporting to work regularly
and is intrigued to find what is essentially a local management issue appearing
in a national discussion paper.
On the broader question of "pattern
bargaining"; simply, if you impose a regime on employees, be they academic or
general staff, that requires that they bargain, university by university, those
staff will do their utmost through their organisations to resist a loss to their
pay and conditions, and try to keep up with everybody else. Is that such a hard
point to understand,
You may get a few "individual agreements" here and
there, but the big picture will not likely change. The staff will resist, what
they see as a diminution of what they see as no more than the common public
sector industrial standards.
The better questions in the workplace relations
section should really be
- Who on earth in the higher education sector believes that enterprise
bargaining over nearly 10 years, has made workplace relations better?
- Has the institution of regular industrial adversarial conflicts, with each
bargaining round, contributed to a culture of cooperation and reform?
- Is this an efficient way to conduct workplace relations?
- Will the Commonwealth fund what will be inevitable" market' pay increases in
the next round.
On the question of " management and governance",
one would have to be equally sceptical of the real place this will play in the
review . The Commonwealth does not control the legislation that governs the
composition of university councils. Most states cut the composition of their
university councils in the late 1980s. The states will have to be convinced that
there is a need to make those changes. No consultative process in their absence,
with third parties, will change that.
Similarly, the accountability question
comes as a result of various requirements for the institutions to comply with
the respective state audit and finance legislation. Yet beyond some rather bland
wishful thinking on governance at para 137. there is little acknowledgement of
that jurisdictional reality in the discussion paper.
Where is the
representative of some state Ministers for Education on the reference group?
No general staff union representatives. No academic staff union
representatives. No state government Education Minister's representatives. No
students representative.
Perhaps their omission is the most eloquent
evidence of the expectations and nature of the review or and an acknowledgement
that they don't need to be there. Perhaps they won't really miss much.
For further information
| Contact |
: |
David Carey |
| Phone |
: |
(02) 9299 5655 |
| Fax |
: |
(02) 9299 7187 |
| Email |
: |
fedsec@spsf.asn.au
|
May 2002 contents
|
