Dr Brendan Nelson's university policy prescription: panacea, placebo or poison? Day 3

The results of this research need feeding back into advice to prospective students. While school leavers usually know what interests them, they require more information to make a good choice of course and university. In industries, like higher education, where consumers are under-informed brokers have a role to play. They already exist in a small way in vocational education, and it would be worth trying them in higher education as well.

Regards,
Andrew

From: Carolyn Allport
To: Andrew Norton
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Educating who for what and why

Dear Andrew,

You raise the issue of the AVCC's target of 60% participation, and question on the basis of current figures whether this is really needed. It is always difficult to forecast future labour market needs, let alone what our work patterns and needs might be in 20 or 30 years. However most countries in the world recognize the importance of lifting participation in the post-secondary sector to meet the demands of a knowledge economy. In this sense there is always the difficulty of achieving the best balance between expanding student numbers across universities, vocational training and specialist institutes. In the first instance, we probably need to expand numbers in all areas, particularly if we have to give substance to "life-long learning".

Achieving a good balance across the post-secondary sector, as well as building pathways across the sector will reduce drop-out rates, as well as enhance a student's opportunity to undertake courses of study that best meet their needs. I do not believe that the current government policy of limiting subsidized places is the correct policy mechanism - particularly since current policy, and the new proposals under consideration by the parliament, provide for additional entry to university on the ability for students to pay full fees. This is a policy that might suit some students, but it certainly won't meet the needs of many others. High tuition and living costs and accepting increased debt levels do influence students, especially those from low income or disadvantaged backgrounds.

I said yesterday that I wanted to talk about workplace relations, given the recent actions of the Government. I do so not just from a self-interested position in terms of the Union, but also because of what government intervention actually foreshadows for the future of universities. The Federal Government's own Workplace Relations Act is based on moving away from the older style industrial awards made by the Industrial Commission, and towards decentralized arrangements. The most popular of these arrangements are collective, or enterprise, agreements. Employers and employees hold rights under this legislation, introduced by the current Government, to choose to use collective bargaining agreements to regulate conditions of employment.

What the Government is requiring is that these collective bargaining arrangements are to be weakened over time to a point where staff are employed on individual contracts. This is unwarranted, and unprecedented interference in the institutional autonomy of universities, and flies in the face of accepted international standards. This is despite the fact that the Government does not employ university staff, nor provide the money to cover salary increases made under enterprise bargaining. The Government is not a party to any awards or agreements made in higher education and has no right to intervene. It is even more scandalous when we consider that under the new proposals for funding higher education, government will only provide a subsidy for each student enrolled, and that the majority of the costs of educating students will in fact fall on the shoulders of students and their families.

Most pernicious of all is the fact that government actually believes that attaching workplace reforms to core base funding for universities will help universities meet the challenge of providing quality teaching and research in our universities. The government is expecting university staff to give up rights that they hold under the industrial laws of this land. They demand of our employers that they give way to blackmail over funding. Some Vice-Chancellors have already said that it is not worth the trouble, even though we desperately need the money. The only way out of the present impasse is for the Government to withdraw in their entirety the prescriptive demands for workplace change, and recognize that higher education staff and Vice-Chancellors are more than well equipped to ensure that universities are able to meet the challenges of the future.

Over to you,
Carolyn

Day 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .