Advocate July 2009 by NTEU

Advocate JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

ISSN 1321–8476

Volume 16, Number 2, July 2009

REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, TAFE, ADULT EDUCATION, R ACGP, RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND UNIVERSIT Y COMPANIES

Respect at work

 Victorian and Tasmanian members strike for better pay and conditions

Budget 2009 2009 Tax Guide inside

 Higher education funding  Paid maternity leave

Bargaining update  UC ‘academic renewal’  Environmental sustainability  Science meets Parliament

Bottled water: the oily facts The production and transportation of bottled water has a significant impact on the environment, through carbon inefficiency in manufacture, waste in production, increased landfill, and where the water is sourced from.

A carbonated drink with no fizz The average energy cost to make the plastic, process and fill the bottle, transport it to market and then deal with the waste is equivalent to filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil. The 250 million litres of bottled water drunk by Australians in 2006 took a whopping 456,1312 barrels of oil to package.

Unacceptable ullage Not only does it take water to make a bottle – a 1L container requires 3L to 5L of water in its manufacturing process – but wastage in production means about 1.3 L of water is used to fill a 1 L bottle of water.

Paying for free stuff Ranging from $0.48 to $54.39 per litre, bottled water is often more expensive than petrol. Some bottled water classified as ‘purified water’ is simply filtered tap water, and blind tests have revealed consumers can’t tell the difference: it’s all in the marketing. According to Clean Up Australia’s figures, if you spent $2.50 on a 600 mL bottle of water, you could refill that bottle once a day for a staggering eight and a half years with tap water before it cost you $2.50.

Tap water is best! Australia’s drinking water is of a very high quality, so using a refillable water bottle is the safest, cleanest and cheapest way to stay hydrated. Sources: Australian Conservation Foundation www.acfonline.org.au Clean Up Australia www.cleanup.com.au G Magazine www.gmagazine.com.au

Avoid the wastage and expense of disposable bottled water by using a refillable water bottle. Support your Union at the same time by purchasing an NTEU water bottle, just $3 from your local Branch office or at www.nteu.org.au.

Advocate is published by National Tertiary Education Union, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia ISSN 1321-8476 ABN 38 579 396 344 ph: 03 9254 1910 fax: 03 9254 1915 email: national@nteu.org.au

Advocate JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2, JULY 2009

Publisher......................................... Grahame McCulloch Editor............................................... Carolyn Allport Production....................................Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance.........................Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback and advertising................. advocate@nteu.org.au All text & images © NTEU 2009 unless otherwise stated.

In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this magazine is printed on Behaviour–a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, which is ECF Certified Chlorine Free.

On the cover: NTEU members from Melbourne University on the picket line, 21 May 2009.

Advocate is also available online as an e-book and PDF at www.nteu.org.au/advocate NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification rather than printed copy) for all NTEU magazines. Login to the members’ area at www.nteu.org.au to access your membership details.

REGULAR FEATURES

SPECIAL FEATURES

FROM THE OFFICERS

Photo: Atosha McCaw

STRIKE ACTION 2

Members’ voices critical in implementation phase of Government policy

 10

Carolyn Allport, National President

Higher education and human rights in Fiji

Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

FEDERAL BUDGET

CORRESPONDENCE

 14

16 Casual saint joins Brisbane May Day march Our Universities Matter petition tabled in Parliament Collective Bargaining state of play Good results in TAFE Bargaining EI website to tackle the GFC Radical proposals at UC Fijian Govt sacks education union leader

EdNA for from Everage

COLUMNS 26

The 2009 NTEU Tax Guide: free in this edition of Advocate ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

EDUCATION

Regional Focus, by Jenny Austin

YOUR UNION New NTEU staff Recent Human Rights actions by NTEU Contacting your Union

Navitas – the big business of education A look into Australia’s profitable ‘educational services’ company.

INTERNATIONAL

30 32

Denise Bradley – Where the bloody hell are you? Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Dr Tom Ryan, TEU

Science meets Parliament NTEU members Ian White and Lisa Alleva report on their experiences at the annual Science meets Parliament event.

Rudd’s climate two step Regions still in dark about new national regional university

Response to NSW sustainability survey What is the Talloires Declaration?

SCIENCE MEETS PARLIAMENT

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

Greening your union and the sector NTEU has adopted an ambitious agenda to tackle environmental concerns in universities, as well as reducing the Union’s environmental impact.

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

 27

In pursuit of a more efficient and equitable tax system NTEU believes the current review of the Australian taxation system should result in a more equitable, efficient and simpler tax system.

 18 Indigenous Bargaining outcomes Batchelor financial problems and merger rumours ACTU Congress

Paid Maternity Leave: A baby long overdue From January 2011, the Federal Government will introduce a national, federally funded paid maternity scheme.

INDIGENOUS NEWS 11

Budget delivers (delayed) dollars and little detail The Budget injected over $5 billion of additional public investment into higher education over the next four years, but the devil’s in the detail.

Honorary Howard

UPDATE  5 6 7 8

Trouble on the Island The strike at UTAS was a culmination of the frustration and anger at the way management have dealt with this round of collective bargaining.

Offshore campuses and union responsibilities Ted Murphy, National Assistant Secretary

Victorian staff strike for respect Over 1200 union members and supporters from across Victoria rallied at the State Library on Thursday 21 May.

 24

South African HE unions to amalgamate Germany plans a quarter million new university places Despite the recession, Germany has resolved to create 275,400 new student places at German universities from 2011 to 2015.

Snapshot: French university staff oppose Sarkozy’s reforms

FROM THE OFFICERS

CAROLYN ALLPORT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Members’ voices critical in implementation phase of Government policy M

any in higher education welcomed the recent Budget initiatives, particularly the announcement of some $5.7 billion in new public investment. It has been many years since an Australian Government has put forward a comprehensive set of funded initiatives for universities. It is not clear from the Budget papers how these programs will be implemented, and there remain significant questions, particularly given that the bulk of recurrent funding does not begin to flow to universities until 2011–12. The Union is encouraging its members to discuss these issues as they emerge at each institution. The way in which universities respond to the new environment will be important for all members, and there will be change as each of the programs announced in the Budget become further explicated. None of the new funding, including improved indexation, is unconditional. One further complication is that the exact formulation of the compacts process is still not transparent, and we can expect considerable diversity of opinion from our institutions. It is for these reasons that it is important that union members become engaged with the issues at their institution. One of the flagship programs aims to increase participation for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is a worthy aspiration. The Government has attached significant funding to encourage institutions to embrace the demand driven student model and performance indicators. At this stage there is little information about how the indicators will be used in the context of compact negotiations and how this may relate to future student demand. Targets which have been named include 40% of 25–34 year olds attaining a bachelor qualification by 2025 and to have 20% of undergraduate higher education enrolments come from people of low SES background. While 4% loading is provided, it remains critical to have effective learning support available for such students in order that they are able to progress through their studies. There are two programs which begin in 2010 – funding for low SES students and the new agency called Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). While NTEU would be supportive of programs aimed to assure quality standards, there has been little discussion of what this may mean for the institutional autonomy of universities. The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) audit processes will be subsumed into the new regulatory agency which will be responsible for both accreditation and quality assurance. Structural adjustment monies will be generally available from 2010 upon submission of proposals, with specific attention paid to regional institutions with a review of the current loadings. Funding for these institutions has been problematic in recent times, and members at regional institutions should seek information from their institutions about future developments, including possible mergers with other universities and higher education institutions. In funding terms, perhaps one of the most important initiatives is the new indexation arrangements, beginning in 2010–11 with funding of $58m moving to a high of $578m over a four year period. For the first time the new indexation arrangements will provide a degree of sustainability and certainty across all programs. 2

On the research side of the equation, considerable advances have been made following budget endorsement for the principle of full cost funding for research. However, like the teaching and learning area, there is still much that needs careful consideration as to how the specific programs will be put in place and whether there is further pressure for specialisation. In this area it is important that there are clear synergies between learning and teaching and research in order for universities to take advantage of specialisation within a broader framework. Minister Carr has long argued for a ‘hubs and spokes’ model as one way of ensuring that research activity takes place across all universities through greater collaboration between researchers from different universities. While this is an excellent model, it does ultimately depend upon the willingness of institutions to accept a general research network model, rather than a strictly institutional one. If hubs and spokes works effectively, there also needs to be a transparent reward system underpinned by a consistent framework. The Union should work to ensure that such programs do not result in perverse outcomes, one of which may be a stronger use of ‘teaching focused’ positions. While some may argue that separating teaching and learning from research can strengthen both, it may also result in dilution of the synergies that come from academic and research staff being able to engage in broad based work across disciplines and work modes. This is particularly important given the impact such a bifurcation may have on the emergence of new disciplines and areas of study and universities’ role in research education. Finally, the new environment also involves a different funding model for research. Based on activity costing, the model is intended to take into account differences in the indirect costs of research undertaken in different institutions. This is then expected to provide a solid evidence base for increased funding of research. Such an exercise is important given that research performance will be assessed under the Excellence in Research (ERA) program and managed by the Australian Research Council. The ERA is a research assessment process, aimed at identifying performance across disciplines in the context of international benchmarks. While still a ‘work in progress’, the Government hopes to be able to use the ERA to assist in lifting Australia’s research effort through using negotiated targets for research. There has been some difficulty in working across all disciplines through the ERA, and there remains significant work to be done before such an exercise could be accepted by the academic community as a whole. NTEU ADVOCATE

FROM THE OFFICERS

GRAHAME MCCULLOCH, GENERAL SECRETARY

This is an edited version of a speech given by the General Secretary on behalf of Education International at the Fiji Teachers’ Association (FTA) 75th Annual Conference in Suva on 5 May 2009. Note that FTA President Tevita Koroi was sacked by the Fiji authorities later that day (see story on p.8).

Higher education and human rights in Fiji I

t is an honour to speak at 75th Annual Conference and Platinum Jubilee celebration of the FTA as your Chief Guest, and to bring greetings from Education International (EI). I congratulate FTA on this milestone date and on its proud history of advocacy and representation over three quarters of a century. I have been asked to speak about higher education, but I also want to express publicly EI’s concern about the present parlous state of human rights and democracy in Fiji. Fiji’s educational and economic circumstances present a mixed picture when looked at against global trends, standards and goals, and many of the issues are conditioned by the legacy of the British colonial period. The British policy of importing mass indentured labour to develop the early sugar industry (and its particular approach to colonial administration) has shaped much of the country’s economy, society and institutions. With a high adult literacy rate and more than 20% of Government spending devoted to education, Fiji has a relatively strong education system by developing country standards. But there are big challenges. Compulsory primary and secondary education have a relatively short history and literacy rates for adult women and older girls lag those of men. There are disparities in participation and retention, only 11% of students successfully transfer from Fiji’s higher secondary schools to tertiary education, and a mere 16% of Fiji’s public education investment is currently devoted to tertiary education. Fiji’s economic growth has ceased in recent years and the country is now highly vulnerable to the global financial crisis and other external shocks. While tourism, timber production, light manufactures (particularly garments), gold mining and sugar remain important sources of employment and export income, a wider and more diversified economic base is needed for the future. Skill shortages are a primary barrier to economic diversification and have arisen because of underinvestment in tertiary education/training and because of the emigration of skilled labour under the coup-induced economic and political pressures of recent years. A judicious mix of increased tertiary education investment and more efficient use of existing tertiary resources is worthy of consideration. For many years Fiji has had a higher level university – the University of the South Pacific (USP)– serving not only Fiji but ten other countries in the Pacific region. More recently, the smaller University of Fiji (UF) has emerged to provide additional higher level qualifications and skills. There are also tertiary education institutions providing middle level qualifications or specific higher professional education – the Fiji Institute of Technology, the Fiji School of Medicine, the Fiji Agricultural College, the Fiji School of Nursing, the Fiji College of Advanced Education and the Lautoka Teachers College. The interim military regime has announced a possible merger of these institutions to form a comprehensive university. While there are many difficulties with this proposal – including possible excess competition with USP and UF, and a lack of consultation/public debate on its implications – a good case can nonetheless, JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

be made for positive engagement with this initiative. Economies of scale and quality gains may be possible with careful consultation and collaborative decision-making, particularly if actors such as FTA are directly involved. Higher education promotes the free exchange and respectful clash of ideas. Synthesis, compromise and consensus are more likely to be found when intellectual and political debate and freedom is encouraged and protected by the State and the rule of law. Under the current military regime these conditions are not present. Continuing political instability and social tension are undermining Fiji’s economic and social position. Better education and economic opportunities for all of Fiji’s citizens depend on an immediate return to civilian democratic rule, accompanied by political and media freedom of expression. On 9 April, the Fiji Court of Appeal found that the 2006 military takeover was unlawful and issued a considered decision to require fresh elections under the 1997 Constitution. While this Constitution is not perfect, it was developed after wide social dialogue, negotiation and consultation in the wake of earlier military coups and constitutional instability. And both Mr Chaudry (in 2000) and Mr Qarase (in 2001) were elected as PM under the 1997 Constitutional arrangement. The interim military regime has rejected the Court of Appeal decision and has abandoned the rule of law and constitutional democratic government - by abrogating the 1997 Constitution, by ignoring and subsequently dismantling the country’s independent legal institutions and by imposing media censorship. This unacceptable situation has already had a direct impact on Fijian teachers. The interim regime has just announced the compulsory retirement of eleven hundred teachers aged 55 and over, despite a properly constituted Court finding that such a measure constitutes age discrimination and is unlawful. And the interim regime also refuses to recognise a legally binding Tribunal decision confirming teachers’ entitlement to the 5% salary increase of 2007. Lack of respect for the rule of law, human rights and political freedom is also evident in the treatment of your President, Tevita Koroi. He has been charged with misconduct for exercising his responsibility and right as a trade union leader to call for a return to democratic norms. EI will act upon any request from FTA to provide continuing support to Tevita, particularly if the authorities move to permanently terminate his employment as a longstanding and highly respected teacher. Let me conclude by extending EI’s best wishes for your conference deliberations. Read the full text of this speech online c www.nteu.org.au/campaigns/tevita_koroi/ 3

FROM THE OFFICERS

TED MURPHY, NATIONAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Offshore campuses and union responsibilities T

he offshore campuses established by Australia’s public universities have at times been described as an insurance policy against a major fall in the number of overseas students enrolling to study at the Australian home campuses. However, it is more appropriate, given the cost and family contact advantages of receiving an Australian university education in the students’ country of origin, to view them as a supplement to the overseas student recruitment programme. Depending on the context, offshore campuses also compete with domestic private providers and add capacity in regions where there are insufficient places in the public sector. They can also be a source of reputational risk to the parent Australian university if not also to the sector, due to problems with the quality of the programs, the courting of authoritarian political leaders, or decisions to close the campus on financial or other grounds. Several Australian universities have closed an offshore campus, leading to adverse media coverage abroad and at home. NTEU has raised the implications of quality problems with Australian authorities, provided material to members on issues associated with working offshore, and made contact on occasions with the locally recruited academics as well as expatriate staff and managers at some offshore campuses. But there is more that the union at national and institutional level can and should do in this area. To begin with it is necessary to tackle the problem of a lack of transparency of the employment arrangements and conditions at offshore campuses for staff recruited from within the host country. It is relatively easy to obtain information on the conditions that apply to Australian based staff on a fly-in, teach, and fly-out or other short term visit to an offshore campus. Obtaining information on the salaries and terms and conditions of the staff who are residents of the country where the campus is located is another matter. In part this is due to Australian universities regarding offshore campuses as separate entities and therefore the information may be on password secure sections of the website of the campus. It may also be a consequence of the fact that the Australian university did not have to negotiate an agreement with any staff organisation on the salaries, modes of employment, and terms and conditions of staff recruited in the host country.

Political and legal constraints Most offshore campuses are in countries where unions in higher education are rare and legally difficult to establish, or are not independent from government. To the Union’s knowledge, no offshore campus has a registered Collective Agreement or a union representing staff, and only one campus has a staff association. Discussions with management representatives at a couple of offshore campuses in Malaysia indicate that they collected some information on pay at nearby local public and private universities in order to set rates that were broadly competitive. This is a reasonable approach but it allows considerable discretion to management in setting rates and there appears to have been no consultation with the 4

staff associations that exist at Malaysia’s public universities. To be fair the Australian universities involved may not have known of the existence of these staff associations but it is doubtful that they would have approached them anyway. In Singapore the problem is more acute. Academic unions have not been possible in universities since a dispute with the government in the 1970s. However NTEU understands that, as part of a restructuring of union representation of general staff, permission to recruit academics in the public universities has been given. However the prohibition on academics taking or voting for industrial action continues. In South Africa, where Monash has a campus, there are two tertiary education unions at the national level and a number of institutional staff associations, but staff at many institutions are not organised. A proposed amalgamation between the two unions should improve the prospects for greater unionisation. There are limits to what NTEU and its Branches can do in the absence of unions or staff associations at the offshore campuses, let alone if there are stringent legal prohibitions on unionisation in the host country. However, demands should be made on the relevant universities to provide full details on salaries and terms and conditions for locally recruited staff at the offshore campuses, how they were arrived at, and whether the staff are normally employed on fixed term or continuing appointments. The universities should also be approached to advise their offshore staff that they are prepared to recognise and negotiate with a union or staff association if one is established. NTEU should be informed in the event an institution decides to establish a new offshore campus, so that advice can be provided on whether there are existing unions or staff associations in the country in question that would have an interest in negotiating or providing advice on pay and conditions. NTEU can also exchange information and where appropriate coordinate with tertiary education unions in other OECD countries with expanding interests in international higher education. In May this year, offshore provision of tertiary education, including English language and foundation programmes, was one of a number of issues discussed at a conference in London on international solidarity and globalisation of higher education. The conference was hosted by the British Universities and Colleges Union and attendees included representatives of tertiary education unions in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, and Denmark, and a representative of the Colleges section of Israel’s teachers union. NTEU ADVOCATE

CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence

UPDATE QUEENSLAND

Have something to say about issues in Australian higher education? Want to comment about something you’ve read in the Advocate? We’d be pleased to hear from you! Email advocate@nteu.org.au. Please keep word count to a minimum. Max words = 400

Cheap shot

Very rarely do I take exception to an editorial point of view without careful consideration of the viewpoint of both sides and being particularly interested in my home state of Queensland I came upon the article ‘Dr John’s service to tertiary education’ (Advocate, 16 01, p.7). Fair enough to put forward a point of view but the final paragraph is utterly tasteless. If it is an attempt at humour then it is sadly lacking. Former Prime Minister Howard was considered by myself and quite a few of my peers as a hard working and well respected man even if ‘his support of a diversified higher education sector’ was not to the liking of many of us. If Bond University wishes to recognise his achievements then so be it. Cheap shots don’t necessarily raise the image of a remarkably good union which is, supposedly, not affiliated with any specific political party? Unlike the author, I am happy to give my name. Caroline Hamlyn, Vice President (General Staff) NTEU University of Southern Queensland Branch

Casual saint joins May Day procession

ozens of NTEU members marched under the Union’s banner in the annual Brisbane Labour Day parade this year. Members were prominently fitted out in ‘Our Universities Matter’ t-shirts and many carried placards calling for job security for casuals, based on the famed San Precario (right), the patron ‘saint’ of precarious workers. Members also took part in Labour Day activities in many other Queensland cities. San Precario c www.sanprecario.info Photos: Ross Gwyther

NATIONAL

NTEU petition tabled in Parliament

abor MP, Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Qld) (pictured) tabled NTEU’s ‘Our Universities Matter’ petition in Federal Parliament on 25 May. The final petition received 17,354 signatures from all around Australia. The petition asked the Government to: • Improve funding to reflect the real cost of delivering internationally competitive research and education. • Allow each institution to follow its own particular mission.

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

• Make access to higher education more equitable and affordable. • Improve student services at universities. • Provide legislative protection for the distinctive characteristics of our universities—especially academic freedom and

institutional autonomy. In tabling the petition, Ms Livermore was ‘very pleased to say that in response to this campaign and the recognition of the importance of higher education for a productive and fair Australia, the Government has delivered for tertiary education in the Budget.’ ‘This is a priority for this Government’, she concluded. A Our Universities Matter campaign website c www.ouruniversitiesmatter.com.au

UPDATE NATIONAL

Collective Bargaining: State of Play

Annual Tax Statement for your NTEU membership fees is available for download after 1 July at www.nteu.org.au

hilst progress in bargaining has been slower than anticipated, where Agreements have been reached Branches have been able to achieve the full range of claims, sending a clear signal to universities that settlements will not be possible without these key inclusions. Wage settlements achieved have been in the higher range of community standards reflecting both the sector’s capacity to pay, labour market pressures and industrial realities. Recent coordinated industrial activity in Victoria (where six Branches took action

Institution

on 21 May), followed by a variety of further localised actions, has assisted in pushing the pace of negotiations. Notably, the industrial action in Victoria has resulted in draft Heads of Agreements being reached at Victoria University and Deakin University, and a draft

Casual employment

See p.31 for login instructions. Statements will not be posted out. Memorandum of Understanding being concluded at RMIT University. A brief summary of the key outcomes to date is shown below and opposite. A

Salary increase

Date of Expiry

HEWRRs resoration

Research staff improvements

Workload regulation

Other

ANU

4.5%

30 June 2009

✓

• Access to facilities • 25% loading

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff, with severance payments

Best endeavours to curtail growth in student-staff ratios

BALLARAT

10.9%

31 Dec 2009

✓

• Separate pay for marking • 25% loading • 4 Early Career Academic Fellowship positions

Not actively pursued

No more than 1690.5 hours per year for academic staff

CDU

9.7%

31 Dec 2009

✓

• 25% loading

Not actively pursued

Carry over of existing provisions

DEAKIN

17.1%

30 June 2012

✓

• Separate pay for marking • 25% loading • Improved super • Restrictions on use of casual employment

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff, with severance payments

✗

Draft Heads of Agreement reached

ECU

No offer yet

30 June 2012

✓

• 25% loading • Separate pay for marking • Convertible fixed-term contracts for long-term casuals

• Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff, with severance payments • Full superannuation after 2 years service

✓

Improvements in long service leave

FLINDERS

No offer yet

✗

✓

• Discussion around conversion of long term academic casuals to fixed term employment • Improved facilities

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff

✗

JCU

No offer yet

✗

• Improved facilities • Separate pay for marking • Early Career Development Fellowships and restriction on level of casual employment under discussion

Not being actively pursued

✗

LA TROBE

12.6%

✗

✓

• 25% casual loading

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff

✗

RMIT

No offer yet

✗

✓

• 25% loading • Separate pay for marking • Pay for all work performed

Not being actively pursued

Commitment to ensure sustainable workloads within 36-hour week

Biennial increments

Draft MOU reached

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE 4 INTERNATIONAL

VICTORIA

Good results in TAFE bargaining

EI crisis website

espite the global financial crisis, 14 TAFE Collective Agreements have been concluded with good outcomes for NTEU members.

They include a pay rise of 3.25% which has delivered a quick increase prior to the State Government revising downwards the public sector wages policy to 2.7%. NTEU TAFE Branch took the practical decision late last year to roll over current Agreements for a 3.25% payrise in line with public sector wages policy. Given the global financial crisis the Branch was worried that the State Government may reduce the wages policy. The TAFE Branch decision was well advised given the change in public sector wages policy. Most of the Agreements deliver a range of local arrangements to grant grace in favour days for the Christmas closedown. The closedown days are worth 0.7% to 1.5%.

All fourteen Agreements include the following improvements: • Two 3.25% salary increases over the next two years, with the first to be back-dated to the various dates in February and March when Agreements were reached and the second rise 12 months later. • An additional $400 (pro rata) lump sum payment to each PACCT staff member. • Access to long service leave after seven years (instead of the current 10). • Improved maternity leave and adoption leave, including paid leave increased from 12 to 14 weeks, and an additional 12 months of unpaid leave. A Janet Bourke, Industrial Officer, Victorian Division

Collective Bargaining: State of Play continued... Institution

Salary increase

Date of Expiry

HEWRRs resoration

Casual employment

SWINBURNE

No offer yet

✗

✓

• 25% loading • Separate pay for marking • Consideration of Early Career Academic Fellowships for longterm casuals • Consideration of limits on casual employment

SYDNEY

18.3%

May 2012

✓

UTAS

No offer yet

✗

UWA

6.1%

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

ducation International (EI) has launched Hands up for education: The smart strategy for economic recovery, a campaign website to assist EI’s 400 member organisations in their efforts to ensure that funding for public education is enhanced, not cut, during the global financial crisis. The website features breaking news about the economic crisis and decisions affecting funding for education, as well as a blog called Funding Education: Crisis Watch by veteran teacher trade unionist Bob Harris. ‘In some countries there have already been drastic cuts to education budgets, staffing and wages,’ said Fred van Leeuwen, General Secretary of EI. ‘In all countries, there is a powerful case to be made for the role of investment in education in developing more sustainable, fairer economies in the future.’ Hands Up for Education c www.ei-ie.org/handsup

Research staff improvements

Workload regulation

Other

Not being actively pursued

Workload models for each Faculty agreed between University and Union

17% superannuation for all part-time staff; 9% for all casuals

• Separate pay for marking • Fixed term contracts for casuals teaching 60% of full-time load

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff

Presumption of 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% administration /community activity for academic staff

Final drafting still underway

✗

• Experience loading • 25% loading phased in over 2 years • Induction and IT allowance

Not being actively pursued

✗

31 Dec 2009

✓

• Access to facilities • 24% loading

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff

31 Dec 2009

✓

• 25% loading • Working party to examine cost of separate pay for marking; with view to inclusion in post-2009 Agreement

Conversion to more secure employment for long-term contract research staff, with severance payments

Best endeavours to ensure reasonable workloads

UPDATE ACT

Radical proposals at University of Canberra

adical proposals for ‘academic renewal’ at the University of Canberra (UC) are cause for concern for academic staff, both there and nationwide. The proposed program includes a massive increase in use of fixed-term contracts and the introduction, albeit temporarily, of a category of teaching-only academic. All level A to C appointments fixed-term All new appointments at levels below D would be fixed-term: three-year contracts for level A, and up to seven-year contracts for Levels B and C. The plan envisages that only academics who are promotable to level D after up to seven years at B/C would then gain continuing employment. The Vice-Chancellor’s thesis that potential rapid movement through levels B and C to D would attract high-flyers to UC is doubted by many members, who believe these candidates would have the choice of tenured positions elsewhere, and are likely to prefer these. ‘Also, although the proposal is for fewer and larger annual increments, with no promotion barrier between B and C, there would be a much bigger hurdle to gaining each increment’, said Branch President Craig Applegate. Performance reviews out of line with collective agreement A new set of Performance Expectations for Academic Staff (PEAS) has been created and all academics would have to be declared satisfactory in an annual Performance Development Review, based on these, to gain increments, and also to be eligible for promotion or study leave. Staff declared unsatisfactory, by contrast, would enter unsatisfactory performance procedures with dismissal a possible outcome. ‘These PEAS set standards that are much higher than those outlined by UC’s Collective

Agreement, and that are unclear and unobjective in crucial ways’, said Craig Applegate. ‘In evaluating teaching, for example, the measure of a satisfactory level is a student satisfaction score equivalent to the top 30% of university teachers nationwide. ‘Since no other method of assessing teaching is included, this will inevitably lead to a dilution of academic standards. Students complete the evaluation forms after they get their results, and there is evidence here and elsewhere that easier assessments and higher marks lead to higher student ratings. ‘It is also not made clear what proportion of the long list of PEAS staff must achieve to be satisfactory overall.’

Teaching-only staff Under the proposal staff who do not believe they can satisfy the research-related PEAS can opt out of them until the end of 2012. In the meanwhile they would only be required to teach, but would then have to meet the same research expectations as others. ‘Effectively this is about showing staff the door slowly. These staff’s teaching loads would be increased for those three years and then at the end of them they would have to show that they had somehow arrived at a research profile comparable to their colleagues’, said Craig Applegate.

WorkChoices lives NTEU General Secretary, Graham McCulloch said ‘Stephen Parker has tried to paint NTEU as backward-looking for its commitment to protect work standards such as employment security, but his supposedly forward-looking move to fixed-term contracts for all level B and C staff was only made possible by the Howard Government’s employment laws and regulations, which Australians resoundingly rejected at the last election’. A Jane Maze, Division Organiser, ACT Division Photo by Jane Maze 8

4 INTERNATIONAL

Fiji Govt sacks education union leader for comments on democracy

ijian Teachers’ Association (FTA) President, Tevita Koroi was dismissed from his position as principal of Nasinu Secondary School in May for comments that angered the interim Government. Mr Koroi (pictured) was suspended from his school in December 2008, after his comments at the launch of Movement for Democracy in Fiji. He was officiating at the launch in his capacity as FTA President, an affiliate of the Fiji Islands Council of Trade Unions. He said it was two years since the December coup and time that Fiji returned to democracy and parliamentary rule. He also said that the interim Government must take the country to free and fair elections as soon as possible. As well as being FTA President, Tevita Koroi is also President of the Council of Pacific Education (COPE), a regional organisation of education unions which includes NTEU, AEU, IEU and New Zealand unions, NZEI te Riu Roa, PPTA and TEU. COPE is a sub-branch of Education International’s (EI) Asia and Pacific regional division. A You can support Tevita Koroi by sending a letter to the Fijian Government, calling for his reinstatement. Letter available on TEU website: c www.teu.ac.nz/?p=2376

NTEU ADVOCATE

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Indigenous bargaining update A

s the bargaining round continues across the country, NTEU havs had success in achieving good outcomes for members in securing a numerical/percentage target for Indigenous employment, a senior Indigenous appointment, instituting/advancing an Indigenous employment committee, cultural and ceremonial leave and University wide employment strategies. Despite the previous Government’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) which had a detrimental effect on our Indigenous employment claim in the previous round, NTEU has seen real

Institution

Target for Indigenous Employment

commitment to Indigenous employment and retention from many institutions. The table below provides an overview of what has been achieved. The University of Ballarat, in particular, has shown leadership and com-

Indigenous Employment Strategy

Indigenous Employment Committee

mitment in achieving substantive improvements advancing Indigenous employment. Overall, these bargaining outcomes are welcomed and provide effective measurable outcomes that give greater opportunities for current and future Indigenous staff members at these institutions, but the real work is only beginning. The NTEU Indigenous Unit will continue to work to review the progress of the Indigenous employment strategies and targets for employment that have resulted from this current round. We congratulate the Branch bargaining teams and look forward to working with other Branches currently in the process of bargaining. A

Cultural/Ceremonial Leave

Senior Indigenous Appointment/s

ANU

Yes – 2.2% of the ANU workforce by 31/12/2012

Yes

Yes – under accumulated leave arrangement

Ballarat

Yes – 7 appointments to 31/12/2009

Yes – Currently under review

Yes – as part of the Reconciliation Action Plan

Yes – 5 days paid and 10 days unpaid

CDU

Yes – equal to or exceeding the proportion of Indigenous students

Yes

Yes – 5 days paid and 10 days unpaid

Yes – Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous

UWA

Yes – Aspirational target only, in policy

Yes

Yes – 5 days paid

Batchelor financial problems raise rumours of merger with CDU

nformation regarding the financial status of Batchelor Institute (NT) has come to light with an investigation being undertaken by the Federal Government, coupled with speculation that Batchelor and Charles Darwin University (CDU) look to merge, resulting in the loss of Australia’s only higher education institution devoted specifically to Indigenous students. Recent articles in the Northern Territory News and The Australian discussed the financial issues and speculation on a merger between the two institutions. NTEU is of the understanding that the forensic audit of Batchelor will be undertaken by Ernst and Young with a view to revising Batchelor’s business model. Batchelor’s Acting Vice-Chancellor, Tony Mordini stated: The audit will determine our aspirations; Batchelor in [the] last few years has aspired to that [university] status. I am

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

eager to see where the [Ernst and Young] audit says we should position ourselves regarding our business model. The Australian, HES, 27 May 2009 Over many years there have been talks of a merger between CDU and Batchelor with little success. Further discussions have taken place with the institutions resolved to continue to build a stronger collaboration. The Union will continue to monitor the situation and provide assistance to our members at Batchelor. A

ACTU Congress

ndigenous members of NTEU’s delegation to 2009 ACTU Congress worked hard to ensure that all ACTU policy platforms had Indigenous perspectives incorporated, as well as developing the specific Indigenous policy that was passed unanimously by Congress. The policy is well structured and includes a strong critique on the NT Emergency Intervention and employment issues relating specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers. NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee Chair, Terry Mason, argued passionately and successfully for the inclusion of a reduction in retirement age, early access to superannuation and Government retirement benefits for all Indigenous workers. A c www.actu.asn.au/UniontoUnion/Indigenous/

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Victorian staff strike for respect O

ver 1200 union members and supporters from across Victoria rallied at the State Library on Thursday 21 May, the day of NTEU’s first major coordinated industrial action since 2003. Hundreds more union members were on picket lines from Gippsland to Waurn Ponds, resulting in cancelled classes and closed libraries. NTEU members at the five universities – University of Melbourne, Monash University, Deakin University, RMIT University and Swinburne University, together with members at Hawthorn Learning (Navitas) –took part in the 24 hour stoppage in support of their campaign for manageable workloads, increased job security, a fair wages deal and other improvements in conditions.

Stalling tactics Most universities have seen over twelve months of fruitless bargaining, with senior management drawing out negotiations with one excuse after another. With all Collective Agreements at universities in Victoria now expired, the excuses and delaying tactics of university management is no longer acceptable. The public rally at the State Library saw State Secretary Matthew McGowan speak, with contributions from Professor Verity Burgmann from the University of Melbourne and Council of Australian Post Graduate Associations Vice-President, Tammi Jonas. A guest appearance from visiting musician Charlie Parr kicked off the proceedings.

Old-fashioned justice ‘There are some significant issues that are damaging the sector,’ said Matthew McGowan at the rally. ‘Proper payment of casuals is about old-fashioned justice. Some casuals are paid less than they would earn in a supermarket stacking shelves and we need to fix that now. University management needs to settle on terms that are fair and reasonable and that will also ensure a quality education for students,’ he said. Verity Burgmann told the rally: ‘I have been an academic for over three decades, I used to like my job but not the last few years. There has been a generally downward deterioration in our work10

NTEU ADVOCATE

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

‘It was a cold morning for a picket, but a good gathering was there. I was proud to be defending our rights to fair pay and conditions.’ Celeste Liddle, Parkville Picket Line, University of Melbourne Above: NTEU picket line at Monash University. Left: Professor Verity Burgmann addresses the rally at the State Library Below: Charlie Parr performs for the crowd. Photos by Atosha McCaw

ing conditions over these decades, at every level of the academic hierarchy, and it has now reached crisis point.’ She said a number of major factors had impacted on working conditions including a significant increase in undergraduate, honours and postgraduate students; job losses among academic and support staff and increased administrative functions and reporting requirements. A lack of consultation regarding major changes within universities means that ‘staff don’t feel valued and respected’.

ened by the degree of support shown by the majority of Deakin staff and students’. Members at Deakin and Monash reported that car-parks were almost empty, and at RMIT and Melbourne, city campuses were all but empty. Libraries on most campuses were also closed for the day, and many lectures and classes were cancelled. A Atosha McCaw, Campaigns and Communications Officer, NTEU Victorian Division Below: On the picket line at Swinburne University

‘It was a great feeling to see how many staff from my own area were involved in the picket and how supportive students were.’ Dr Martin Stebbing, Bundoora Picket Line, RMIT University

Picket lines On the strike day, hundreds of union members woke extra early to stand on picket lines at their university campus. Pickets at most places started at 6:30am and ended at 11am, where those at city-based campuses left to attend the rally. For Lynn from Deakin Burwood, this was the first time she had ever been on a picket, and she wasn’t sure what to expect: ‘I found the picket an absolutely positive experience. It was a chance to talk to those who were interested and to let them know some of the issues and concerns that Deakin staff have. I was heartJULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

‘We braved the fog, a police visit and someone turning their car around at the picket line, and felt we had achieved something.’ Dr Mark Schier, Lilydale Picket Line, Swinburne University 11

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Trouble

on the Island T

he 21 May strike at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) was a culmination of the frustration and anger at the way UTAS senior management have dealt with this round of Collective Bargaining. Our island members are normally quite conservative in the way they express their concerns. However, 21 May sent a very strong message to management that our members have had enough of the old-fashioned antics of the demigods of the Chancellery and that our membership is looking for real respect in the workplace. It was a day that revealed a new self-confidence for the Tasmanian Division and signalled that the reinvigoration of our membership is well underway, with a new â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Yes We Can â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;attitude. Other staff who have normally remained on the sidelines at UTAS are endorsing our campaigning by joining NTEU. We have recently enjoyed our best membership growth in years.

What do we want? Our message has focussed on the need for strong job security, improved casual conditions and stopping the abuse of fixed term contracts by UTAS management, and has attracted the attention of the Tasmanian community and the local media. We have received favourable coverage of the campaign over the last 8 weeks. Management have attempted to starve our public campaign by providing very little comment to the media or by simply pretending that the NTEU elephant was not in the room. So far their strategy has failed dismally, with the media continuing to cover 12

the issue and the community remaining concerned that UTAS may not be such an exemplary employer.

Getting organised Logistically it was a major exercise to communicate with our diverse membership spread across the island State. The biggest issue was to inform our membership about the ballot process for protected action, and strongly encourage members to return the ballot papers to the Australian Electoral Commission by the prescribed closing date. The Division Council decided that this was one of the most important campaigns that it had ever embarked upon and to leave no stone unturned to ensure that the ballot was not going to be void. It took much time and effort to contact each member. For over a week we turned our small office into a mini call centre and with the help of volunteers from our membership we managed to contact individually almost every member by phone. Texting was used for the first time and NTEU Tas began experimenting with other mediums such as YouTube. NTEU ADVOCATE

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Above: Linda Seaborn addresses the crowd at UTAS Hobart They have all proved to be useful tools in getting out our important message. Our membership has been fantastic and they have clearly comprehended the message and supported the Union. They turned out in incredibly large numbers to support the ballot for protected industrial action; we

recorded the second highest participation rate in the country. Every action on the ballot paper was overwhelmingly supported by the membership. When the ballot results were declared it was quite clear that our membership was angry. It was a damning result for the negotiating tactics employed by UTAS management in this round of Collective Bargaining.

Success on the day

“For me, the 21 May day of action called the University of Tasmania as a whole, and the wider community, to focus on UTAS management’s reluctance to bargain in good faith. The overwhelming support for the motion to stop work reflected staff’s deep concern for the deterioration of working conditions across both academic and general sectors and what this means for the education and services provided to our students at UTAS. General and Academic staff showed overwhelmingly that they will not accept further stagnation in collective bargaining from management” Kristin Leeds, UTAS

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

The strike was a great success with NTEU Tas running picket lines and lunchtime rallies at both Hobart and Launceston. The most colourful sight was at Hobart, as traffic banked up along Churchill Ave peaceful protestors handed out information to the university community. We were also assisted by a committed trade unionist originally from El Salvador who handed out flyers and danced in the centre of the main roundabout. Staff were involved in the action right across the State, the English Language Centre staff did a great job in virtually closing down both the Launceston and Hobart Centres.

Looking to the future The action will place further pressure on UTAS management to resolve our claims. The month of June will reveal how management respond, as we press for an Agreement. Overall, the industrial campaign has been hard work for the NTEU Tasmanian Division. There have been long days (and some long nights), lots of meetings, much travel between campuses. There has been worry – Will the members approve going to ballot?

“I loved the support that staff all gave to each other , and the support from the students. It really feels like we are a community of people who care about this University and want it to be the best it can be. I’m really disappointed by the UTAS management attitude to staff. Not bargaining in good faith is the ultimate sign of disrespect and I hope this gets better soon.” Linda Seaborn, UTAS Will enough members vote and return their ballot papers? Will they support the proposed actions? Will they go out on the strike day? Will they attend pickets and rallies? The fact that all these questions were answered with a ‘Yes’ is a testament to the commitment of the NTEU Tasmanian Division Council and its staff, as well as some key activists. As a consequence of the campaign, we have improved our position in negotiations for a better Collective Agreement for NTEU members and staff at UTAS. The Division Council has been battle-hardened, and is filled with renewed confidence in its own abilities and what the membership can achieve. The membership has greater belief in its own power, and also greater faith in their leadership. And we know we can do it all again if need be to secure a good Agreement at UTAS! A Rob Binnie (Industrial Officer) and Kelvin Michael (NTEU Tasmania Division President). The Tasmanian Division is grateful to NTEU National Office and the Victorian Division for inspiration and direct assistance during the campaign. 13

BUDGET 2009

Budget delivers (delayed) dollars and little detail A

fter months of dampening the higher education sector’s expectations with talk of the impact of the Global Financial Crisis, Treasurer Wayne Swan’s 2009-10 Federal Budget injects over $5 billion of additional public investment into higher education over the next four years. This represents a substantial increase in public investment, equal to an average of over $1 billion or 15% per year. While the increased public investment in our universities is long overdue, it should be noted that the increases in 2009–10 and 2010–11 are comprised predominantly of capital or infrastructure funding. The increases in recurrent expenditures, for day to day expenses including salaries, are being phased in over a four or five year period, as shown in Chart 1. Ministers Gillard and Carr have made it clear that increases in public investment will be used to bring about change to structure Australia’s higher education sector. The evidence of this intention is that all increases in recurrent expenditures are conditional on yet to be determined criteria. Therefore, while the Budget has delivered greater certainty in relation to the level of public investment, many questions remain as to how this funding will be used to reshape the higher education sector and what impact this may have upon individual universities and their students and staff. Separate mission-based funding compacts for learning and teaching as well as for research will no doubt be used as a major instrument to effect change at the individual institutional 14

level. It is intended that compact negotiations will be finalised during 2010 and be implemented from 2011. $1,800 $1,600

RECURRENT

Chart 1: Composition of Increases in Higher Education Funding ($ millions)

CAPITAL

$1,400 $1,200

$314

$755

$1,000

$1,286

$380 $800 $600 $1,035 $400

$748

$695

$415

$200 $0 2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Budget Paper No.2 (2009-10) Expense Measures

NTEU ADVOCATE

BUDGET 2009

Learning and Teaching

Regional universities and structural adjustment

An additional $1.3 billion of increased recurrent core learning and teaching funding is being phased in over the next four years. This new funding covers a number of major initiatives including an additional 50,000 government-supported student places, increased participation of low socio-economic status (SES) students, improved indexation and performance-based learning and teaching loadings. In order to get a sense of the timing and magnitude of the increases in core learning and teaching grants Chart 2 shows the NTEU estimate of percentage increases in expenditure compared to the forward estimates for Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding. The data clearly shows that this funding is being phased in slowly and will not have any substantial impact until 2011–12.

In addition to the Collaborative Research Networks, the Government has announced that it will review existing regional loadings as well as provide a significant boost to structural adjustment funding. The net increase in structural funding (once the savings due to the cessation of the existing Structural Adjustment and Diversity fund have been deducted) amounts to $138m over four years.

18.0% 16.0%

Chart 2: Percentage Increase in Core Learning and Teaching Funding (% Increase over CGS Forward Estimates) TOTAL FUNDING

15.9%

FUNDING PER STUDENT

5.5%

14.0% 12.0% 10.0%

8.6%

8.0%

10.4%

2.5%

6.0% 3.0%

2.0%

1.7% 0.5%

0.0%

1.4%

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Having said this, however, the data shows that core learning and teaching funding will have increased by some 16% in 2012–13. If you exclude funding for additional places this represents an increase of 10% per student. Improved indexation arrangements will mean that any real increases in funding will not be eroded by cost increases at the same rate as is currently the case.

Research funding The Budget also includes substantial increases in research funding for universities and other research organisations. The most significant announcement has been that funding to meet the indirect costs of university research will be increased by 150% by 2014 through the establishment of the Sustaining Research Excellence in Universities (SREU) program to replace the RIBG ($512m over four years). Access to a proportion of SREU is dependent upon universities participating in activity based costing of research costs. In addition, the Budget included the establishment of the Collaborative Research Networks Scheme for regional universities ($52m), an increase in postgraduate research student stipends to $22,500 per annum ($52m), revised indexation for research block grants ($52m), additional funding to assist in the implementation of the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative ($36m), and 100 new Super Science Fellowships ($27m).

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

Workforce development

Effects on universities

-0.3% -2.0% 2009-10

The Budget provides $60m over four years for the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), replacing the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). Responsibilities are likely to include the accreditation of new providers, reaccreditation of existing institutions on a ten year cycle, determining the level of research activity needed to qualify as a university and responsibility for evaluating the performance of institutions against external standards, to be determined and ‘owned’ by ‘the disciplines’.

While there is no specific funding allocated for workforce development, the Government is set to commence discussions with the sector as to how additional funding should be used to address workforce development issues.

6.1%

4.0%

New higher education regulator

While the additional public investment in our universities will be welcome, the Budget contains very little detail about the nature of mission based funding compacts and the extent and nature of the conditions universities will be required to meet in order to be eligible for the additional funding. While the Government indicated its intention to consult widely with the sector, it is clear that the answers to the following questions may have a profound impact on how the new funding and regulatory environment will affect individual universities: • How and by whom will the performance indicators for learning and teaching, low SES participation and research performance be determined? • Will the indicators be sector wide targets or individually negotiated? • Will performance indicators be used to inform mission based funding compacts for learning and teaching? • What is the nature of the intended relationship between research performance indicators developed under the ERA, the hubs and spokes model of research, collaborative research networks and mission based research funding compacts? • Is it intended to explicitly address workforce development issues through compacts or as a performance indicator linked to improved indexation? A Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator Photo: Royden Juriansz

BUDGET 2009

Paid maternity leave A baby long overdue T

he decades-long campaign by unions, women’s groups and community organisations to have universal paid maternity leave for all working women has taken a significant step forward, with the recent Budget announcement that from January 2011, the Federal Government would introduce a national, federally funded paid maternity scheme. Despite concerns that the economic downturn would see the Government’s earlier commitment to introduce a national scheme abandoned or significantly delayed, the new scheme is generally in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission’s national maternity leave program final report. However, the announced scheme is means-tested and omits the Commission’s recommendation for paternity/supporting partner leave. The Commission’s draft proposal to include an employer funded superannuation component of 9% has also been removed.

• Eligible primary carers will receive their taxable maternity payment from January 2011 at the rate of the minimum wage (currently $543.78 per week, to a total of approx $10,000 over 18 weeks). • The scheme will be means-tested on the primary carer’s income only; those earning more than $150,000 a year will be ineligible. • Those who are not eligible for the scheme (or who choose not to take it up) may claim the $5,000 Baby Bonus (which remains unchanged) and may be eligible for Family Tax payments. Recipients of the parental leave payment will not qualify for the Baby Bonus nor will they be eligible for welfare payments such as Family Tax Benefit B during the 18 weeks’ leave. • The scheme will cover either the birth or adoption of a child. • With multiple births, parents would receive one paid leave entitlement but could receive the Baby Bonus for extra children. • To be eligible for the leave payments, the primary carer will have been employed continuously for at least 10 of the previous 13 months before the birth and to have worked at least 330 hours in that period. The criteria will apply to permanent employees, casuals, contractors and the self-employed. • While in most situations the “primary carer” will be the mother, the scheme can be transferred to the father or same-sex partner if they are the primary carer and meet the requirements. • About 148,000 parents will be eligible for the payments each year. According to data cited in the Productivity Commission report, approximately 280,000 mothers gave birth in 2007, of which about 175,000 were working. 16

Photo: Lou Byrnes

National Scheme – major points

• The Government estimates that, on average, paid parental leave recipients would be about $2,000 better off than current arrangements. However, given that the scheme will be taxed, much will depend on the rate of taxation (the higher the rate the more reduced the worth of the parental leave payment).

Effects on current paid parental leave entitlements Unless modified as part of bargaining, current employer paid parental leave entitlements that are part of an existing industrial agreement (such as those negotiated by NTEU) will continue to apply, although entitlements within corporate policy may be modified. University employees who are eligible for both their employer funded entitlement and the Government entitlement may chose to take both, just as they are currently entitled to take their existing employer funded leave and the Baby Bonus. However, given that the scheme is taxable, primary carers seeking to access the Government scheme should consider whether it is financially viable to do so. NTEU ADVOCATE

BUDGET 2009

In pursuit of a more efficient and equitable tax system N

TEU believes that the outcome of the current review of the Australian taxation system should result in a more equitable, efficient and simpler tax system. To this end, the Union has actively supported and participated in the activities of the Community Tax Forum. The Forum was established in 2008 by the ACTU, ACOSS, Consumers’ Federation of Australia and Australian Conservation Foundation following consultation with a broad range of community based organisations. The Forum’s main objective is to identify issues on which there may be a convergence of opinion amongst community organisa-

250% AWOTE 43%

tions when providing input into the Henry Review of Australian Taxation. The Forum has been actively engaged in the preparation of information and policy papers, as well as conducting Round Tables and convening major National Tax Reform Symposiums. One aspect of the current tax system which has received consider-

Chart 1: Average Tax Rates by Level of Earnings Australia 1986 to 2009

200% AWOTE 36%

150% AWOTE 30%

38% 33%

33%

29%

29% 25%

100% AWOTE 21%

22% 19%

75% AWOTE 50% AWOTE

17% 13%

14%

18% 13%

1996

200 6

International comparisons Until the scheme is adopted, Australia will remain one of two OECD countries without paid parental leave (the other being the US). In comparison, many countries have far more generous schemes. The Productivity Commission highlighted OECD countries whose schemes, though shorter in length of entitlement, were more financially generous than Australia’s. For instance, the UK provides 39 weeks leave, with 90% pay for the first 6 weeks and 25% of the average weeks for the rest. While the introduction of the national scheme is long overdue and most welcome, it is clear that when comparisons are made, Australia’s 18 weeks paid parental leave at the minimum wage should be seen more as a ‘starting point’. The World Health Organisation recommends a period of at least 6 months. JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

24% 20% 17% 12%

Source: Community Tax Forum (2009) Some Comparative Perspectives on the Australian Tax System (Table 6)

AWOTE = Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings

1986

21%

30% 28%

20 09

able examination is the extent to which changes in the tax system over the past twenty years have favoured those who are relatively well-off. As Chart 1 shows while the average tax rate for Australians earning more than twice average weekly earnings has fallen considerably, it has hardly changed for people on average or below average earnings. Other major issues identified by the Forum as being in need of review and reform include: • Strengthening the system’s capacity to provide sufficient revenue for public investment and other expenditure. • Removing or reducing unjustifiable distortions particularly in the treatment of different kinds of incomes and assets. • Removing or reducing distortions, concessions or loopholes which result in greater rather than fewer disparities in income and wealth. • Simplifying the system by removing unnecessary distinctions or closing off avenues for tax minimisation. • Ensuring that measures aimed at encouraging or discouraging particular types of behaviour, such as home purchases, are done so on a cost-effective, equitable and sustainable basis. • Responding to international tax trends on the basis of objective analysis and long term perspectives by taking account of all relevant aspects of the tax systems, and stages of development, of the countries with which comparisons are made. A Forum background papers and additional information c www.taxwatch.org.au/communitytaxforum/

Another concern is that not all working women will be entitled to the scheme, with women in low paid, casualised industries most vulnerable. The ACTU has indicated that it will continue to seek revisions of the eligibility criteria so that more low paid and casually employed women workers are able to access the scheme.

Room to review The scheme is due to be reviewed within 3 years of its introduction. The Government has given an undertaking to evaluate the Productivity Commission’s proposals to include superannuation and supporting partner leave. Other aspects of the scheme may also be reviewed at that time, including the length of leave, accrual of other entitlements (such as long service) and compulsory employer top-up. A Terri MacDonald, Policy and Research Officer 17

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Photo: Kari, www.flickr.com/photos/plethora4834

Environmental sustainability:

Leadership begins at home N

TEU National Council adopted an ambitious agenda to tackle the causes and effects of climate change and other environmental concerns in universities, as well as measures to reduce the Union’s negative environmental impact. Australia’s universities and public research agencies are best placed to access the latest research and theory regarding climate change and environmental sustainability. They have an important role in providing leadership in the public policy debate and in taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and waste. Universities and public research agencies are big consumers of energy, as well as large emitters of greenhouse gases. In addition to providing social and environmental benefits, improved environmental practices can mean significant cost reductions. NTEU will approach universities to: • Agree to the NTEU sustainability claim as part of Collective Bargaining. • Become signatories to a global sustainability instrument such as the Talloires Declaration. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. • Develop and implement environmentally sustainable policies and practices that cover areas such as maintenance, purchasing and new buildings. 18

• Establish tripartite Sustainability Committees to raise environmental issues and to provide input into and monitor environmental initiatives undertaken. • Investigate best practice and propose the establishment of a best practice database or website aimed at showcasing successful environmental initiatives. NTEU will also promote the establishment of a Government fund to assist universities to develop and invest in environmentally sustainable infrastructure and cutting edge technology, and to provide leadership through demonstration and modelling.

Green bargaining NTEU’s environmental sustainability claim for CollectiveBbargaining states: That the University take steps to reduce its carbon emissions and ensure all its operations are environmentally sustainable in order to secure long term sustainability of conditions for university employment and staff job security. Further, that staff be protected from being disadvantaged in their NTEU ADVOCATE

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY employment as a result of raising issues related to environmental responsibility in the workplace. NTEU proposes that universities establish a committee with management, union and student representatives that would look at the impact of climate change on work and work practices, and examine ways in which the university can reduce its carbon emissions, water and energy consumption and develop sustainable work practices. Universities will also be urged to become signatories to the Talloires Declaration, an official international statement made by university administrators in 1990 that commits signatories to adopting environmentally sustainable practices.

NTEU’s environmental impact The United Nations Environment Program’s ‘Labour and Environment’ initiative promotes the central role of trade unions in tackling climate change and other environmental concerns. Over the next two years NTEU will: • Improve waste management and recycling. • Improve energy efficiency in office appliances and lights. • Reduce the impact of travel. • Introduce environment-friendly procurement and purchasing policies for goods and services. • Undertake an emissions assessment of all the Union’s operations with a view to offsetting unavoidable carbon emissions and being certified as carbon neutral. • Undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from NTEU premises by 60% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. • Establish renewable energy targets of 30% by 2015; 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2040. NTEU will seek to establish a virtual network that draws together the expertise of members working on or researching climate change issues, including the impacts on work practices and the workforce. A Michael Evans, National Organiser If you are interested in being involved in NTEU’s initiatives around environmental sustainability please contact Michael Evans, mevans@nteu.org.au

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

Strong response from NTEU members to NSW sustainability survey

TEU NSW recently developed a short survey on the issue of sustainability and members at all NSW Branches were invited to participate. Over 450 members across the State responded. The survey’s aim was to determine the breadth and depth of the feeling around issues of sustainability amongst the membership, and what the Union’s role should be on environmental issues. In response to the statement ‘environmental issues, like climate change, are important to me’ a staggering 97% of respondents indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed (72% and 25% respectively). Additionally, over three quarters of respondents said that not only were these issues important to them, they believed that environmental issues should be core Union issues (38% strongly agreed and 40% agreed) and 69% agreed or strongly agreed that environmental matters should be included in the Collective Agreement. Ninety-four per cent of respondents felt that action on environmental issues and hazards should be a priority at their university, and 95% said employees have the right to participate in developing and implementing workplace priorities and strategies on environmental issues. But less than 10% agreed that management has adequately consulted with employees on the development of workplace environmental policies and strategies; and worryingly, over half of respondents said they were not familiar with the procedures for raising environmental hazards and issues at work. Not only did members believe that the Union had a role to play in university environmental issues, 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Union should give priority to reducing the environmental footprint of its own operations. Respondents were asked to provide contact details if they were interested in being involved and helping to progress Union work about environmental issues at their local Branch. Almost 70 members provided contact information and are being contacted about how they can play a role. A Jo Kowalczyk, State Organiser, NTEU NSW Division

What is the Talloires Declaration?

he Talloires Declaration is a ten-point plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching and research operations in colleges and universities. The declaration was born in 1990 at an international conference in Talloires, France. Fourteen Australian universities are already signatories: • ANU • Charles Sturt University • Monash University • RMIT University • Southern Cross University • University of Canberra

• • • • • • • •

University of Melbourne University of New England University of New South Wales University of Newcastle University of Technology, Sydney University of the Sunshine Coast University of Western Sydney Bond University. Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) c www.ulsf.org

SCIENCE MEETS PARLIAMENT

Scientists get face-to-face with our Parliamentarians S

cience Meets Parliament is an annual event organised by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), bringing together scientists and politicians for a day of meetings at Parliament House. Scientists are matched with politicians based on the self-nominated fields of research, bringing together over 150 individual scientists with politicians from all parties. For an entire day, Federal Parliament lives and breathes science in a series of meetings and events which also allow the scientists unparalleled opportunities to witness national decision making at first hand, and to inform this process on important scientific issues. Every year, NTEU sponsors two members to attend the event. In 2009, Ian White and Lisa Alleva attended, supported by National Office staff Paul Kniest and Jen Tsen Kwok.

Lisa Alleva, Senior Research Officer, School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, ANU

hat surprised me was that this event is not about lobbying – amongst other things it celebrates the diversity of science, and indeed scientists. For example, FASTS Executive Director Bradley Smith organised for me and three other female researchers to meet with Queensland 20

ALP Senator Claire Moore, a proud feminist and unionist. In this meeting we talked about our own research but we also discussed some of the difficulties we faced as women in science, because this was an area of interest for Senator Moore. I also met with Member for Bowman Andrew Laming (Liberal), who has a keen interest in medical research and asked us pointed questions. One of the overriding aims of Science Meets Parliament is to show politicians how publically funded research achieves socioeconomic goals. When a politican says, ‘and you are the only person doing this work?… well that’s fantastic for Australia’ then it really affirms the event for them as well us for us.

The day before the meetings at Parliament House was unashamedly focused on our professional development. Thinking about how to deliver your message in a sentence certainly focuses the mind. Then there was the dinner in the Great Hall, with keynote speaker Prof Penny Sackett (Chief Scientist) which was an excellent opportunity for networking, as well as a range of fora the next day, including a breakfast focused on Strategic Leadership in Science. For me the highlight was meeting politicians that I later saw strutting their stuff in question time. I would like to thank NTEU for asking me to attend, and for providing excellent professional development opportunities for its members. A NTEU ADVOCATE

SCIENCE MEETS PARLIAMENT Professor Ian White, Associate Director (Research), Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU

he first day was briefing day consisting of talks, panel discussions and roundtable discussions. These served to introduce delegates to the markedly different cultural landscapes inhabited by politicians, political journalists and scientists. Since I have met with many politicians over the years, there was little that was surprising in these sessions. What was useful was the notion of the significant limitations of press releases where the headline is the most important thing because one has about 15 seconds to grab a journalist’s attention. A useful ‘briefing-kit’ was provided to all participants by FASTS with the program, maps, notes on engaging with politicians, and photos of House of Representative Members and Senators. Another useful tip was the format for one page briefs for politicians, particularly Ministers. • Information or Action: tells the politician the overall purpose of the brief. • Title: as with a press release, this has to grab their attention. • Purpose: what issue the brief is addressing. • Background: 1 paragraph to provide the background issues and to demonstrate why it is important. • Issue: what will bite the politician. • Recommendation: what the politician should do. During the presentations, an interesting talk was given by economist Professor John Foster from the University of Queensland. He admitted that the global financial crisis meant that all economic models used to predict trends in the national economy where outside the bounds of calibrated behaviour and were therefore irrelevant. Economists providing predictions on possible trajectories were merely giving their personal opinions. He claimed that the Treasury economic model of the Australian economy had been beyond calibrated bounds since 2002. This was the first time I have ever heard an economist admit that their models are fallible. JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

Chief Scientist reads the riot act on climate change The SMP dinner at the end of the first day was surprisingly well attended by parliamentarians, despite the ‘alcopops’ legislation being debated in the Senate. It was a useful opportunity to exchange insights with scientists from a range of disparate activities and with parliamentarians. The keynote address delivered by Chief Scientist of Australia, Professor Penny Sackett, was remarkable for its forthright advice on addressing climate change. This was in sharp contrast to the two previous incumbents in the position who remained silent on the issue. It was clear that this talk made some of the Government and many of the Opposition Senators extremely uncomfortable and it is important that the scientific community support the Chief Scientist in her forthrightness.

Meeting with politicians For each meeting with a politician, I was grouped with two other scientists, with these groupings changed for each successive meeting. I had three meetings with different politicians: 1. Senator Christine Milne, Tasmania, Greens (75 min). 2. Mr Greg Hunt MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (55 min). 3. Ms Jenni George MP, Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. The teams of three scientists were from a range of organisations and disciplines. Within the space of about 5 minutes the

team had decided on a strategy and an order of presentation and that worked surprisingly well, with each member able to get their points across. Unlike my previous meetings with politicians, they were much relaxed and welcoming, since I suspect that they didn’t feel we had come to lobby them but to inform them. It is perhaps a good venue for a bit of targeted lobbying by NTEU. All three parliamentarians were concerned with adapting to climate change. The main points I attempted to get across were: • Climate change. We already have strategies for adapting to climate change. The most significant challenge is coping with Australia’s extreme climatic variability and its impacts. • Water management. Implement vigorously the National Water Initiative. Controlling demand and ensuring adequate storage are key issues. National water abstraction charge to cover environmental costs of extracting water. Rigorous monitoring, especially of groundwater. Incentives for conservation. • Health and well-being. Identify regions at most risk. Improve medical services and education in remote communities. • Local and regional economies. Diversify local economic base, enhance local skills, develop market niches. • Infrastructure. Adopt world’s best practice in building codes and standards, retrofitting existing buildings. • Biodiversity.Landscape-wide approaches to vegetation management, properly resourced reserve network, long-term ecological monitoring. • Emergency and disaster management. Better communications, enhanced community capacity, improved building standards, urban planning to reduce vulnerability. • Sustainability. Climate change is a subset of an older and broader agenda: sustainability. We must not lose sight of other important issues – soil is a major emerging issue. • University training and research. Climate change underlies the importance of increasing Australia’s investment in tertiary education, scholarship and research. The responses to this message were mixed, but I really appreciate the opportunity given to me by NTEU to attend this event. A 21

EDUCATION

Navitas – the big business of education Photo: Paul Clifton

Robyn May Industrial Officer

avitas is a publicly listed, Australian owned, ‘educational services’ company. First listed as Perth Institute of Business and Technology (PIBT) in 2004, with a name change to Navitas in 2007, the company is profitable (net after tax profit of $37m to June 2008), with a market capitalisation of over $800m, and has made its Perth based founders extremely wealthy. The company has four separate divisions: • University programs division (pathway colleges and managed campuses). • English language division. • Workforce division (provides training in business and industry). • Student recruitment division. The university programs division is the most profitable (60% of overall profit) and growing the fastest. The division operates in 8 countries, comprising 17 colleges and 4 campuses under management. In Australia the division is associated with 10 universities through partnership arrangements. The partnership arrangements typically see the establishment of a Navitas owned college set up on the partner institution’s campus to provide ‘pathway’ diplomas and English language courses. The English language division recently purchased Hawthorn English Language Centre from Melbourne University for $5m. The staff at Hawthorn Language Centre, the vast majority of who are NTEU members, recently participated in the Victoria-wide industrial action in support of their claims in Collective Bargaining.

The Navitas business model

Overseas universities’ experience

The University programs division describes itself as having: ‘a core business model which is highly profitable and highly capital efficient. Low capital requirements – leverage partner universities infrastructure and spare teaching capacity – fees received in advance drives negative working capital.’ (Navitas presentation, 2 April 2009) Navitas has ‘pathway colleges’ set up at partner institutions (10 Australian universities), offering students who miss out on a university place a way in, using that University’s facilities and curriculum to deliver a first year course that on successful completion transfers into second year of the ‘referring’ University. In some cases they confer a limited number of bachelor degrees under the partner university name. The colleges also offer English language programs. For the use of premises and course materials Navitas pays the partner University a ‘royalty’. Navitas students in many cases also have full access to host campus facilities such as library, and sport facilities.

University and College Union (UCU, NTEU’s British sister union) has been sufficiently concerned about Navitas to produce their own campaign briefing. At Manchester Metropolitan University, UCU ran a strong anti-privatisation campaign against Navitas setting up a college, resulting in university management announcing that they had decided not to proceed with any deal. Staff at Manitoba University in Canada opposed the secretive dealings between Navitas and university management in setting up an International College. The Union President noted that the use of faculty staff to moderate Navitas courses was ‘...donating our time to help line the pockets of this multi-national organisation’. In Australia, this slicing of the full fee paying student market by the private sector, using publically-owned and developed resources and infrastructure, represents a further challenge to the sector, both in terms of quality and accountability. Whilst education remains big business this trend is likely to continue. A CONN An NTEU

THE WEBSITE FOR CASUAL & SESSIONAL ACADEMICS

Publication for

ECT

Casua l and Sessio nal Staff Vol. 2 No.

Our unive

rsities matte

G IN PEOPLE r

Casuals’

INVESTIN

& SOCIETY

ley Review

What does it employment have to say about casual in Austra lian univers ities?

LATEST ISSUE OF CONNECT ONLINE NOW!

Getting it

1, March

2009

Charter

Demand

The Brad

your rights!

Your Righ

NTEU’s bargai

ts at Work

ning claims

for 2009

back

Back pay successes for sessional staff at La casual/ Trobe and ACU

Eureka!

University of delivers for Ballarat Agreem ent casuals

Northern

The 85 day

Exposure

strike of ‘permatemp’ Canadian lecturers

read online

at www .unicasual.c

om.au

NTEU ADVOCATE

INTERNATIONAL

South African HE unions discuss amalgamation John Landman National Deputy President (Policy Affairs) National Tertiary Education Staff Union South Africa

ational Tertiary Education Staff Union in South Africa (NTESU), a sister union of NTEU, has joined with its counterpart union in the tertiary education sector, National Union of Tertiary Employees of South Africa (NUTESA), moving the unions closer to creating a single union. NTESU and NUTESA are following on the international trend of the past ten years to form larger single unit representation based in the higher education sector rather than subsume themselves into an existing umbrella collective. The action also responds to common interests and synergy seeking in the restructured higher education landscape in South Africa. The two unions are the largest tertiary education unions in South Africa and have similar histories. NTESU is the successor to the Union of Democratic University Staff Associations (UDUSA) an organisation which many international unions will remember from the Apartheid era of South Africa. NUTESA grew within the old Technikon vocational sector which has now been incorporated into a single higher education system of universities and universities of technology.

This process represents a much more significant engagement on the ‘One Voice Campaign’ of 2000–03 and is a major development and commitment to the achievement of one voice and a single union structure for the sector on the part of these two unions. With a potential to attract 25,000 or more members from the 21 institutions of higher education, and more if the further-education colleges are included in the recruiting pool, the prospect of combating the problems faced by the sector and raging managerialism and corporatisation on campuses would be hugely improved by a merger. It is believed most of the gains from an amalgamation would be at the national, consultative level with the Ministry of Education, Council on Higher Education, and the employer body, Higher Education South Africa.

Stronger together

Process and progress

The Unions agreed to this process, noting that their ‘respective constituencies operate in directly related areas of higher and further education, that a single synchronised representative union will best serve the interests of broad representation of workers in higher and further education at national, local, teaching and general staff levels.’ They agreed the ‘achievement of a single unionised voice for higher education should be through the merging of the nationally oriented and registered entities.’ In the face of attacks on academic freedom, attrition in the established posts of institutions, low salary rates, and deteriorating conditions of service, it has increasingly been seen as imperative that a single voice emerges to speak for union members in the tertiary education sector. Government’s re-engineering of the sector has highlighted the need for a single voice for the representation of workers in the tertiary education sector. While the fragmentation of union representation in South Africa has been commented upon at Ministerial level, and by other education sector stakeholders that have already responded to the restructured higher education landscape, the unions have found achieving an appropriate response more difficult.

After the initial MOU, the two presidents combined to meet with advisors to draft a working framework agreement for the negotiation of a detailed statement on a future synchronised union structure, and to write the terms of action for an inter-union Joint Task Team. The Joint Task Team engagement began in January 2009 and continues in May with a second meeting to extend into discussion of constitutional, structural and administrative proposals. Progress in the first meeting focussed on reviewing the two organisations and enumerating the similarities and differences. Subsequently, the JTT constitutional working team has conducted a comparison and drafted a working document merging the two constitutions, based on the founding principles for discussion, which will come under presentation in the next round of talks. Over the past year the National Presidents have moved the organisations from in principle agreement on investigating amalgamation to full discussion meetings. The first signs indicate that there is high buy-in to the process and acceptance of the imperatives around amalgamation at both Branch and National level which promises to make the engagement a relatively short process especially given the great similarities between the two unions. A

JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

INTERNATIONAL

Recession-stricken Germany to create 275,000 new uni places T

hese are difficult times for the German economy, like so many others. Germans pride themselves on how export-driven the German economy is. The term ‘export world champion Germany’ is popular in the German media. But Germany has been vulnerable to the changes in world economic conditions. Germany’s economy is predicted to shrink by 5% to 6% over the coming year. Unemployment is over 3.5 million, and is expected to rise well above 4 million over the same period. Andrew Bonnell , Senior Lecturer in Modern History, University of Queensland Below: Faculty of Philology Library at the Free University Berlin (Architect: Norman Foster). Photo by Svenwerk, www.flickr.com/photos/svenwerk

In its 2009–10 Budget, the Rudd Government announced an additional $5.7 billion expenditure on Australian universities including an additional 50,000 Government-supported student places over the next four years. The German Government resolved in April to create 275,400 new student places at German universities from 2011 to 2015. The costs of this increase will be shared between the German Federal Government and the States. Under Germany’s federal constitution, education is the responsibility of the country’s 16 State Governments, which guard their prerogatives carefully. Higher education policy is coordinated by regular conferences of State Education Ministers, with the Federal Government also taking a long-standing interest, and exercising some influence through provision of additional funding. The planned increase will cost the German public €7.3 billion. It is not envisaged, at least not in the public announcements so far, that German students will have to bear a larger proportion of the costs of their higher education. At present, university tuition fees in Germany are set at very modest levels compared with Australia, on average within about A$1,000 a semester, and not all States charge tuition fees.

NTEU ADVOCATE

INTERNATIONAL Like most products of German federalism, the new higher education package is a compromise, balancing regional and party-political interests. The German city-states (Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen), which attract a disproportionately high number of students from outside their borders, will receive extra funding to compensate. A proposal by the Social Democrats, the junior partner in Germany’s ‘Grand Coalition’ Government (made up of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats), to similarly compensate the larger West German States that attract more students than their departing resident students, was unsuccessful. (German students are traditionally far more mobile than their Australian counterparts. Studying interstate has traditionally been the norm.) On the other hand, eastern German States which continue to record a net loss in student numbers in proportion to their western counterparts will not be financially penalised. With the exception of Berlin’s prestigious Humboldt University, which was well colonised by ‘Wessis’ in the 1990s, eastern German universities have been relatively unsuccessful so far in attracting students from the western States. That said, the political debate prior to the recent decision to increase the number of university places nationally was at this level of detail. There was general agreement that the overall increase had to occur. There is a specific reason for urgency behind this increase. Some German States are reforming their secondary education systems. Those States which have a nine-year matriculation stream in secondary school (the so-called ‘Gymnasium’) on top of four years of primary or ‘basic’ schooling, instead of the eight years the other States require, are about to reduce their Gymnasium system by a year to bring it into line with the other States. So, some States will have two age cohorts matriculating in the same year in a couple of years’ time. However, this is only a one-off effect, and the planned increase in student places is seen as meeting longer-term requirements. Already some 45% of each year’s age cohort qualifies for university admission. Some experts are questioning whether the proposed increase of about 275,000 university places will be sufficient. It is expected that demand for higher education will increase from the current 2 million students to something closer to 2.4 million by 2015. JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

SNAPSHOT

PARIS, 10 FEB 2009

Almost 15,000 university staff and students protest against several higher education reform projects of President Nicolas Sarkozy, in particular changes to the status of teacherresearchers. According to SNESUP-FSU, the French tertiary education union, almost 100,000 university teachers and students marched in cities across France. Photo: Egil Niclaes, www.flickr.com/photos/88088187@N00/

The anticipated increase in demand is not due to demographic factors. The birth-rate dropped in Germany in the early 1990s, dramatically so in the Eastern States immediately after unification with the West in 1990, as East Germans experienced mass unemployment for the first time. The increase has more to do with longer-term labour market factors. The recession is accelerating the reduction in the proportion of the workforce in manufacturing industry in Germany, and a more educated and trained workforce is needed to deal with Germany’s changing occupational structure. At the same time, the German Government is not only addressing the expected increased demand for university places, it is also increasing the level of public investment in research. Research institutes can expect increased funding of 5% per annum, and projects identified in the Government’s so-called ‘Excellence Initiative’ can expect more, additional support. This will involve another €5 billion for research, in addition to increased funding for projects under the ‘Excellence Initiative’. Ever since the late nineteenth century, one of the key factors behind Germany’s eco-

nomic success has been a highly educated population coupled with substantial investment in research, innovation and training. It is clear the German Government intends to continue this tradition. The Social Democratic Finance Minister, Peer Steinbrueck, has already warned his cabinet colleagues, and others, not to expect too much in the way of tax cuts, given the need to invest in education, among other areas. There is a clear message in this for the Rudd Government. For twelve years, before the last federal elections, public investment in higher education in Australia went backwards in real terms at a time when all other OECD countries, including countries whose students we would like to attract here, increased public funding to their universities, in some cases by significant amounts. We have had twelve wasted years in higher education policy and funding. The recent German decision to increase public provision of university places and research funding under the current crisis conditions is evidence that the rest of the world is not going to sit and wait for Australia to catch up. A Andrew Bonnell is President, NTEU UQ Branch, and is currently on research leave in Europe. 25

UNIVERSITIES NEWSOUR FROM THE NET MATTER PAT WRIGHT

EdNA far from Everage E

ducation Network Australia is a free online network for educators around the nation. Educators catered for include early childhood development workers, teachers and lecturers in schools, TAFEs and other VET providers, academics in universities and community workers in Adult Community Education. The parent body, Education.au, also manages websites for international education, me.edu.au for educators, social networking and OzProjects online resources for schools. Each year EdNA holds a series of workshops around the country for You may also make a public profile of bookmarked sites in which educators interested in online education. In 2009, the workshop you are interested to share with like-minded souls elsewhere – an theme is ‘Connecting through EdNA: building digital bridges’ and e-community of scholars, perhaps. the topics covered are of great interest to educators from all sectors. The somewhat similar online sensation, Twitter, is a real-time mesResources used or referred to in the workshops are available online at saging facility that you can access on computer or as SMS on your www.edna.edu.au. mobile phone. For the peripatetic Gen-Y, Twitter is a must. Not only A particularly interesting development is the use of e-portfolios in does it keep you in ther loop with what all of your friends are doing, education and training, particularly in the VET sector. These compilabut also it can provide instant feedback on a topic from dozens of tions of student work and assessment outcomes can be great vehicles people in seconds. Little wonder that so many ABC Radio National for social networking or for recordprograms offer a Twitter facility. ing achievements in a dynamic EdNA set up a Twitter topic, The EdNA Groups facility ... allows resume, on disk or online. The VET ednaconf, for discussion of the sector provides some great examworkshops, and invites comments, common-interest groups an online ples of what can be done at flexitoo, on the future directions for base for the exchange of information, blelearning.net.au/e-portfolios. EdNA itself – so feel free to trot out discussion of issues and even a polling Such e-portfolios have great your wish-list for the future online facility for voting on proposals – potential for schools and universiworld. ties, too. Some schools, even at Of course, EdNA offers the EdNA e-democracy lives! primary school level, use them for Groups facility, which allows comstudents to record their achievemon-interest groups an online ments and gain public and parental recognition for them by posting base for the exchange of information, discussion of issues and even a them online. Invaluable for such projects is PhotoStory3 for Winpolling facility for voting on proposals – e-democracy lives! Also on dowsXP, available free from Microsoft Downloads – a marvellous suite me.edu.au is a facility called Communities of Interest, where dozens of of software to create multi-media and video presentations ideal for public interest-groups invite contributions to the ongoing discussion YouTube, FaceBook, or me.edu.au. or you may start up one of your own. Some Australian universities have begun to move in this direction Education.au also hosts a Global Education website, funded by with personalised websites for graduates and alumni. AusAID, at globaleducation.edna.edu.au where there is a wealth of Another online facility of particular interest to academics is Deliresources for learning and teaching about cultural bridges internacious, the online bookmarking site which can be used for networking. tionally and helped develop the award-winning MyFuture website at At delicious.com one can establish a bank of bookmarks and synchrowww.myfuture.edu.au which provides career advice to young people. nise them with the bookmarks in the browser on the computer you If you are not yet an EdNA user, it is well worth considering. A are using. All bookmarks in your Delicious bank are available from Pat Wright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research any computer anywhere in the world – ideal for a research project on at the University of Adelaide. which you work at uni, at home, or wherever. email: pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au

VISIT OUR NEW CAMPAIGN WEBSITE!

www.ouruniversitiesmatter.com.au NEWS, ANAYLSIS, DOWNLOADS & COMMENTS 26

Our universities matter

INVESTING IN PEOPLE & SOCIETY

NTEU ADVOCATE

LOWERING THE BOOM

OUR UNIVERSITIES MATTER

IAN LOWE

Rudd’s climate two-step C

limate change is suddenly back on the political agenda. The Rudd Government has revised its so-called ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ (CPRS) and also made significant funding decisions in this year’s Budget. At the same time, The Australian has been running a concerted campaign to muddy the waters and suggest the science is uncertain, recently helped by the release of a new book which amazingly claims to have refuted over a dinner table all the scientific work done in the last thirty years. The first draft of the CPRS was clearly unacceptable. Climate scientists and environmental groups saw it wasn’t doing enough to slow down climate change. It only sought to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent, when the science is saying developed countries need to reduce by 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020. And it gave most of the big polluters free permits rather than auctioning them, thus ensuring that there would be no price signals to drive change. Despite this generosity, some business groups and the Coalition were unhappy about the minimal costs it would impose on some polluting industries. So it was struggling to find the political support needed to pass the Senate. The revised draft makes one significant step forward. Where the original version only promised 5 per cent cut in our carbon pollution and 15 per cent if other nations agreed, the new plan would go to 25 per cent if there is international agreement to try to keep the amount of carbon dioxide in the air below 450 parts per million. I saw this as a significant step forward. For the last fifteen years, successive Australian governments have put the profits of polluting industries ahead of the national interest by obstructing progress toward a global agreement. At the 2007 Bali conference, Kevin Rudd announced that Australia had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and accepted what the science was saying, targets in the 25 to 40 per cent range. But back in Australia, the self-styled ‘greenhouse mafia’ were still in control of the bureaucracy and setting the agenda for our negotiators. So in the preliminary discussions leading up to the critical Copenhagen conference in December, the Australian Government representatives were back to their worst behaviour, stalling and obfuscating. A political decision to accept 25 per cent at least gets Australia onto the same page as other developed nations and means we are not actively blocking the chance of a global agreement. That being said, the package is still far from adequate. It still gives the dirtiest industries free permits to pollute. The starting date had been put back another year and even those permits which are sold in the first year will be at the bargain price of $10 per tonne, far less than needed to drive the transition to clean energy. There is still no recognition of the contribution of voluntary action, so my use of green electricity simply makes it easier for the big polluters to fit within the national target. Climate scientists and environmental groups remain critical of the scheme’s inadequacies. Some still think it should be rejected completely. JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

For the last fifteen years, successive Australian governments have put the profits of polluting industries ahead of the national interest by obstructing progress toward a global agreement. Of course, only economic romanticists think a transition to a clean future can be driven entirely by the price mechanism. Other policies are needed. There is now a serious target for renewable energy – 20 per cent of our power needs by 2020 – as well as progress toward remedying the inefficiency of our energy use. The Budget made two important funding allocations. About $4.6 billion was allocated for urban public transport, mostly rail. This is the first time in living memory that more money has been allocated to public transport than to roads. And the road funds are all for inter-city and country highways. At last, decision-makers have recognised the obvious: bigger urban roads will not contribute in any positive way to our future. The Budget also provided $1.6 billion for full-scale demonstration solar energy facilities. So there will be real progress toward showing what renewable energy can do to meet our power needs. Given all that, it would be laughable if it wasn’t serious for our national flat-Earth broadsheet still to be publishing column after column doubting the climate science and its call for urgent action. The crucial issue is the cost of being wrong. If the deniers and the ecologically-illiterate economists are right and the climate scientists are wrong, the worst that will happen is that we use cleaner but more expensive energy and turn it more efficiently into the services we use. If the climate scientists are right and their advice is ignored, we risk the destruction of human civilisation. It’s pretty obvious which way a prudent decision-maker should go. A Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University and a Life Member of NTEU. 27

REGIONAL FOCUS

JENNY AUSTIN

Regions still in the dark about new national regional university I

’m still perplexed by the apparent lack of interest shown publicly by Australia’s Vice-Chancellors into the formation of the ‘new national regional university’ currently being supported by the Federal Government.

No Budget allocation for the new university

One would think that the apparent exploration of a new national policy on higher education, whereby regional delivery may necessarily be transferred to the Commonwealth from the States, would elicit However, if there is to be a third university involved, feedback from some level of interest. its staff is apparently not required and, interestingly, there was no The only national higher education institution, the Australian specific allocation obvious in the Federal Budget for further developNational University, is based logically in Canberra but metropolitan ment of the new institution. universities engaged in the delivery of higher education to regions So there are still many unanswered questions in relation to the should also be concerned about this development. actual proposal for a ‘new national regional university’ and it’s difficult However, the collective Vice-Chancellors seem to think it conto provide meaningful feedback when we are being deliberately kept cerns (only) a merger under-informed. between two regional NTEU Branch Presidents at CSU and SCU So there are still many unanswered NSW universities – have been denied a place on the proposal’s questions in relation to the actual Southern Cross Universteering committee, but continue to argue proposal for a ‘new national regional sity (SCU) and Charles for Union representation. Meanwhile, NTEU university’ and it’s difficult to provide Sturt University (CSU) – National Office has accepted the invitation by a scenario that has been the Vice-Chancellors to assume a place on the meaningful feedback when we are being emphatically denied by ‘panel of experts’ who may or may not be condeliberately kept under-informed. both institutions. sulted about various aspects of the proposal. It was apparent from the outrage of their senior colleagues and university councillors when the proposal was publicly announced immediately before summer break last year, that both Vice-Chancellors had kept the proposal top secret. An immediate NTEU survey of staff at both institutions confirmed Naturally, staff at SCU and CSU are concerned about the proposal for a the level of secrecy but also indicated that the majority (both NTEU number of reasons including, but not exclusively, their own job secumembers and non-members) wanted the Union closely involved in rity. Management at both universities has not ruled out redundancies any developments. and we can assume staff at the third institution would be concerned As it was eventually explained to SCU staff by the soon-to-be-retired too, if they knew who they were. Vice-Chancellor, the proposal came about following the Bradley In light of the new funding model for places at universities, staff Review into Higher Education when he and the CSU Vice-Chancellor at other regional universities, and metropolitan-based universities recognised the future of regional institutions was threatened. engaged in regional delivery, should also be concerned in an increasingly competitive market about a new mega-uni to service regions. Not suprisingly, speculation is rife at CSU, SCU and at a number of other universities regarding which institution might be the additional The two self-styled ‘rogue’ Vice-Chancellors then put a proposal to the partner(s) to be enveloped in the new national regional institution. Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, who provided $2 million for a feaOthers suggest that the proposal is as ridiculous as its title suggests sibility study into a new national university to provide higher educaand we are being sold a furphy. The additional university is a ‘phantion to the regions currently covered by SCU and CSU plus another as tom’, so it’s claimed, and masks the intent to merge CSU and SCU – yet un-named, and possibly interstate, institution. unpalatable to staff who have been down the unsuccessful merger At the time of publication, the feasibility study is into the first of its road before. three stages and feedback has been invited from staff of CSU and SCU. Either way it’s time for NTEU to get some real answers. As SCU and A ‘road show’ has been conducted by management of the two CSU are unwilling to provide them, the Minister for Education should institutions on campus locations where the proposal was sold, prebe called upon to publicly reveal details of what’s been proposed. A dictably, as practical - with complementary courses offered to reduce Jenny Austin is President of NTEU Southern Cross University Branch duplication and a greater emphasis on distance education. and a regional media commentator on social and political issues.

Staff at the third institution would be concerned too, if they knew who they were

Rogue VCs receive $2m for feasibility study

NTEU ADVOCATE

LETTER FROM NEW ZEALAND/AOTEAROA

TOM RYAN, TEU

Denise Bradley – where the bloody hell are you? K

ia ora neighbours. Let me introduce myself. I’m Dr Tom Ryan, President of the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union – Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa (TEU). The TEU didn’t exist until a few months ago: we used to be two separate unions, AUS which mostly covered university workers, and ASTE, which mostly covered workers in the polytechnics and institutes of technology (or TAFEs). We believe in working hard for the students in our institutions, and being respected and paid fairly for that work. We believe in a high quality, public education system that gives everyone a chance, and helps to build a strong economy and strong communities. We believe in people working together to make things fairer and better for everyone. Many older education union members from New Zealand used to That means lower fees, more investment in our public tertiary eduhead over the Tasman during the 1990s and warn Australians just cation institutions, and supportive grants that help working families how bad things could be. With oppressive employment laws and a to get by while they take the chance to study. government that was determined to support private education busiTo meet the demand of increased student enrolments in our tertinesses at the expense of public education we thought things were ary institutions, we need more teachers and other staff to support pretty terrible. them. They in turn need workloads that allow teachers to focus on Then, with the next decade, came a respite for New Zealanders and quality student learning. the arrival of an onslaught for Australians. I think many Kiwi unionists And importantly, both here and across your side of the Tasman, wanted to help but, to be honest, we didn’t really have the answers we all need public tertiary education systems that cooperate to help even after it had happened to us, and we were just relieved that ordinary working people get the education they need, rather we had a chance to catch our collective breath and than institutions competing to make a profit off sturebuild. dents and households struggling to survive And now the tables have turned the recession. This is not the time for again. Tertiary education folk here in our tertiary education institutions to NZ have looked on with envy, first at be battling over students, looking to the Bradley Review and then at the bilgrow profits, or privatising their investments. lions of dollars your Government promised It’s a time for us all to work together to give TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION struggling families a fair chance. to tertiary education last month. Sure, it was Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa tagged and targeted and didn’t really seem Dr Ryan is the National President Te Tumu to understand the nature of public education, Whakarae of the New Zealand Tertiary Educabut at least it was a bold and considered response tion Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa. He is to the global economic recession, a response that recognised that if also a senior lecturer in anthropology and labour studies at the UniAustralia is going to find its way out of this recession it must invest in, versity of Waikato. amongst other things, tertiary education. Investing in the future rather than cutting corners is the only way for Meanwhile our Government thinks it can weather the financial NZ to survive the global financial crisis. It is crucial that our response storm by suppressing wages, cutting tertiary education spending, as a country is to invest in learning and research to give our economy a and ignoring the thousands of ordinary working people who are chance to lift its way out of the threat of a long-term global economic looking to education as their chance to survive. Our Finance Minster crisis. TEU National Secretary Sharn Riggs recently said: recently proudly stated he’d rather put money into corrections than Tertiary education has the capacity, if well funded, to move people tertiary education – perhaps to let our young people know there will into new jobs and to move New Zealand’s economy in newly sustainbe space in prisons but not in education institutions. able directions. We can choose, like other strong economies and comSo we are looking around for some similar policy commitment by munities, to learn our way out of troubles that were not of our own leaders here in New Zealand that shows they understand that tertimaking. But we need to overcome the current underfunding, and we ary education is one of the best tools we have to combat the global need to do it now while we still have time. financial crisis. Or perhaps I should simply express that sentiment in We need to resist the temptation to cut public services, because ‘Australian’; Denise Bradley, where the bloody hell are you? investing strategically in public research and education will be one of For tertiary education to help people in need and respond effechis best tools for making sure that New Zealand is well positioned to tively to the economic crisis, we need to reach people who wouldn’t climb above global financial troubles. A otherwise get a chance at tertiary education. If we educate the same Dr Tom Ryan is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, people we have always educated, then nothing changes. The priority New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa must be growth of opportunity. TEU  www.teu.ac.nz JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

YOUR UNION

New NTEU staff N

thoroughly enjoyed and I definitely look forward to meeting all members’.

TEU is pleased to welcome five new staff members.

Kaylene Fields Branch Organiser, Macquarie University In 2008, Kaylene completed a Post graduate Business and Commerce degree. Labour regulation is her main area of interest and her research paper explored the impact of

Sarah Myles

WorkChoices legislation on women who are employed in the lower skilled retail industry in Greater Western Sydney. Kaylene was initially engaged with Unions NSW where she commenced an internship with NTEU and has transitioned into the role of Branch Organiser at Macquarie. Since commencing at Macquarie, Kaylene says she has ‘already had the opportunity to engage with a number of staff which I have

Branch Organiser, Monash University Sarah started in the union movement in Brisbane after completing her Journalism degree at James Cook University, Cairns. She went on to complete the ACTU traineeship Organising Works in 2008. Sarah moved to Melbourne in January 2009 to take up her role as Industrial Organiser at NTEU Monash Branch.

Recent Human Rights Actions by NTEU

TEU National Office regularly sends letters to foreign governments and companies in support of imprisoned or victimised educators and workers, upon the request of education and human rights organisations.

Iran Action request: Amnesty International

Chad

Addressee: Head of Judiciary of Tehran

Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: President Idriss Dbey Action: Letter requesting investigation into abduction of teacher Issa Palkoubou on 3 September 2008, and formal investigation.

Saudi Arabia Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud Action: Fear of torture and other illtreatment for Professors Dr Musa al-Qirni, Dr ‘Abel Rahman al-Shumayri, Dr Matrouk al-Faleh (and others) targeted because they had issued a petition calling for political reform and discussed the idea of establishing a human rights organisation and challenging the impunity enjoyed by the Ministry of Interior’s arresting authorities.

EGYPT CHAD

IRAN

SAUDI ARABIA

Action: Letter re arrest and detention of students affiliated with Students for Freedom and Equality on 1 March 2009: Sanaz Allahyari, Nasim Roshana’i, Maryam Sheikh, Amir Hossein, Mohammadi-Far.

For more information, please visit the organisations’ websites: Amnesty International  www.amnesty.org Education International  www.ei-ie.org

FIJI

Egypt

Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: Public Prosecutor, Counsellor Abdel Meguid Mahmoud Action: Letter re incommunicado detention of Dia’ el Din Gad’ (23 year old student blogger) who denounced President Mubarak’s policy re Gaza strip and authorities’ attitude re delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Fiji Action request: TEU (NZ) Addressee: Letter to Fijian authorities Action: Re dismissal of Mr Tevita Koroi (President, Fijian Teachers Association and Council of Pacific Education) from his position as Principal of Nasinu Secondary School. (See report, p.10)

NTEU ADVOCATE

YOUR UNION Monash is a busy and diverse Branch and Sarah was very proud to have participated in the recent strikes and continuing industrial action across all campuses. Continuing to build union density and culture of Monash will be a major focus for Sarah.

Andrea Sauvarin Executive Officer - President, National Office Andrea recently joined NTEU National Office, adding another branch to a varied career. After initially training and working as a Dental Therapist, Andrea worked for the Victorian Police and qualified as a Fingerprint Expert attending major crime scenes and the mortuary. Yes, she sees dead people! After a family break in her career, Andrea spent over seven years with the Transport and Logistic Industry Skills Council before joining the NTEU team. Andrea is currently undertaking a Graduate Diploma in Management.

Lesa de Leau

Rachel Liebhaber

Branch Organiser, University of Technology, Sydney

Industrial Support Officer, National Office

Lesa began as Branch Organiser at the UTS Branch in November 2008. She brings along political and campaigning experience, having worked for NSW Senator Kerry Nettle. Lesa is thoroughly enjoying working for the membership, recruiting new members and promoting the Union. In her spare time, Lesa is an elected Local Government Councillor on Rockdale City Council which is the area just south of Sydney Airport. She is passionate about community consultation, good governance and empowering people to make positive change.

Rachel majored in English Literature at Melbourne University, where she also represented students as a Student Union Welfare Officer in 2006. After graduating, she travelled to New York, where she worked for a not-for-profit feminist film organisation, Women Make Movies. Now back in her home town of Melbourne, she is excited to be working with the NTEU’s Industrial Unit on its national projects and campaigns, as well as tackling the growing corporatisation and casualisation of the higher-education sector.

Do you want to receive the Australian Universities’ Review, NTEU’s journal on higher education? NTEU members are entitled to a FREE subscription. Simply login to www.nteu.org.au and edit your Profile (in ‘Publications and Communication Preferences’), or email aur@nteu.org.au.

NTEU ONLINE MEMBERSHIP DATABASE Update your details: In order for NTEU to keep you in touch, it is important we have your latest details.

How to check your membership details or download your tax statement online

If any of the following points apply to you, please change your details online or contact us immediately.

MEMBERSHIP DETAILS Have you moved house recently? ÎÎ IF YOU HAVE NOMINATED YOUR HOME ADDRESS AS YOUR NTEU CONTACT ADDRESS, YOU MUST UPDATE IT.

Has your family name changed? Have your workplace details changed? Has your Dept/School had a name change or merged with another? Are you moving to a different institution? ÎÎ TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP FROM ONE INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER IS NOT AUTOMATIC.

Have your employment details changed? ÎÎ PLEASE NOTIFY US TO ENSURE YOU ARE PAYING THE CORRECT FEES.

For any of the above membership enquiries, please contact: Melinda Valsorda, Membership Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email mvalsorda@nteu.org.au

CREDIT CARD/DIRECT DEBIT PAYMENTS Have your credit card (ie expiry date) or direct debit account details changed? ÎÎ PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.

Are you leaving university employment? ÎÎ IF YOU ARE NO LONGER AN NTEU MEMBER, DEDUCTIONS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE NATIONAL OFFICE IS NOTIFIED.

For all credit card and direct debit enquiries, please contact: Alex Ghvaladze, Finance Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email aghvaladze@nteu.org.au

PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENTS Have your payroll deductions suddenly stopped without your authority?

1: Login to the ‘Members Area’ ID = Your NTEU membership number Password = Your surname in CAPITALS

ÎÎ CONTACT YOUR PAYROLL DEPT URGENTLY.

2: Go to ‘My Home’

Payroll deduction queries should be directed to your Branch or Division office.

3: Select ‘Your Profile’ 4: Select ‘View Details’ (to change personal details) or ‘Print Tax Statement’ (after 1 July)

Annual tax statement: Available for download after 1 July. Statements will not be posted out. JULY 2009 www.nteu.org.au

Contacting NTEU b. . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Office 1st Floor, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006

phone fax email website

PO Box 1323, South Melbourne, VIC 3205 b (03) 9254 1910

NT Division

WA Division PO Box 3114, Broadway LPO Nedlands, WA 6009 b (08) 6365 4188  (08) 9354 1629  waoffice@nteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au/wa

PO Box U371, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0815 b (08) 8946 7231  (08) 8927 9410  nteunt@iinet.net.au  www.nteu.org.au/bd/nt

 (03) 9254 1915  nteunat@nteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au

Queensland Division 27 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD 4101 b (07) 3846 2355  (07) 3846 5977  b.williams@qld.nteu.org.au  www.qld.nteu.org.au

SA Division Ground Floor, Palais Apartment Complex, 281 North Tce, Adelaide SA 5000 b (08) 8231 1472  (08) 8231 1479  admin@unisanteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au/bd/sa

NSW Division Level 1, 55 Holt St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 b (02) 9212 5433  (02) 9212 4090  nteunsw@nsw.nteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au/bd/nsw

Victorian Division

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

1st Floor, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006 b (03) 9254 1930  (03) 9254 1935  office@vic.nteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au/vic

Officers & Central Resources Unit Executive Officer – President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea Sauvarin Executive Officer – General Secretary. . . . . . . . . Anastasia Kotaidis IT Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Riley ICT System Administrator/Help Desk. . . . . . . . . . Tam Vuong National Indigenous Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam Frogley Administrative Officer – Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . Tracey Coster Administrative Officer – Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . Tim Rodrigo

Industrial Unit Industrial Unit Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah Roberts Senior Industrial Officer (Strategy & Policy). . . . Ken McAlpine Industrial Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Josh Cullinan, Robyn May Industrial Support Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Liebhaber

Policy & Research Unit Policy & Research Unit Coordinator.. . . . . . . . . . Paul Kniest Policy & Research Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terri MacDonald, Jen Tsen-Kwok

Recruitment & Training Unit Recruitment & Training Coordinator .. . . . . . . . . Eleanor Floyd National Organiser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Evans National Publications Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . Paul Clifton Membership Records Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melinda Valsorda Administrative Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie-Ann Veal

Finance Unit Finance Unit Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jenny Savage Finance Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanne Dunn, Jayne van Dalen, Gracia Ho, Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze, Joyce Wong

ACT Division G Block, Old Admin Area, McDonald Place, ANU, Acton, ACT 0200 b (02) 6125 2043 ANU/ADFA/ACU (02) 6201 5355 UCan  (02) 6125 8137  actdiv@nteu.org.au  www.nteu.org.au/bd/act

Tasmanian Division Private Bag 101, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001 b (03) 6226 7575  (03) 6226 2172  nteu.tas@utas.edu.au  www.nteu.org.au/bd/tasmania

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE National President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolyn Allport Vice-President (Academic). . . . . . . . . . . Gregory McCarthy SA Div Vice-President (General). . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo Hibbert UWS General Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary. . . . . . . . . Ted Murphy Executive Members Rachael Bahl ACT Div Lyn Bloom WA Div Margaret Botterill La Trobe James Doughney VU Ian Hunt Flinders Margaret Lee Qld Div Kelvin Michael Tas Div Kate Patrick RMIT

Susan Bandias NT Div Andrew Bonnell UQ Derek Corrigan ANU Gabrielle Gooding UWA Genevieve Kelly NSW Div Matthew McGowan Vic Div Len Palmer CSU Michael Thomson Sydney

Indigenous Executive Member. . . . . . . Terry Mason UWS

NTEU ADVOCATE

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION – MEMBERSHIP FORM

Surname

 parT Time

 Full Time

 conTinuing/permanenT  Fixed Term conTracT DATE OF ExPIRY

WHaT iS your employmenT caTegory?

WHaT iS your employmenT Term?

➔ uSe paymenT opTion 1, 2 or 3

hRS PER WK

F (03) 9254 1915

E www.nteu.org.au

T (03) 9254 1910

E national@nteu.org.au

NTEU National Office, Po Box 1323, South Melbourne VIc 3205

Please post or fax this form to NTEU National Office

Office use only: Membership no.

You may resign by written notice to the Division or Branch Secretary. Where you cease to be eligible to become a member, resignation shall take effect on the date the notice is received or on the day specified in your notice, whichever is later. In any other case, you must give at least two weeks notice. Members are required to pay dues and levies as set by the Union from time to time in accordance with NTEU rules. Further information on financial obligations, including a copy of the rules, is available from your Branch.

SignaTure

 general

 academic

WHaT iS your employmenT group?

➔ uSe paymenT opTion 4

rEcrUITEd BY:

‡associated bodies: NTEU (NSW); James Cook University Staff Association (Union of Employees) at James Cook University; University of Queensland Academic Staff Association (Union of Employees) at University of Queensland; Murdoch University Academic Staff Association at Murdoch University; Union of Australian College Academics (WA Branch) Industrial Union of Workers at Edith Cowan University & Curtin University; Curtin University Staff Association (Inc.) at Curtin University; Staff Association of Edith Cowan University (Inc.) at Edith Cowan University.

daTe

general STaFF caSual

SeSSional academic

MoNTH, If kNoWN

nexT incremenT due

mail/bldg code

PlEASE NOTE OUR SPECIAl RATES FOR CASUAl/SESSIONAl STAFF.

 

If kNoWN

E.g. lEcTB, HEW4

 oTHer:

annual Salary

claSSiFicaTion level STep/incremenT

daTe oF birTH

poSiTion

campuS

PlEASE USE MY hOME ADDRESS FOR All MAIlING

mobile pHone

poSTcode



 male  Female

depT/ScHool



yeS: aT WHicH inSTiTuTion?

given nameS

FaculTy

currenT inSTiTuTion/employer

Have you previouSly been an nTeu member?

 yeS

WorK pHone INclUdE arEa codE

are you an auSTralian aboriginal or TorreS STraiT iSlander?

email addreSS

Home pHone INclUdE arEa codE

Home addreSS

TiTle

The information on this form is needed for a number of areas of NTEU’s work and will be treated as confidential.

 I am currently a member and wish to update my details

I hereby apply for membership of NTEU, any Branch and any associated body‡ established at my workplace.

INSERT YOUR NAME

Councils and Committees. You will be notified, in writing, of any changes at least fourteen (14) days prior to their implementation. 3. For all matters relating to the Direct Debit arrangements, including deferments and alterations, you will need to send written correspondence to PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC 3205 and allow 10 days for the amendments to take effect. 4. You may stop any Debit item or cancel a DDR with NTEU at any time in writing. All correspondence is to be addressed to NTEU General Secretary, PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC

 $27.50  $55  $38.50  $77  $55  $110

annual fEE

Description of goods/services: NTEU Membership Dues. To: NTEU, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205

pay by cHeque, money order or crediT card

over $20,000

$10,001 – $20,000

$10,000 and under

EstimatEd salary rangE 6 month fEE

pleaSe deTermine your Fee amounT and TicK THe appropriaTe box:

daTe

— — — — daTe

SignaTure

expiry

amounT

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

card number

name on card

 viSa

all types of accounts; and account details should be checked against a recent statement from your financial institution. If uncertain, check with your ledger financial institution before completing the DDR. 8. NTEU does not use your financial records and account details for any purpose except the collection of union dues and the information is only available to a small number of NTEU employees. The details may be provided to your financial institution if a claim was made against that institution of an alleged incorrect or wrongful debit.

pay by cHeque, money order or crediT card

3205. 5. Should any dispute ever arise between you and the NTEU about your payments you should advise NTEU General Secretary in writing or by email in the first instance and, if necessary, NTEU will take advice from your financial institution. 6. It is your responsibility to have sufficient clear funds to meet the costs of payment under this Agreement. NTEU, however, does not have a policy of recovering any penalty fees from members if debit items are returned unpaid by the ledger financial institution. 7. Direct debiting through BECS is not available on

accounT number

 pleaSe accepT my cHeque/money order OR crediT card:  maSTercard

 OPTION 4: CASUAL/SESSIONAL STAFF RATES

direct debit request Service agreement: 1. This is an agreement between you and NTEU. 2. Under this Agreement, you arrange to have deducted from your account, on the 15th day in each calendar month (working day), the appropriate amount of dues and levies, payable under NTEU’s Rules, to NTEU (the debit user). If you are uncertain as to when the debit will be processed please contact NTEU on (03) 9254 1910. These arrangements will not change, although the amount may vary in accordance with decisions of your elected NTEU

SignaTure

bSb number

authorise the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) APCA User ID No.062604 to arrange for funds to be debited from my/our account at the financial institution identified below and in accordance with the terms described in the Direct Debit Request (DDR) Service Agreement.

daTe

I hereby authorise the Merchant to debit my Card account with the amount and at intervals specified above and in the event of any change in the charges for these goods/services to alter the amount from the appropriate date in accordance with such change. This authority shall stand, in respect of the above specified Card and in respect of any Card issued to me in expiry renewal or replacement thereof, until I notify the Merchant in writing of its cancellation. Standing Authority for Recurrent Periodic Payment — — — — by Credit Card.

proceSSed on THe 15TH oF THe monTH or FolloWing WorKing day

paymenT:  monTHly  quarTerly  HalF-yearly  annually* *5% diScounT For annual direcT debiT

accounT name

brancH name & addreSS

Financal inSTiTuTion

 OPTION 3: DIRECT DEBIT

IF KNOWN

or its duly authorised servants and agents to deduct from my salary by regular instalments, dues and levies (as determined from time to time by the Union), to NTEU or its authorised agents. All payments on my behalf and in accordance with this authority shall be deemed to daTe be payments by me personally. This authority shall remain in force until revoked by me in writing. I also consent to my employer supplying NTEU with updated information relating to my employment status.

STaFF payroll number

proceSSed on THe 16TH oF THe monTH or FolloWing WorKing day

———— ———— ———— ———— card Type:  maSTercard  viSa SignaTure paymenT:  monTHly  quarTerly  HalF-yearly  annually

card number

name on card

 OPTION 2: CREDIT CARD

SignaTure

Hereby auTHoriSe INSTITUTION

oF YOUR ADDRESS

.0 i INSERT YOUR NAME

 OPTION 1: PAYROLL DEDUCTION AUTHORITY

 I want to join NTEU

Fees for this branch = 1% of gross annual salary

Office use only: % of salary deducted

...and choose ONE of the following payment options

Please complete your personal details...

Get your super together There are many benefits of combining your super into UniSuper •

save on fees and charges

•

save on time, and

•

save on paperwork making your super easier to keep track of and better for the environment.

Just as important, UniSuper does not charge for accepting rollovers.

What do you need to do? Rolling your super into one account is easy: 1. download a Rollover form for each account you wish to roll into UniSuper 2. complete the form and send it to: UniSuper Level 37, 385 Bourke Street Melbourne Vic 3000 We will write to you once the money has been transferred into your account. It’s that easy.

Find out more

www.unisuper.com.au

enquiry@unisuper.com.au

1800 331 685

Issued by: UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799, AFSL No. 235907) on behalf of UniSuper Limited ABN 54 006 027 121 as the trustee of the UniSuper Fund (ABN 91 385 943 850). Before deciding whether to acquire or hold an interest in a UniSuper product, you should obtain the relevant product disclosure statement (available from UniSuper) and consider whether the product is appropriate for your personal circumstances, which have not been taken into account.