Advocate July 2010 by NTEU

Advocate Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union

ISSN 1321–8476

Volume 17, Number 2, July 2010

Representing Employees in Higher Education, TAFE, Adult Education, RACGP, Research Institutes and Universit y Companies

TAX GUIDE INSIDE

Bargaining highs & lows  Latest updates p.11

 Branches tell: How we got there p.12

My HE Revolution p.11

NTEU Elections p.37  Paid Parental Leave p.19  Private Providers behaving badly p.24  Greek tragedy p.30

Challenge us to find you a better deal. Union Shopper is all about ensuring members receive great value for money on whatever you are looking to buy.

At no cost to you, we help save time and money, without the hassles and headache. Be part of the savings and make the most of this valuable money saving service. Before you make another purchase, remember Union Shopper and challenge us to find you a better deal.

Participating brands include:

Big Savings for Union Members

www.discountnewcars.com.au/unions ACTU Member Connect in association with Discount New Cars have put together a package for union members that will give you tremendous benefits in cost savings when it comes to purchasing a new motor vehicle - in fact over and above what Discount New Cars currently offer to the general public. Discount New Cars Union Member Service is a unique car buying service, offering discounted prices on most popular makes and models of new cars for union members. Vehicles are supplied through a select group of accredited union dealers Australia wide. This Union Specials page is where you will find the best prices available on a selected range of new motor vehicles. The complete range of manufacture vehicles available to union members is found on the left hand side of the page. This exclusive member benefit proudly supports the union movement and is a strong supporter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

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 17, NUMBER 2, JULY 2010

Publisher......................................... Grahame McCulloch Editor............................................... Carolyn Allport Production....................................Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance.........................Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback and advertising................. advocate@nteu.org.au All text & images © NTEU 2010 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. Advocate is also available online (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

On the cover: Dwight Zakus from Griffith University standing up for respect at work. Photo: Bevan Bache SPECIAL FEATURES

FROM THE OFFICERS

New PM gives Government renewed focus

BARGAINING  11

Carolyn Allport, National President

General Secretary Candidate Statement Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

Over the past months more Branches have achieved final Agreements, but some universities are holding out for the ‘old days’.

Jeannie Rea, National President-elect Ted Murphy, National Assistant Secretary

UPDATE  6 7 8  9

ACTU highly commends La Trobe & UWS delegates SSAA Bargaining for first Agreement Equal Pay Day Rally; SA unionist faces jail Workplace rights for casuals VU loses Full Bench appeal Swinburne tackles academic workloads UWA mass meeting endorses preparations for action

POLICY  14

Indigenous Forum 2010 Ballot for action at Batchelor QCU honours Uncle Bob Anderson

COLUMNS 32

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE  19

Gold diggers and rent seekers

Missing out on the chance to learn

36 37 38  39 40

New NTEU staff NTEU Elections; New Queensland Division office opened Human rights actions by NTEU New NTEU website Updating your membership details Contacting your Union

General/PACCT Staff – Looking for better careers Improving career options for general staff in future NTEU Agreements.

POLITICS 23

Simon Crean takes over the Education Revolution Simon Crean returns to the portfolio he held 15 years ago.

PRIVATE PROVIDERS

Union fills the gap after management abandons staff La Trobe University acted with callousness towards staff in its sale of the International College to Navitas.

Private providers a cause for concern in the public sector Navitas is setting up shop at Newcastle, and members are alarmed.

Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Dr Tom Ryan, TEU

YOUR UNION

Opinions on PPL from the Minister and Shadow Minister

GENERAL STAFF  22

Teaching Union Membership 101 Regional Focus, by Jenny Austin

Is this long awaited baby a healthy bundle? Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme was finally delivered on 17 June 2010. We ask – is it ‘hale and healthy’?

eReading rEvolution

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

Government defends its record on research Senator Kim Carr says the Government stands on its record in university research.

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

 33

My Higher Education Revolution Assessing the Government’s performance on higher education and research policy

INDIGENOUS NEWS 10

How we got there Four NTEU Branches report on their roads to achieving new Agreements.

President Candidate Statement Higher education and unions in Fiji

University bargaining enters the home straight

RESEARCH  26

State of the Industry: Discussing the future of research

STUDENTS

Us vs Them: Strengthening the relationship between staff and student unions

INTERNATIONAL  30

Bleak prospects for universities in post-GFC Greece

FROM THE OFFICERS

CAROLYN ALLPORT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

New PM gives Government renewed focus I

n a surprising move generated by anxiety over low poll figures, the previous PM Kevin Rudd has been replaced by the Hon Julia Gillard. While some voters may have been surprised, it was a brave move in an attempt to re-invent the agenda and maintain government. The country embraced the new Prime Minister; keen to see a woman, who is often touted as one of the best parliamentary performers, advance to the top job. We now face a Federal election, sooner rather than later.

The Education portfolio has been picked up by the ALP veteran Simon Crean who has always been a hard-working MP. Minister Crean is well known to NTEU: we worked productively with him in 1993 on the Hoare Review over improvements to workforce reform, governance and accountability (see report, p. 23). Clearly there is much to do before the election is called and Ms Gillard is keen to maintain stability at the same time as introducing her own agenda, which includes moving away from Rudd’s ‘big Australia’.It is important in the definition of the Federal Government’s new agenda that programs focus on student participation and strengthen the university workforce through increasing opportunities for new researchers, especially postdoctoral staff, to join the academic workforce. As the noted demographer Graeme Hugo has consistently urged, workforce development should be systemic, especially given the sector-wide crisis that will occur without change. While work has been undertaken in the Department of Innovation, Science, Industry and Research (DIISR) on removing the structural impediments to meeting future demand through its Research Workforce Strategy, there is still no direct government funding program for workforce development within universities and TAFE. There remain significant questions around the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Initially it was envisioned that TEQSA would be fully operable in 2010 and it would have responsibility for quality and standards, thus subsuming the Australian Quality Assurance Agency (AUQA). In addition, TEQSA would have had important tasks such as accrediting new providers, evaluating performance of institutions, encouraging best practice and thus providing national consistency. However, there are likely to be delays in the initial timing of the roll-out as was indicated by the latest discussions with the Government and the Quality Agency itself. What does an uncapped student demand mean for the university workforce? From a social justice perspective, it is crucial to provide opportunities for more Australians to be able to participate in post-secondary and higher education. In order that this is sustainable, there should also be a systemic increase in resources which will enable those seeking a ‘new start’ in education. As many of us understand, it is particularly important to ensure that funding is available to ensure increased staff numbers and staff development in order that low SES students can take advantage of opportunities to improve their educational qualifications. In terms of our own working lives, career choices are made according to issues deeper than relative income. We are are motivated by employment stability, professional autonomy and chances to broaden 2

their academic career through collaborating with colleagues domestically and internationally. However, we should remember that many colleagues do not have the same degree of working stability, working on contracts based on hourly pay rates, working across a number of institutions with little career development opportunities. This must change if we are to sustain our academic workforce. Work is being undertaken within Government departments, beginning with the Research Workforce Strategy from the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research (DIISR). There has also been a somewhat belated start in the Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) with the commissioning of the studies ‘The Work Roles and Attitudes of Academics in Australian Universities’ and ‘The Career Pathways and Teacher Training of Higher Degree by Research (HDR) Students.’ Graeme Hugo’s 2010 report, ‘Investigating the Ageing Academic Workforce’ claims existing data lacks the granularity to lead to discipline or professional program-based people planning. It also suggests there is a deficiency of research on workforce planning and development studies. Hugo has argued Engineering is the only profession where the supply of academics has been assessed, though Health and Education sectors are aware of ageing workforce problems, and Accounting is undertaking a survey in 2010. Importantly, Hugo calls for a detailed analysis of workforce planning and development strategies at three universities, as well as a separate study on the attraction of mid career professional practitioners into academia. He concludes that national intervention is necessary. Recently the Research Workforce Taskforce convened by DIISR released the ‘Meeting Australia’s Research Workforce Needs’ Consultation Paper. The Consultation Paper is a culmination of DIISR’s consultation and engagement with the sector, especially in the early part of 2010 when roundtables with researchers were conducted, and responses to the paper will be critical in formulating the Federal Government’s research workforce strategy over the next decade. NTEU is confident these are signs that the Federal Government understands the scale of our concerns, and that the Education Revolution will lead to workforce investment at a transformational scale.

Au revoir! This is my last Advocate column. I thank all NTEU members and Union staff for their support over the 16 years that I have worked as the President and will hand over the baton to our President-elect, Jeannie Rea from Victoria University. NTEU ADVOCATE

FROM THE OFFICERS

GRAHAME Mcculloch, general secretary

General Secretary Candidate Statement A

t the close of nominations for NTEU elections on Wednesday 16 June, I was the only nomination for the position of General Secretary. The column on this page is my Candidate Statement, which was to be circulated with ballot papers to eligible voters in the event of a contested election.

Continuity and renewal As your General Secretary I have provided strong national leadership since 1993 and continue to have energy and enthusiasm for the challenges ahead. While NTEU has a proud record on bargaining, professional issues and social justice, our visibility as a national advocate on public policy has declined in recent years, and we have struggled to sustain membership growth. A national leadership team which blends my experience with new ideas and perspectives will help build on our successes and deal with our weaknesses. I am therefore seeking re-election as part of a new team with Jeannie Rea (candidate for President), Jeannie Rea has been elected as National President – see column on p. 4 (Editor’s note).

Public policy For twenty-five years, Governments have pursued market based tertiary education policies. Deep divisions have emerged within and between universities and colleges with adverse consequences for regional/outer-metropolitan institutions and less ‘marketable’ disciplines. These trends are continuing under Labor. Julia Gillard has increased public investment (including grant indexation from 2012) but other decisions – the new demand based student enrolment system, the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative and intrusive performance indicators – have the potential to create sharper separation of teaching and research activities and a narrowing of the discipline base of institutions. Labor’s decision to establish increased participation targets is welcome but the scale of its increased public investment is insufficient and declining as a proportion of Government outlays and GDP. NTEU should be more critical of Labor policies, and a new leadership team needs to be more active and vocal in the public policy arena.

Strategic industrial leadership Working conditions have been under pressure as a result of the wider higher education policy environment and successive changes to industrial legislation. Despite adverse circumstances, NTEU has made impressive gains under the Coalition’s hostile WorkChoices/HEWRRs regime and Labor’s improved but nonetheless inadequate Fair Work Act. Our national industrial strategy has protected working conditions which would otherwise have been eroded by market forces. JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

In combination with the efforts of members at Branch and Division level, my strategic leadership has helped achieve: • Competitive Salaries which have increased by 45% (2003-2012) well ahead of others (e.g. CSIRO, teachers, public servants) and inflation. This is the best result in thirty years. • High quality Collective Agreements which include safeguarding the 17% employer superannuation contribution, better general staff reclassification opportunities, peer review and committee processes, groundbreaking parental leave (26-36 weeks paid leave), academic and general staff workload caps, restrictions on the use of contracts, improved casual staff incomes and job security, limits on management prerogative and guaranteed Indigenous employment targets. I support a tough minded approach to negotiation. I will not hesitate to recommend industrial action when needed but will also offer cautionary counsel when required. The weight and impact of industrial action should not be diminished by overuse, but nor should the Union be squeamish when the chips are down.

An international voice Higher education is global with world mobility of staff and students. OECD, World Bank and WTO policies shape the evolution of national university systems. As the only higher education member of the World Executive Board of Education International, I lead a growing international network of national tertiary education unions.

Public voice for social justice I will continue to actively support Indigenous rights in higher education and more generally, and to promote human and trade union rights and academic freedom nationally and internationally.

Vocational education and training Our VET membership has been neglected and I will give priority to remedying this. We need a better approach to Collective Bargaining, better Branch structures and a critical engagement with the burgeoning delivery of degree programs by public and private VET colleges. For more information on NTEU elections, see report on p. 37

FROM THE OFFICERS

JEANNIE REA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT-ELECT

President’s Candidate Statement A

t the close of nominations for NTEU elections on Wednesday 16 June, I was the only nomination for the position of National President The column on this page is my Candidate Statement, which was to be circulated with ballot papers to eligible voters in the event of a contested election.

The NTEU has an impressive industrial and professional record, as well as demonstrated commitment to human rights and social justice in Australia and internationally. This is why I am a proud NTEU member and why I am standing for National President. I have joined with Grahame McCulloch (candidate for National General Secretary) in a team that offers continuity and renewal. I can offer experience at every level of the Union, starting from when I joined Victoria University (VU) in 1991: • VU Branch President • Victorian Division President • National Executive member • National Councillor • National Education Committee member. I have actively participated in Women’s Conferences, Enterprise Bargaining Conferences and Indigenous Forums; initiated new policy (e.g. environmental); and supported higher education union capacity building in the Asia Pacific region. My academic teaching and research is in social change. I work across gender, cross cultural, environment and labour studies, strategic communication and public advocacy. Before joining VU, I was a TAFE teacher, then communications coordinator for the Technical Teachers Union. In recent years I have also worked closely with general staff colleagues as Head of School and, currently, as Deputy Dean. I continue to teach, write and coordinate courses; participate in professional associations, management and governance bodies; and find time for research. I have extensive experience in policy development, public communication, negotiation and advocacy.

A new era We are embarking upon a new era in tertiary education. There is renewed hope that the rhetoric around the critical role of education in building a fairer, smarter and better world may be realised, but there are also doubts that the new directions are sufficiently different from the old. We can expect big changes in our universities, research institutes, TAFE colleges and other post-secondary education institutions with the massification and consolidation of the tertiary sector. But we are still stuck with governments that want to do it on the cheap. The NTEU is committed to greater and fairer access to tertiary education. We are one of the few voices arguing for democratic processes and more resources. Change should not mean teaching 4

and researching more with fewer resources and a forensic level of surveillance. Compliance reporting requirements are draining our lifeblood. We are trying to maintain and improve quality in our classrooms, our services and our research projects, while spending precious time reporting through various metrics of dubious value and validity. Our collective resilience is demonstrated in the achievements of our Union. These advances have become so much part of the system that we can forget they were won by us – not handed over by management and government. The NTEU set the benchmark on parental leave, Indigenous industrial and educational rights, intellectual freedom, job security and career structures, and we survived the Howard Government’s HEWRRs/WorkChoices attacks. We can further improve our industrial rights – and use our industrial agreements to make fair and just workplaces to enable quality education and research for students and the broader community. My focus includes: • Ensuring our Union’s leadership and membership are responsive to changes in tertiary education, including generational change. • Continuing our groundbreaking work with Indigenous and women members. • Valuing research-informed teaching. • Prioritising career development for general staff. • Articulating and strengthening our political influence with all stakeholders in tertiary education, including governments. We must be a critical and visible participant. Coming from the ‘shopfloor’, I understand the need to reduce the workload pressures upon academics and general staff; and the need for job security and fair reward for every member of the NTEU.

Election for National Assistant Secretary Elections are underway for positions right across the Union – at National, Division and Branch levels. The position of National Assistant Secretary is being contested between Matt McGowan and Len Palmer. All eligible NTEU members should receive a ballot in early August.

See article on p. 37 for full details NTEU ADVOCATE

FROM THE OFFICERS

ted murphy, national assistant secretary

Higher education and unions in Fiji F

or many years, the NTEU has had a close relationship with the Association of University of South Pacific Staff (AUSPS), the Union which represents academics and senior professional and administrative staff at the main USP campus in Suva and the other Fiji campuses of the University. At one stage the NTEU and the then Association of University Staff of New Zealand, following consultation with AUSPS, advised their members against applying for positions at the USP due to academic freedom issues in the wake of a military coup. In April this year, with another military regime in power, I travelled to Suva – with Ken McAlpine, NTEU Senior Industrial Officer; Tom Ryan, President of NZ’s Tertiary Education Union (TEU); and Nanette Cormack, TEU Deputy Secretary – to meet with AUSPS about collective bargaining and other matters.

In addition to its Fiji campuses, the USP has a significant campus in Vanuatu, and smaller campuses or centres in Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Nauru, Cook Islands, Niue, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands. While USP is one institution, South Pacific island states represented on the Council of the University have their own industrial relations systems. To date this has not been a problem because there is no counterpart to AUSPS and the other two unions at the Fiji campuses at any of the campuses in other countries. However, AUSPS believes there is still some prospect of an association being formed at a USP campus outside Fiji. USP staff in Fiji are employed under a university staff ordinance rather than a collective agreement, a situation that AUSPS wants to change. The visit by NTEU and TEU officials was organised primarily for the purpose of a two day seminar at USP about Australian and New Zealand experience in collective bargaining and similarities and differences in the conditions of university staff in the three countries. AUSPS’s elected officers undertake their union roles on top of their normal workload as USP staff, without the assistance of a paid Industrial Officer. Arising out of the seminar, NTEU is providing ongoing advice to AUSP on collective bargaining claims and issues. The visit to Fiji also enabled NTEU and TEU to gain a better understanding of the changes in the higher education system in that country. USP was for many years the only university in Fiji, then for several years a campus of Central Queensland University offered programs in Suva. With the closure of the CQU campus, USP regained its status as the only university until a private Indian foundation established a small institution called the University of Fiji. A third and much larger institution, the Fiji National University, was established last year when the Government of Fiji amalgamated the Institute of Technology, the College of Advanced Education, the School of Nursing, the School of Medicine, the College of Agriculture and the Lautoka Teachers College. This dual sector university commenced operations at the start of this year It is questionable whether Fiji can sustain three universities in the long term. There is also concern about whether over time Fiji, which contributes ten times more funding to USP than any other South Pacific Island state, will give greater priority in allocating higher education funding to the National University of Fiji over the multinational USP. One consequence of the amalgamation is that there are now sevJULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

eral unions in the university sector. At the University of Fiji there is a registered union covering academic and general staff. At USP there are three unions: AUSPS, a union representing white collar general staff below the senior grades, and a Trades and Grounds staff union. At the new National University the largest unions are Fiji’s two teacher unions, but there are also members of the civil service association, the nurses union and other unions and associations representing staff from the former Colleges of Agriculture and Medicine. The two teacher unions have already negotiated an interim Collective Agreement at the National University. Fiji has two peak union councils, reflecting differences between Indigenous Fijians and Fijians of Indian descent over previous coups and the policies of different governments. However, there is greater cooperation among the teachers and other key unions regardless of peak council affiliation. This is due to the impact of the cycle of coups in the country, the problems this has caused or exacerbated, and the policies and practices of the current Government, such as rule by degree, media censorship, monitoring union activity, and the requirement for a government permit for meetings to be held. This requirement applies regardless of whether the meeting participants are union representatives or Methodist ministers. During the visit of NTEU and TEU representatives, the media reported that some of the Methodist ministers, already charged with meeting without a permit, would also be charged with conspiracy to disobey Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

Final column This is my last column for The Advocate as I am not standing again for the position of National Assistant Secretary. Although most of my work has been focused on industrial and superannuation matters, I have covered in my columns a wide range of issues including Government and Opposition policies, the potential impact of free trade agreements on tertiary education, conditions at the offshore campuses of Australian universities, and the problems facing university staff and unions in East Asia and the South Pacific. NTEU is the strongest and most well resourced tertiary education union in the region and with that comes obligations, which I am confident will continue to be discharged in the future. 5

UPDATE NATIONAL

ACTU honours NTEU activists at La Trobe and UWS

TEU activists at La Trobe University and the University of Western Sydney (UWS) have been honoured by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) during its 2010 Organising Conference in April.

Rhonda Small and Sean Slavin Professor Rhonda Small and Dr Sean Slavin have been highly commended in the ACTU Delegate of the Year awards. They were nominated by NTEU for their work to promote better job security and working conditions for grant funded research staff both within La Trobe University and as part of a national bargaining campaign coordinated by the Union. Rhonda and Sean wrote a paper ‘Better Support for Better Research’ which was framed within the University strategic and operational plans. It drew upon case studies of members who had been on rolling fixed term contracts for years and even decades. They spoke at a bargaining forum on research issues with 20 senior managers, produced a video for public distribution, published an article in The Advocate and brought their colleagues to the campaign and the Union. Rhonda led the NTEU team in the final three months of negotiations on the La Trobe University Collective Agreement 2009. La Trobe University is now leading the way in the higher education sector on better job security for contract research staff, with a new form of ongoing employment enshrined in the Collective Agreement that over time will cover hundreds of research staff members. 6

Serena O’Meley, Dr Sean Slavin, Linda Gale, Professor Rhonda Small were part of the NTEU La Trobe Branch bargaining team with Margaret Botterill and Dr Graeme Byrne (not pictured). Photo: Michael Evans

Terry Mason Chair of the NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) and University of Western Sydney (UWS) Branch President, Terry Mason, received the 2010 ACTU Award for his outstanding individual contribution to the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in the labour movement. NTEU proudly congratulates Rhonda, Sean and Terry on their awards, and thanks all activists, elected officers and delegates for the hard work they undertake for their colleagues and the Union. Serena O’Meley, NTEU La Trobe Branch Industrial Organiser & Michael Evans, National Organiser Below: Terry Mason. Photo: Atosha McCaw

VICTORIA

SSAA bargaining for 1st Agreement

TEU members have commenced negotiations at Swinburne Staff Amenities Association (SSAA) seeking their first Enterprise Agreement.

Currently the 20 staff of SSAA are the only staff at Swinburne not covered by the Union Collective Agreement and staff are campaigning for the same conditions as University Staff. Unfortunately, management has refused to move on providing University conditions to SSAA staff, citing cost as the main impediment to raising the workplace conditions to those of their University colleagues. NTEU members will be preparing an education campaign shortly to ensure the broader University community is aware of their plight and their simple claim for fair and just conditions. NTEU members can send messages of support to the Swinburne Branch at swinburne@nteu.org.au. A

NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE NEW SOUTH WALES

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Rally in support of Equal Pay

Unionist faces jail

he Equal Pay Day of Action held on 10 June in Lismore was the biggest National Action for Equal Pay recorded since the 1970s. It was definitely energising to see NSW members participate in support of the history making Equal Pay Case to address lower pay among female-dominated community sector workers.

NTEU members from the Sydney metro, Wollongong and Newcastle campuses gathered at Town Hall with an estimated 3,000 fellow supporters. In Lismore, a colourful and determined crowd of 250 workers, including the Samba Blissta drummers, Federal Member for Page, Janelle Saffin and City of Lismore Mayor, Jenny Dowell, were led by local drag act ‘Julia Gillard’ from the Lismore Workers’ Club to the Town Hall. In 2010, unions led by the Australian Services Union (ASU) and supported by the ACTU and the Federal Government are lodging a test case in Fair Work Australia (FWA) using the new Equal Remuneration laws embedded in the Fair Work Act. The ‘Julia Gillard’ with NTEU SCU member Tanya Lienert at the case will impact the working lives of Lismore Equal Pay Day Rally. Photo: Tony Davies about 200,000 community workers. The case will be heard by a Full Bench of The success of the ASU campaign and FWA in August 2010. We encourage NTEU scope of the test case – demonstrated to members to continue to show support and have the support of all union affiliates – has say ‘No More Lip Service to Equal Pay’. A been embraced by a broad range commuPay Up c www.payup.org.au nity members and supporters, both men FWA c www.fwa.gov.au/equalremuneration and women, highlighting that equal pay is a matter all Australians want to see won.

VICTORIA

Workplace rights for casuals

winburne Branch members have commenced campaigns to enforce the workplace rights for casual staff. Recently significant underpayments have surfaced in two different faculties. In the Faculty of Business and Enterprise, the

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

University has slashed pay for some sessional staff teaching Post Graduate subjects by up to 50%. In another faculty, the University has paid tutors for classes of over an hour the other academic duties rate for all subsequent hours. While small wins have occurred for members on part of these disputes, very significant claims still exist and NTEU is currently assessing its options in relation to enforcing the Union Collective Agreement. NTEU membership amongst casual academic staff at Swinburne has tripled since February. A

rk Tribe is a South Australian construction worker who faces a 6 month jail term for not attending an Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) interrogation.

Ark attended an unauthorised safety meeting on site at Flinders University in May 2008. The safety issue was identified by a Safework Inspector and was attended to on the day. Ark was subsequently summoned to attend a secret meeting of the ABCC and refused. This resulted in the ABCC initiating proceedings against him. In 2005, the Howard Government established the ABCC in an attempt to undermine the role of unions in the building industry. The ABCC has the insidious power to compel individuals (workers or members of the public passing by) to attend secret interrogations, with capacity for extreme and harsh repercussions for those who choose not to attend or ‘fully participate’. In the same year the Higher Education Workplace Relations Regulations (HEWRRs) came into being for the higher education sector. Whilst the Coalition’s attack on the building and construction industry moved beyond the powers inherent in the HEWRRs, the underpinning ideological aim was the same: disempowerment of the unions. Each piece of legislation was condemned by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The implementation of both sets of legislation has seen negative changes to the stability and conditions of employment. Neither piece of legislation was designed to in any way benefit workers. Labor abolished HEWRRs in August 2008 but, despite promises, has yet to do the same to the ABCC. Unions across the country have united to support Ark and campaign for repeal of legislation that treats workers in the construction industry differently from all other workers. The case continues on 20–22 July. A

UPDATE VICTORIA

VICTORIA

VU Management lose Full Bench appeal: ‘no changes’ means no changes

Swinburne tackles workloads

long-running dispute at Victoria University (VU) over the Academic Workloads Model has finally been resolved in favour of the NTEU. A Full Bench decision from Fair Work Australia (FWA) on 18 June comprehensively dismissed the University management’s appeal against an earlier decision by FWA which directed the University to apply the Workloads Model it signed up to in its Enterprise Agreement.

The dispute arose because, after putting an Agreement to a ballot of staff in 2009 which said there would be no changes to the Academic Workloads Model without agreement with the NTEU, the University then unilaterally changed the model in the weeks before FWA approved the new Agreement, and continued to implement those changes after the new Agreement came into force. The changes increased workload allocations by reducing the number of workload points that were attributable to particular duties, without reducing the work involved in performing those duties.

VU’s special subject: the bleedin’ obvious In the tribunal, VU management employed a phalanx of lawyers to run several ‘courageous’ arguments. First, they said that the commitment to make no changes only applied when the Agreement came into force in 2010, not when it was put to staff in 2009. Then they argued that the commitment to no changes really meant that there would be no ‘architectural’ changes to the Model, but management could do whatever they liked to points allocation. Their third argument was that if changes were made using the Model’s internal change mechanism, they were not really changes. Then they argued that workload allocation points were not part to the Workloads Model at all. Lastly, they argued that even if the Union was correct about what the Agreement means, the Tribunal shouldn’t do anything about it because (a) all workload allocations for 2010 were made in January and couldn’t 8

now be varied without huge expense and inconvenience; and (by) requiring them to compensate staff in second semester workload allocation for first semester overload was somehow retrospective legislation.

All arguments rejected The FWA Full Bench comprehensively dismissed all management’s arguments: We have no doubt a reasonable person in the position of an employee considering whether to vote to approve the 2009 Agreement would have understood that ‘no change’ to the Model meant that the allocation of points for particular duties would not change; that is, that the employee, by approving the agreement, would not be exposed to the possibility of an increased workload on account of a further change to the Model. ([2010] FWAFB 4195 at [43]) and … we are satisfied that the intention of the framers of clause 47.3.2, ascertained objectively, and bearing in mind that they are likely to have been people of a practical bent of mind, was that there would be no change to the ‘existing model’, including via the Change Mechanism, other than by agreement with the NTEU. (at [43]) and A reasonable employee would not contemplate, in the particular matrix of facts in this case, that retention of the existing model without change could involve a change to the points allocated for particular duties or activities or combinations of duties and/or activities. (at [44]) and A ‘change to the existing model’ is a change to the Model however that change arises. (at [46])

TEU is conducting forums in all faculties at Swinburne University to explain the enhanced member rights in relation to workloads and to engage members in the negotiation of new workload models.

Under the new Union Collective Agreement at Swinburne, workload models must now be negotiated with all academic staff and where agreement is not reached, Fair Work Australia is empowered to resolve the outstanding matters. Workload models at Swinburne can be heavily teaching focused with 15 contact hour starting points and very little reduction for teaching responsibilities. In some faculties cash payments are made to Academic staff who publish in high ranked journals. NTEU members at Swinburne are campaigning to establish a common minimum set of workload model arrangements which encourage early career academics and provide real opportunities for research. A

The Full Bench upheld the original decision as ‘the correct conclusion for substantially the correct reasons’ (at [54]). Now, seven months after they voted on an Agreement guaranteeing no changes to their workloads model, NTEU members at VU expect management to finally deliver on that Agreement. A Linda Gale, Senior Industrial Officer NTEU Vic Division Full FWA decision c www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/ html/2010fwafb4195.htm NTEU ADVOCATE

UPDATE WESTERN AUSTRALIA

UWA mass meeting endorses preparations for industrial action

TEU University of Western Australia (UWA) Branch held a standing room only mass meeting on 1 June 2010 which gave unanimous support for a motion that authorises the Branch Committee to begin preparations for a secret ballot to take protected industrial action in second semester of this year.

At that meeting, the bargaining update focused attention on the lack of respect by the UWA Executive toward staff by withholding commitments toward a range of matters. The major problems in negotiations that were aired prior to voting on the motion were identified as academic workloads, justice for General Staff, improvements in salaries and conditions for casual staff, fair and reasonable salary increases, and no job losses during the life of the Agreement. Academic workloads: The absence of any limits or prescription in our current Agreement allows for abuse by management in the determination of academic workloads. The University is resisting a defined percentage normal allocation of teaching and research to academic staff and are also strongly opposed to annualised hours. Justice for General Staff: This a fundamental equity issue. Currently there are no clauses in our general staff Agreement to

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

safeguard fair process for allegations of general staff misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. While such procedures are contained in University policy; policy can be unilaterally changed by the employer. Every other Go8 university, and almost every other university in the country, has clauses in their Agreements allowing for transparent and enforceable procedures. Improvements to salaries & conditions for casual staff: Casual staff are some of the most vulnerable and exploited employees in the system. University management keep saying that it is not their preferred position to employ casuals but continue to put up barriers to, and argue against, prescribed limitations on the use of casuals. Fair and reasonable salary increases: The University can afford fair and reasonable salary increases. Its offer is 3% (September 2010), 3% (September 2011), 4% (September

2012). NTEU’s revised claim is 5% (2010), 5% (2011), 6% (2012). No job losses: The Union’s claim is no job losses during the life of the Agreement and back filling of all positions lost as a consequence of natural attrition.

Scope to shed 330 jobs During the last round of negotiations, NTEU accepted modest salary increases with the understanding that wage restraint would limit further job losses. The University argue that there has been an increase in jobs in real terms and that they will only apply a no net job loss clause based on 2004 staffing levels. They claim they need flexibility in case their circumstances change. Use of the 2004 job numbers gives them the scope to shed over 330 positions (that is more than 350 real people – colleagues and friends).

Coming action Over the coming weeks and months leading up to second semester, members will be advised of the outcome of our continued bargaining and will be encouraged to participate in activities around raising awareness to the complete lack of respect and recognition shown to all staff by the University Executive. A

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Indigenous Coordinator, Adam Frogley. Photo: Atosha McCaw

Indigenous Forum 2010 T

he annual NTEU Indigenous Forum was held on 8–9 May in Melbourne. A total of 53 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members, Elected Officers and NTEU staff attended the two-day meeting and training workshops.

The Forum was deemed to be a success, with many Indigenous members providing positive feedback. Forum 2010 had a particular focus on improving Indigenous employment and seeking a greater participation for Indigenous researchers in the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) model. Participants discussed the following relevant issues: • Setting the Scene: Our Stories – Indigenous Policy Committee members. • International perspectives: Māori Guests • How will the ERA affect Indigenous Research? • Where’s the Money Gone? – NTEU Federal Budget submission. • The future of Indigenous Employment in the higher education sector and review of the NTEU National Indigenous Claim. • Get involved – Get elected! • Bring the Mob Together: Building Local Campaigns. • Know your Agreement; Know your Rights. • Respect at Work. A wide range of viewpoints and perspectives were raised for discussion during Indig-

enous Forum, with all participants engaged in thoughtful and meaningful debate. The consensus from participants, was the work being undertaken by NTEU in the areas of Indigenous education, employment and social justice are vital and should be pursued into the future.

Thanking Carolyn Allport Participants were advised that this Indigenous Forum would be the final time Dr Carolyn Allport would attend in her capacity as National President. Forum participants were united in their thanks for and appreciation of the many years of work Carolyn has undertaken to ensure better employment outcomes and conditions as well as her strident, long-term advocacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It is expected that the 15th Indigenous Forum will be conducted in May 2011. A Adam Frogley, Indigenous Coordinator

QCU honours Uncle Bob Anderson

n June, a group of NTEU Queenslanders attended celebrations at the Queensland Council of Unions (QCU) to honour a local legend, Dr Robert (Uncle Bob) Anderson.

Uncle Bob Anderson (centre) with (left to right) Victor Hart (QUT), John Graham, Marcus Walters and Chris Matthews (all from Griffith) and Aunty Penny Tripcony (retired QUT member).

QCU honoured Uncle Bob for not just his long and outstanding service to the union movement, but also to offer respect to him as a beloved Indigenous activist. To ensure his legacy continues, QCU has instigated

the Uncle Bob Anderson Award which will be given to the outstanding Indigenous union activist each year during NAIDOC week celebrations. A Barbara Williams, Queensland Division Organiser

Ballot for action at Batchelor

TEU NT Division will conduct a protected action ballot in relation to the slow progress of bargaining at the Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Tertiary Education (BIITE).

This is following the successful obtaining of orders from Fair Work Australia (FWA) on 23 June. In granting the orders, Commissioner Hampton recognised the difficult circumstances surrounding bargaining at BIITE over the last 18 months. He encouraged the parties to work together in a cooperative and productive way over the next few weeks with a view to reaching agreement, and offered his assistance if required. A representative from BIITE appeared at the hearing but did not oppose the application. The representative indicated that the Institute would deliver an administrative pay increase in early July of around 4%. NTEU will meet with BIITE representatives in the week commencing 28 July for a detailed review of the financial situation, and to set the agenda and timetable for future negotiations and discussions. A David May, NT Industrial Organiser

NTEU ADVOCATE

UNIVERSITY BARGAINING

Photo: Jess Cronin

University bargaining enters the home straight

TEU Enterprise Bargaining in universities is now heading into the ‘home straight’. More than half of Australia’s universities now have finalised Agreements, and many others are close.

Agreements have recently approved by the NTEU at the following institutions: Curtin University (Academic Staff): After many months of tough bargaining, and some industrial action, agreement has finally been reached on an Academic Agreement, with a General Staff Agreement expected in a few weeks. Murdoch University (Academic & General Staff): NTEU members have resisted a hard-line management bargaining agenda over many months, with pay increases ranging from 17–25%. University of Tasmania (Academic Staff): Another long campaign has achieved a 16% pay rise by June 2012. The Branch is now trying to complete negotiations to ensure that general staff have an Agreement as soon as possible. Southern Cross University (All-Staff): Negotiations have concluded with a 16% pay increase by June 2012 (20% by June 2013). University of Southern Queensland: A 16% pay rise by 2012 has been achieved by the Union’s local Branch (21% by June 2013). Agreements have now been approved by the NTEU at twenty-three Universities, though at some of these agreements were originally for one year, with follow-up agreements still to be negotiated at UWA and Victoria University (VU).

Delivering on key outcomes All of the Union’s Agreements have delivered on key outcomes for members including: • Restoration of the restrictions on fixed term employment lost under the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs). JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

• Separate pay for all casual marking, and an increase in the casual loading. • Restoration of the Union’s representative role. • Commitment to Indigenous employment targets. • Enforceable classification standards for general staff. • Enforceable regulation of academic workloads.

Some universities defying industrial gravity As The Advocate was going to press, bans on student assessment results were in place at VU and the University of New South Wales (UNSW). At VU, where an ‘interim’ Enterprise Agreement expired in February, the University has resisted recommencing serious negotiations for three months, and is now saying there should be no increase in pay at all in 2010. Meanwhile, at UNSW management was trying to keep the HEWRRs and the Coalition’s WorkChoices alive by refusing to restore the conditions of employment which have been recovered elsewhere across the sector. The patience of staff has finally run out, and bans were being widely supported by members. A Ken McAlpine, Senior Industrial Officer

Pages 12 & 13: Four NTEU Branches relate their long, arduous paths to achieving final Agreements.

UNIVERSITy bargaining

Murdoch: A strong union supports the long road in bargaining Janice Dudley Branch President Murdoch University

Melbourne: Bargaining tied up with economic program Melanie Lazarow Branch Secretary University of Melbourne

t’s been more than two years since Murdoch started the Bargaining process… and some of us can just drag up from our memory banks the small group workplace meetings and the process of surveying members we went through to establish our members’ priorities before we embarked upon Bargaining.

The Bargaining negotiations were long, protracted, intense and, on occasion, robust and difficult. However, the Murdoch Bargaining team – Marian Kemp, Christina Ballantyne, Janice Dudley, Sharon Delmege, Walter Bloom, Judy McCulloch and Lyn Bloom – achieved Agreements that: • Incorporate salary increases that ensure that Murdoch staff are no longer the lowest paid in WA. • Ensure NTEU representation on Unsatisfactory Performance and Misconduct

he University of Melbourne is one of the richest universities in the country, yet it went on the offensive in bargaining claiming great losses on the stock market and a need to cut staff. Members should not have to pay for any investment portfolio errors or for the lack of public university funding.

Every Collective Agreement has its own trajectory but a good outcome needs staff engagement. The pathway was difficult. While bargaining, members also campaigned to prevent involuntary redundancies and had to make connections between the need for a good Agreement and the fight against the economic program. The clauses in the new Agreement about workload regulation will have to be stringently implemented because over twohundred positions were lost. Academic

Review Panels. • Improve the pay and conditions for casual academic staff. • Ensure the regulation of fixed term contracts. The Agreements could not have been accomplished without the strong and unwavering support of NTEU members for their Bargaining Team. It was their commitment, their determination and their unwavering resolve which made the difference. The high level of support for industrial action, particularly the withholding of results at the end of Semester 2 in 2009, was truly remarkable and proved that collective action can achieve real gains. A union is only as strong as the support of its members – and the support of the Murdoch Branch members demonstrates that the NTEU is strong. A

workloads are now capped in the new Agreement at 1,725 hours per annum. Indigenous members are now entitled to 5 days cultural/ceremonial leave and a committee to regulate numbers includes equal NTEU representation. Research and contract staff have improved conditions. Final agreement took nine industrial actions, including stop-work actions, strikes, and most effectively examination bans leading to a Heads of Agreement last December. Fair Work Australia ratified our Agreement last week giving all staff a good lumpsum back pay. The 2010 Collective Agreement will also review the performance development framework and the academic and general (professional) staff career structures. Getting positive results at this University will be vital for all NTEU members. A

NTEU ADVOCATE

UNIVERSITY BARGAINING

Curtin: We couldn’t ‘Hacket’ it anymore

Jan Sinclair-Jones Branch President Curtin University

UWS: Union must reflect concerns of members Terry Mason Branch President University of Western Sydney

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

long with all WA Universities, Curtin Branch logged our claim with the University on 31 May 2008. It took them until August to respond and bargaining began. By May 2009 frustration with the process was building. We continued to meet fortnightly for both Agreements but it was the usual ping pong of in principle documents with little progress.

In the meantime, we had successfully obtained details of the salaries and KPIs of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) and Senior Managers through Freedom of Information, and the campaign was built around the following issues: • Comparing the offer to staff and their own average 2008 pay rise of 18%. • The disparities between VC Hacket’s words and his actions. • The slogan ‘We can’t Hacket anymore’. The day of action was woeful, but we had massive support in the ballots for industrial action and members initially applied email

egotiating a Collective Agreement should proceed in a collegial manner. Unfortunately, the pattern across the country appears to be one where management are bargaining in a manner that does not engender the belief that they are following any process of negotiating in good faith. Management have offered little of a positive nature in words or actions.

NTEU has established clear guidelines based on polling of members opinions so Branches can table claims reflecting these. At UWS, it was reinforced strongly how important it is that the Branch reflects the actual concerns of staff and ensures members are fully appraised of progress at all

bans, with carefully worded out of office messages, and bans on meetings. The VC put out messages trying to undermine the vote but these just made members and all staff more angry. By the end of semester we had bans on results and we reached Agreements in Principle between December 2009 and February 2010. In early February, our Branch Vice-President, a lead negotiator and our principal eye on the critical detail, was advised that he was surplus to requirement, entirely without due process. We can’t help but see this as a University strategy. Since then, we have been dealing with the University’s attempts to redraft critical clauses (local issues rather than national mandatory claims). These issues have been very important to our members on the ground and eventually a unanimous vote to impose further action including bans on marks as well as a huge number and variety of strongly worded emails, from members to the VC, got us over the line in early June. A

stages, so that the relationship between members, the Branch Committee and the Bargaining Team remains strong. It is important to support your Branch Organisers in the task of keeping the bargaining campaign alive. UWS Branch found welcome support from local press as our members were primarily concerned with their workload clauses and the way these affect the educational experience of students, rather than the expected pay issues. Stay strong and remember that some disruption due to action is temporary, but an effective Collective Agreement will bring years of safer representation. Thank you all for your support during some strenuous times. A

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

MY HIGHER EDUCATION

Revolution

NTEU ADVOCATE

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION COMMITMENT KEPT

Assessing the Government’s performance on higher education and research policy T

he Labor Government’s decision to establish websites to enable the public to access performance data on various educational providers, such as the proposed My University website, is evidence of its commitment to open and transparent accountability mechanisms. It seems only fair and reasonable, therefore, that the Government’s performance in implementing its (Higher) ‘Education Revolution’ be subject to the same level of scrutiny and accountability.

In this article we compare the Government’s performance since being elected with the key commitments it made during the 2007 Federal election campaign, as reported in the November 2007 issue of The Advocate. To ensure consistency, the issues are those identified by NTEU as election priorities in 2007. The commitments made at that time are compared with the reality of the policy outcomes as at June 2010. The results are summarised in the ‘My Higher Education Revolution’ table (right). This indicates where the Government has kept its election promises (green traffic light) or not kept its promises (red traffic light), or where NTEU is waiting to assess the full impact of the proposed policy changes (yellow traffic light). continued overpage... JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

AWAITING OUTCOME

COMMITMENT NOT KEPT

Research Policies Increased research funding

See Table 1.

Greater funding stability and support basic research

Yet to determine impact of performance based funding and the ERA.

Independence of ARC

Minister Carr appointed independent Advisory Board.

Replace the RQF

RFQ replaced by ERA.

Making research/ academic careers more attractive

Both DEEWR and DIISR are undertaking research into these issues .

Education Policies Increased funding for universities

See Table 2.

Decrease reliance on specific purpose payments

Increased funding is performance based delivered through Mission Based Compacts.

Improved Indexation

New indexation estimated to deliver an additional $2.6b over 5 years.

Remove HEWRRs/National Governance Protocols

Removed from Higher Education Grants Guidelines in 2008.

Decrease or maintain cap on HECS

Cap on HECS has been maintained. Cap on domestic places removed with introduction of student demand driven model from 2013.

Abolish full fee places

Full fee places for domestic undergraduate students abolished from the beginning of 2008.

Guarantee institutional autonomy

Yet to determine impact of performance targets and performance funding in Mission Based Compacts.

Improved student income support

Better targeting but no increase in overall funding.

Separate legislation/regulation for universities

Despite ALP platform, the Government is promoting a more integrated tertiary education sector.

Indigenous Education Policies Support Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council .

New IHEAC Board has been appointed.

Improved Indigenous income support /pathways

No specific measures introduced.

Indigenous staff and student scholarships.

No specific measures introduced.

Indigenous community involvement in higher education.

Changes to mission and role of Batchelor Institute took place with no staff, student of community consultation. 15

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

MY HIGHER EDUCATION Revolution Research policies In the 2009 Federal Budget, the Government provided more than $1 billion over four years in research funding for universities (see Table 1). There was an additional $750m in the Education Investment Fund (EIF) that had yet to be allocated between research and education infrastructure. About half of the new research funding $512m - is for increased support for the direct costs associated with competitive research grants. This funding will be distributed through the Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) program. It represents a 150% increase over Research Infrastructure Block Grants. The 2010 Budget also included a number of additional allocations in the Innovation and Research portfolio (see Statement by Senator Kim Carr on p. 18). One of the Union’s major concerns in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election was that the increasing trend to allocate research

Table 1: Main Innovation Science and Industry Initiatives for Universities 2009 Budget

4yr total $m

Excellence in Research Aust (ERA)

35.8

Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE)

512.0

Postgraduate Research Student Support

51.7

Collaborative Research Networks (CRN)

52.0

Conditional Revised Indexation

51.6

Education Investment Fund (Round 2)* 321.6 Total Above

1024.7

funding through the use of competitive research grants was undermining the capacity to undertake ‘blue sky’ or basic research. One result of this is greater job insecurity and the increased use of casual and fixed term research staff. As a consequence, NTEU sought a commitment from each of the parties to provide greater funding stability. It is too early to determine what impact the introduction of performance-based funding (through the SRE) and the ERA will have on basic 16

research and employment stability within the sector. In January 2008, Senator Carr established an independent Advisory Board for the Australian Research Council (ARC). The ALP also met its commitment to replace the Research Quality Framework (RQF) by establishing the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA). The ERA is currently being implemented. In terms of assessing research quality, questions remain about whether the ERA will meet the Government’s objective of providing a mechanism in which those being assessed have confidence. NTEU is also waiting to see what impact the ERA outcomes will have on the concentration of research funding and its capacity to support and promote multi-disciplinary and Indigenous research. The need to introduce policies aimed at making research and academic careers more attractive was a major issue for NTEU members in the lead up to the 2007 election. The increasing reliance on casual and fixed term employment, together with workload intensification and the ageing of the academic workforce were also seen as major issues that needed urgent attention. To date, the Government has failed to make any specific policy announcements on workforce development concerns. The Departments of Industry, Innovation and Research (DIISR) and Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) are currently reviewing these issues, with NTEU participation. It’s anticipated that these reviews will be concluded by the end of 2010.

Education policy The Government has delivered on a number of its initial election promises, including: • Increasing the level of funding for learning and teaching (total net increase of $2.2 billion over 4 years from 2009–10 to 2013–14). • Significantly improved indexation of university grants (estimated to be worth an additional $2.6 billion over the period 2011–2016). • Maintaining the cap on HECS contributions.

• Removing the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and the national Governance Protocols (NGP). • Abolishing full fee places for domestic undergraduate students.

Table 2: Main Learning and Teaching Initiatives in 2009 Budget

4yr total $m

Student Demand Driven Model / Increased Participation

490.6

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)

60.8

Institutional Performance Funding

206.4

Revised Indexation

525.9

Structural Adjustment Fund

202.1

Education Investment Fund (EIF) Round 2

612.5

Low SES Participation

436.9

The Government has introduced polices to better regulate the international student market, through the Baird Review. In addition to maintaining the cap on HECS and abolishing full fees for domestic undergraduate students, the Government plans to remove the cap on the number of government-supported domestic undergraduate places. Under the student demand-driven model, every domestic student who successfully gains entry into an undergraduate program will be entitled to a subsidised place. Universities are also likely to compete against one another for students, due to quotas on the number of subsidised places being removed. An area where the Government has failed to live up to its pre-election commitment is in recognising and protecting the distinct nature of universities through a separate Universities Act. The Government strongly believes that all post-secondary education should be seen as ‘tertiary education’ and not distinct and separate higher education and VET sectors. NTEU ADVOCATE

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

MY HIGHER EDUCATION Revolution Chart 1: Real Learning and Teaching Funding per Government Supported Student Australian Universities 2004 - 2013 (June 2008 Values) $11,500

Bradley $11,000

$10,500

$10,000

initiatives* get *excluding additional Bud student load & capital grants

1995 Base Value Trend wit h no

$9 ,500

changes

$9,000

$8,500

$8,000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

The impact of the introduction of performance based funding on institutional autonomy is another issue which NTEU is monitoring. Changes to student income support measures will ensure that it is better targeted to students who most need it. However, there were no increases in the overall level of funding, so its capacity to deliver real improvements for a significant number of students is yet to be determined. The total level of increased funding for education announced as part of the 2009 Federal Budget amounted to more than $2 billion over four years. The major components of this funding are shown in Table 2. A substantial proportion of this funding ($490m) is being provided to increase the level of student participation by guaranteeing that each domestic student who gains entry to university is entitled to a government-subsidised (HECS) place . The other major component is for university infrastructure, with $612m allocated through the Education Investment Fund (EIF). An additional $750m of EIF funding is yet to be allocated and will cover both education and research infrastructure. JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

To ensure some degree of comparability, NTEU has estimated the impact of the education budget (excluding capital grants) on a funding-per-student basis (see Chart 1). Our estimates shows that the 2009 Budget initiatives will result in an increase in real funding per student, compared to the trend without any changes to funding . The increase, however, is only about half of that recommended by the Bradley Review. To access this new funding each university will be required to negotiate a Mission-Based Compact with the Commonwealth, requiring them to demonstrate how they propose to achieve some of the Government’s policy objectives, including increasing the overall level of participation, increased participation of students from low SES backgrounds, and improving the quality of education and the educational experience of students. Mission-Based Compacts will require each university to agree to performance targets to be eligible for this funding. While most NTEU members would be highly supportive of these policy objectives the over whelming question is whether the

additional funding will be sufficient to enable each university to meet these targets. If not, then the outcomes of this reform package will have serious implications for universities, their staff and students. NTEU is particularly concerned about the potential impacts on staff workloads and opportunities to conduct research.

Indigenous education Other than agreeing to continue the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Committee (IHEAC), the Government has failed to introduce any policies specifically aimed at addressing Indigenous student access to and participation in higher education. NTEU is particularly concerned about proposed changes to the roles and responsibilities of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education (BIITE) which have occurred without any consultation with students, staff and local communities.

Unfinished business There are still a number of key concerns where NTEU believes that the Government’s agenda for higher education remains unfinished. These include: • Whether the increased levels of public investment will be sufficient to enable universities to meet the Government’s ambitious objectives. • Ensuring that the ERA’s design does not have the unintended consequence of undervaluing the importance of multidisciplinary research and researchers. • Ensuring that research is valued appropriately, e.g. Indigenous research which is focused on community outcomes and not necessarily by a desire to publish in highly ranked journals. • Developing specific programs around Indigenous student income support and other measures to increase participation. • Specific policies and action to address the urgent issue of academic and research workforce development. A Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator and Michael Evans, National Organiser 17

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

Labor defends its research record Senator Kim Carr Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research

he Commonwealth continues to deliver on its promise to lift public investment in science and research. Funding for university-based research has increased dramatically under this Government, and it will continue to do so in future years.

have delivered over the The Government’s long- Table 1. HERD/GDP ratios of OECD past two and a half years. term strategy to make Aus- countries 2008 We have held the line in tralia more productive and Country HERD/ Ranking difficult times and kept our competitive is set out in GDP promise to go on reforming Powering Ideas: An Inno0.80 1 and reinvesting in university vation Agenda for the 21st Sweden research, after more than a Century, which was released Denmark 0.71 2 decade of neglect. We have last year. It puts universities Iceland 0.67 3 not only increased funding at the very centre of the Finland 0.66 4 for existing programs; we innovation system. have also provided money ABS data shows that Canada 0.64 5 for new measures to extend Australia’s higher educaAustralia 0.53 6 our capabilities. tion research expenditure 0.51 7 This includes funding of (HERD) topped $6.7 billion Norway up to $112.9m over four in 2008, with most of this Portugal 0.51 8 years to establish the Ausmoney coming from the UK 0.47 9 tralian National Institute for Commonwealth, including 0.41 10 Public Policy at the ANU. $1.1 billion in competitive Belgium The institute comprises an grants. We now rank sixth France 0.40 11 enhanced Crawford School out of 19 OECD countries for Italy 0.39 12 of Economics and Governhigher education research 0.39 13 ment, the H. C. Coombs expenditure as a propor- Ireland Policy Forum, an enhanced tion of GDP and we are well USA 0.36 14 Canberra presence for the above the OECD average on OECD (2007) 0.39 Australian and New Zeathis measure (see Table 1). land School of Government, This year’s Budget contina new National Security College, and a new ues the Government’s funding for first-class Australian Centre on China in the World. research and confirms our support for this Australia’s ability to tackle public policy chalmost important sector. It is no mean feat, at lenges will be significantly improved by the a time of extraordinary budgetary restraint, Commonwealth’s strategic relationship with that funding for science and research the ANU. through my portfolio has been boosted by Other new initiatives include $15m in $440.5m in 2010-11. This is an increase of 12 2010-11 and a further $4.5m in 2011-12 for per cent compared with last year and brings the Cairns Institute Tropical Innovation Hub, total funding to over $4 billion. a new focal point for international research, The 2010 Budget builds on the election innovation and training based at James Cook commitments and other new initiatives we 18

University. It will support 125 research staff and aims to be a world-leading centre for tropical expertise. It will support important new collaborations, many of which will have national and international implications. These collaborations will address areas such as Indigenous development, marine and climate science, health, and social and community welfare. The Government has recently announced $550m in new funding from Round 3 and the Sustainability Round of the Education Investment Fund. This will support university teaching, learning and research projects around the country, along with projects in vocational education training. Funding for research programs under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will increase 11 per cent in 2010-11 to $1.48 billion. This includes an additional $38.9m for Australian Postgraduate Awards – up 21 per cent over last year. The additional funding will be used to lift both the number and the value of awards. On top of all this, the new indexation arrangements announced last year will see universities receive $2.6 billion more over the five years from 2012 than they would have received under the old arrangements. The Government recognised that the indexation of university block grants would have to be overhauled if funding was to match the cost of quality teaching and research. The new arrangements more accurately reflect wage and other price increases in the higher education sector. The research agencies in the Innovation portfolio – AIATSIS, AIMS, ANSTO, CSIRO, and the ARC – have also benefitted from a 6 per cent hike in support to $1.69 billion. The Powering Ideas agenda embraces much more than university research. For example, the Government has established Commercialisation Australia, paved the way for a new R&D Tax Credit, and continued to develop Enterprise Connect, our $50-milliona-year initiative to boost innovation and productivity in small and medium enterprises. The Government takes science and research seriously. The 2010-11 Budget proves that. It builds on the foundations we laid in 2008 and 2009 and maintains the momentum of investment and reform. We are sticking to our science and research agenda even in the tightest of fiscal circumstances we recognise it is the key to accelerating recovery and promoting sustainable economic growth. A NTEU ADVOCATE

PARENTAL LEAVE

Paid Parental Leave

But is this long awaited baby a healthy bundle? F

inally, after a difficult and prolonged labour in Parliament, Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme was delivered on 17 June 2010. We ask – is it ‘hale and healthy’?

Overdue delivery The long overdue PPL is the result of the fight by Australian unions for more than 30 years to have a national paid parental scheme that allows working parents – and in particular mothers – the time to recover from birth and to establish the necessary bond with their new child, without the financial pressure of having to return to work too soon. Considered a basic right in almost all other OECD countries (with the exception of the United States), union campaigning first won working mothers a right to 12 months unpaid maternity leave in 1979, and now three decades later, working parents will be entitled to almost $10,000 in financial support after the birth of a child. The fight to have a national PPL scheme is closely linked to the increase in the participation of women in the workforce over the past 30 years, with women now comprising over 45% of the workforce. However, during the JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

peak child bearing years, Australian women’s workforce participation reduces by a greater amount than for women in other leading industrialised countries. This is due to the fact that, in the absence of a national scheme, any paid parental leave has been due to highly uneven employer-funded schemes. In 2007 around 54% of female employees and 50% of male employees had access to some form of paid parental leave, but only one third of employed women who actually had children received paid parental leave from their employer. NTEU has been at the forefront of the fight for paid parental leave, and through our collective bargaining strategies we have achieved the benchmark for employer paid parental leave of between 26 and 36 weeks for the majority of staff working in higher education. However, even within the higher education sector, access to parental leave is not universal.

Casuals miss out Employees who have been with their institution for less than 12 months or who are employed as casuals may not be entitled to employer paid parental leave. This has long been the concern of the Union and it was initially hoped that the Government’s PPL Scheme would go some way to alleviating this problem. Disappointingly, the final draft of the legislation revealed that, in order to be eligible for the Government PPL Scheme, the primary carer must have completed at least 330 hours work (1 day per week) for 10 months in the 13 months prior to birth. This includes casuals, contractors and self-employed workers. During this time there must not have been break between periods of paid employment for any longer than 8 weeks. This is a significant barrier for casual and sessional employees working in higher educacontinued overpage... 19

PARENTAL LEAVE tion as the semesterisation of work leads to breaks of between 12 to 18 weeks, and may in fact disqualify those who would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements. This means that the Union’s fight for a universal paid parental scheme is not over – in short, while the PPL baby has arrived in a condition far better than expected, there are some ‘health’ concerns. These problems are not confined within higher education and affect many long term casual and seasonal workers across a number of industries and sectors. Furthermore, it is the firm belief of the Union that the PPL should be subject to superannuation and other industrial entitlements in the same manner as other forms of leave. Therefore, while we recognise the achievement that the PPL represents for the union movement and workers overall, until access to a paid parental leave scheme is guaranteed for all employees we will continue our campaign.

Developing PPL into a universal social benefit The Federal Government has left the door open on its PPL scheme, with a review scheduled for 2012. NTEU, together with the ACTU and other unions, will continue to lobby the Government in a renewed effort to have the scheme amended to address problems and cement the scheme as an industrial entitlement rather than a social benefit. While the PPL is a very important step in the right direction and we are justified in celebrating its arrival, the baby requires to be closely monitored if Australia is to have a truly national, world standard, paid parental leave scheme. A Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer and Michelle Rangott, National Industrial Officer

YOUR PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FACT SHEET • The Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme will be funded by the Australian Government and will be available to mothers, carers and adoptive parents who have been working and who have a baby or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011. • To be eligible for the scheme, claimants will need to meet the PPL work test, the income test and the residency requirements. • Parental Leave pay is not a leave entitlement, but it will complement parents’ entitlements to leave such as unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Standards. • PPL is for a maximum of 18 weeks and paid at the rate of the National Minimum Wage (currently $543.78 per week before tax). Parental Leave pay will be treated in the same way as other taxable income. • Parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay. The Parental Leave pay must be taken in one continuous 18 week period. The start date can be on or after the child’s date of birth, (but not before) and all the pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth. • Parental Leave pay can be received before, after, or at the same time as employer-provided paid leave such as recreation or annual leave and employer-provided paternity leave. • Parents will lodge their claim with the Family Assistance Office and it will assess the parent’s eligibility. Claims can be lodged up to three months prior to the expected date of the birth. • Once the scheme is fully implemented, Parental Leave pay will be provided by employers to their long-term employees (a person who has been an employee of the employer for 12 months or more prior to the expected date of birth of the child). • Employers will generally be required to provide Parental Leave pay to their long-term employees who have a child born or adopted on or after 1 July 2011. • A parent will not be able to work while receiving PPL but may ‘keep in touch’ with the workplace. • If a person returns to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of PPL, the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused amount of PPL. Otherwise, PPL will stop when the person returns to work. • If parents are not eligible to or do not choose to receive PPL, they may be able to receive the Baby Bonus and Family Tax Benefit under the usual rules. An online PPL estimator will be available from September 2010 to help parents choose the option that is best for them.

NTEU ADVOCATE

PARENTAL LEAVE

A landmark reform

A second rate scheme Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Federal Member for Murray Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare Shadow Minister for the Status of Women

Jenny Macklin Federal Member for Jagajaga Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

fter waiting decades, families will have access to Australia’s first government-funded paid parental leave scheme from 1 January next year.

This landmark reform gives new mothers the financial support to make their own choices about work and family responsibilities when their baby is born. Currently only half of all Australian women have access to paid parental leave, with those on low incomes most likely to miss out. For the first time, thousands of women who are casuals, who are employed in low-paid or part-time jobs, who are self-employed, are contractors or work in seasonal jobs may to eligible for paid parental leave. Mothers who meet the work test – who have worked for at least 10 of the 13 months before their child is born and for around one day a week during those 10 months - will be eligible for 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage of $570 per week. The Government’s generous work test allows for women to have a substantial break between days off work – up to eight weeks – allowing greater access to paid parental leave for casual and sessional staff. The Government will undertake a comprehensive review of the new Paid Parental Leave scheme, starting two years after the scheme commences. The review of the Paid Parental Leave scheme will examine the operation of the work test to make sure it provides access to paid parental leave for women with a genuine and ongoing attachment to the workplace. For 12 years, the Liberals in government not only denied Australians the benefits of paid parental leave, they actively railed against it. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said paid parental leave would happen over his ‘dead body’. Now he wants to hit business with a $10.8 billion tax that will hurt Australia’s economy and flow through to increases in the cost of living for all Australians. Also, the Liberals expect some employers would scale back their existing schemes, which could leave some university employees worse off. The Government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is in addition to existing entitlements, and will extend the amount of time thousands of parents get to spend with their newborn babies.A JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

ustralia will have its first universal Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 January 2011. It will pay 18 weeks at the minimum wage, without superannuation. When in Government, the Coalition will introduce a 26-week scheme paying replacement wages or the minimum wage, which ever is greater and, importantly, it will include superannuation and two weeks additional use-it-or-lose-it for fathers.

The second-rate scheme passed through Parliament on 17 June is recognised as so inadequate that Labor has asked employers to ‘top up’ leave entitlements and extend the payments. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the current inequalities where higher paid women, especially public servants, currently enjoy paid parental leave entitlements and can expect top ups but low paid women, part-timers, self employed and contractors do not have access to a top up scheme. When they do their sums, many will find they are financially better off just staying with the baby bonus. This, of course, will mean no access to the critical leave. Businesses have also been asked to act as paymaster for the government, causing major complications and extra red tape. The Coalition’s scheme will use the Government Family Assistance Office for payment, removing this red-tape problem. The Coalition will initially pay for its scheme with a temporary levy of up to 1.7 per cent on businesses with a taxable income over $5 million. This will apply to about 3200 of Australia’s 750,000 companies. When the Coalition has paid off Labor’s debt we will be able to revise this funding strategy. The Coalition wants to try to normalise the notion that both parents should consider taking parental leave in the best interests of baby bonding and sharing the career impacts usually only incurred by the mother. Continuing superannuation payments to the parent on leave as well as paying replacement salary capped at $150,000 is essential to ensure the worker can build adequate resources to stave off poverty in retirement. A

GENERAL STAFF

General/PACCT Staff – Looking for better careers T

he Union’s 2009 National Council took a fresh look at general staff career and classification issues in universities and Victorian TAFE, where the Union has coverage of general staff. After a good debate the Council decided to establish a Working Party to look at new career options for general staff, with a view to improving these in future Collective Agreements.

A bit of history

Lack of career opportunities

In TAFE, a state-wide classification structure has been in place, but this operates in conjunction with a ‘points system’ used to decide work value. In universities, a new national 10-level classification structure for all general staff was negotiated in the early 1990s. This structure was put into enterprise agreements, and includes ‘descriptors’ which set out the type of work which can be expected at each level. In theory at least, each employee is entitled to be paid and classified according to those descriptors. However, over the past decade, management at many institutions have made procedures for dealing with classifications less transparent and less fair. Many employers use obscure computer-based classification systems which mean that individual employees cannot tell how their job has been assessed. At some places, staff need the support of their supervisor to make an application, or have to wait months or years for a decision. In Universities, many of these problems were made worse by the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), which removed procedural protections for staff.

Many PACCT/General staff tell the NTEU that they are stuck in positions which have little or no obvious career structure or opportunities to progress beyond the incremental range of their current position. Whether it is about current career structure, the way work is organised, or simply bad procedures, these views are expressed by staff in many work areas, especially technical jobs and administrative jobs in teaching/academic units. These problems are exacerbated by the reduction in staff development opportunities for general staff.

Management’s agenda Even the existing classification structures are not secure. Employers in many industries are trying to move away from objective measures of how much a job is worth – the skills and responsibilities of the job – to dubious performance measures decided by supervisors. It would be naïve to expect that employers in TAFE and universities will not at some stage try to also move in the same direction.

The best way forward A Working Party, made up of NTEU National Executive members who are general staff, is considering proposals about how the Union should approach classification and career progression issues, with an eye to future rounds of bargaining in universities and TAFE. This will need to bring together issues of fair process, gender equity in classification procedures, and rewarding staff development and the acquisition of skills. The Working Party is keen to hear the views of general/PACCT staff. It is expected that in coming months the Working Party will be holding meetings at selected campuses to hear the views of members and to test its ideas. NTEU members who have views on these issues can also email Ken McAlpine on kmcalpine@nteu.org.au to make sure their comments will be received by the Working Party. A Ken McAlpine, Senior Industrial Officer Photo: Lisa Roberts

NTEU ADVOCATE

FEDERAL POLITICS

Simon Crean takes over the Education Revolution T

he new Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is familiar to the union movement and the public. Simon Crean is the member for the Division of Hotham and his recent appointment to Prime Minister Gillard’s old portfolio is the latest in a long, and at times tumultuous, political history.

sliding popularity in the In addition to his various roles on the front bench and in opposipolls saw Crean’s resignation, Simon Crean has served as leader of the Australian Labor Party tion from the leadership in (ALP) and Leader of the Opposition at the Federal level. He is the only November 2003 without person to have been a Cabinet minister under Prime Ministers Hawke, having contested an elecKeating, Rudd and Gillard. During his two decades as a Member of tion. Parliament he has not spent a single day on the back bench. He was In the period of Opposialso one of the founding members of the ALP Unity faction. tion, Crean served in various Born in Melbourne, Simon is the son of Frank Crean (a Federal shadow portfolios, includLabor MP from 1951 to 1977, who was at separate times Treasurer, ing Shadow Treasurer. FolTrade Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister in the Whitlam Governlowing Labor’s victory in ment). His brother Dr David Crean, is a former State Labor Member of the 2007 election, Simon Parliament in Tasmania. Crean was appointed MinisSimon Crean worked in a number of trade unions before he ter for Trade in the Rudd Government. Now, following Julia Gillard’s became General Secretary of the Storeman and Packers Union in recent ascension as Prime Minister in June 2010, Simon Crean has 1979. In 1981, he became Vice-President of the Australian Council of returned to the education sector. Trade Unions (ACTU). In 1985 he was elected President of the ACTU a Although the higher education sector is very different to what it position he held until entering Parliament in 1990. As President of the was when Minister Crean last took charge of the portfolio, many of ACTU, Simon played a key role in negotiating agreements on wages the issues identified in the Hoare Review almost 15 years ago not only and other industrial issues, including the Accord, with the Hawke remain, but have become amplified. Gender equity and casualisation Government. are still concerns, and there is the now As an MP, Simon Crean has held urgent need for workforce renewal, a number of ministerial portfolios, Although the higher education sector driven largely by a combination of including Science and Technology is very different to what it was when an ageing workforce and increased and Primary Industries and Energy. demand on university resources. From 1993 to 1996, in the Keating Minister Crean last took charge of the However, other government policy Government, he was the Minister for portfolio, many of the issues identified initiatives also create challenges; Employment, Education and Training in the Hoare Review almost 15 years for example, the Education Revoand in this role instigated the Higher ago not only remain, but have become lution objective of increasing the Education Management Review (also participation of low socio-economic known as the Hoare Review) in 1995amplified. status (SES) students is admirable, 96. but requires the appropriate funding NTEU played an important role in and support if it is to succeed. the consultations over the review and had a productive working relaFinally, while the university compacts are set for introduction in less tionship with the Minister, which resulted in a number of important than 6 months time, the sector is yet to see what the performance recommendations on workforce reform and accountability in univerindicators for the compacts will be. How the new regulatory body sity governance. The review also identified the need for a commitfor the sector, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency ment across the sector to redress gender imbalance, actively support (TEQSA), will monitor these indicators is also a contentious issue. equal employment opportunity, and noted that the so-called flexible In welcoming Minister Crean’s return to Education, NTEU notes that (casual) forms of employment favoured by universities was often detif our higher education sector is to maintain its reputation for quality rimental to the careers of women. and diversity much needs to be done. As such, the Union looks forAfter the ALP lost government in 1996, Crean served as frontward to once again having a close and cooperative working relationbencher until 1998, when he was elected Deputy Leader of the Oppoship with the Minister as the next phase of the Federal Government’s sition for a short time. In November 2001, following Labor’s third Education Revolution becomes a reality. A consecutive election defeat and the resignation of Kim Beazley, he Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer was elected unopposed as the Leader of the Opposition. However, JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

PRIVATE PROVIDERS

Union fills the gap after La Trobe management abandons International College staff Serena O’Meley Branch Industrial Organiser NTEU La Trobe Branch

n 24 May 2010, several hundred staff in the La Trobe University International College were told that management intended to sell the College to Navitas (an Australian-based multinational private education provider). Although the University had a written undertaking that Navitas would assume the employment of existing staff, this commitment was not honoured and staff were subsequently told that they would have to compete with external applicants for their own jobs.

Union members were dismayed to discover that every senior After a huge outcry from staff and NTEU, management went back decision-maker responsible for the College was out of the country to Navitas and secured an internal process for selecting most jobs. shortly after the announcement, including the Vice-Chancellor, the Even so, at least a third of the non-casual positions will disappear, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Internaand casual staff will be reduced tional and Future Students) and by as much as two thirds. Vital the Director of the College. Their services to students will be It took three weeks from the time the absence made genuine consulslashed and highly regarded announcement was made before anyone tation over the decision close to teacher training programs and from employee relations arrived to answer impossible. international partnerships will be individual questions about entitlements. NTEU suspects that a firm decidiscontinued. sion to sell the College was made well before management issued the formal ‘change statement’ to staff. NTEU has notified a dispute over La Trobe University’s failure to properly apply the change manLa Trobe University management has acted with surprising callousagement procedures in the Collective Agreement. Recent court deciness and lack of care towards staff in the College. It took three weeks sions have severely criticised such attempts by management to derail from the time the announcement was made before anyone from consultation processes in Agreements. employee relations arrived to answer individual questions about entitlements. In a letter to management, NTEU delegate Caroline Wright Neville pleaded for help: ‘[I]t has been left up to union members and delegates to coordinate Union members have been brilliant. They immediately set up their a response to the ...[incomplete change statement]. Union delegates own support network for each area of the College. They coordinated have also been fielding questions from employees about basic day to detailed feedback on the change statement, which led to important day operations such as entitlements, financial options, classification, modifications to the proposal, and they have run weekly union meetperformance appraisal, contractual obligations with regard to finding ings to fill the communication vacuum left by management. They other employment, long service leave, maternity leave, contract hours, have worked together to gather information and make joint claims student pathways and curriculum. In addition to this, students have for entitlements. Members have also made representations to Unibeen given no information on what is happening and the rumour mill versity Council through the NTEU. has been left to run with teaching staff and admin staff expected to Most recently union members voted to take industrial action, look after confused and worried students.’ with one of the highest participation rates seen in a University ‘The abandonment of International College staff by the university ballot. Their actions have secured an offer of an additional two pay is already having a detrimental effect on the health and welfare of rises and a later expiry date in the Agreement that will be transall employees.’ ferred to Navitas. A

Callous action

Collegial support

NTEU ADVOCATE

PRIVATE PROVIDERS

Private providers a cause for concern in the public education sector Rod Noble NTEU University of Newcastle Branch Vice-President (Academic)

taff at the University of Newcastle are alarmed to hear that employee numbers are to be slashed at La Trobe University by the same company preparing to set up shop on the Callaghan campus.

The ASX-listed Navitas signed an agreement with University of Newcastle management last February that aims to have the newly formed Newcastle International College operational at the University’s Callaghan campus in 2011. That agreement will see international students accelerated through a program that combines English speaking and comprehension skills combined with undergraduate modules that will allow a student to move into an advanced stage of a degree program. The implications for the University staff immediately impacted, as well as staff in the University as a whole, are now coming to light. That Navitas is a stock exchange listed company may have been the cause for the avoidance of the usual processes for adoption, changes and additions to academic programs at the University. It appears that the University management has been able to throw up a ‘commercial-in-confidence’ curtain and adopt a non-consultative approach to change in the workplace that sits outside both the spirit and the wording contained in the current Enterprise Agreement between management and staff. Even the elected Academic Senate was not informed of the Navitas deal until after the agreement was signed, and the Senate is supposed to be the body entrusted with overseeing all academic matters at the University.

Lack of transparency The secrecy surrounding the Navitas deal is a significant part of the problem and is a cause for great concern for anyone who believes that a fundamental cornerstone to democracy is that our publiclyowned institutions be required to operate in a transparent manner. Perhaps the NSW Auditor-General should examine how public universities in this State are dealing with the private sector? This may assist in helping to ensure greater transparency in the current situation we are faced with, as well as into the future. There are also numerous concerns for employees and unions when a private and profit-focused company desires a relationship with a JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

publicly owned institution. NTEU Newcastle Branch has fielded questions from staff about transfer of taxpayer-funded intellectual property, physical spaces being made available to a private company, future job security, possible erosion of hard-won employment conditions, re-training, redundancy, and the effect on other interactive parts of courses and programmes.

Quality assurance Another issue concerning staff relates to quality assurance. As recently as 2008 the Australian University Quality Agency noted in a report a range of quality control problems in a Navitas operation. This should make Universities very cautious. Finally, there is the issue of ownership and control. In general terms, companies that offer shareholdings and trade shares depend on consistent profit results. When the rate of profit begins to fall companies can become exposed. What would happen if Navitas, was sold off to a bidder from another part of the world who may or may not already have educational services in their portfolio? Buying out a competitor is not uncommon in the business world and the ‘rationalisation’ or closing of services in certain areas in such a scenario is a possibility. It has been demonstrated again and again, in many parts of the world, that during times of economic crisis private ‘for profit’ companies cannot guarantee stability. The disturbing example at La Trobe University over the past week is ringing alarm bells for the staff at the University of Newcastle. NTEU is concerned that jobs at Newcastle may disappear just as quickly as they have at La Trobe. Introducing an element of instability into the public education sector is fraught with danger and should be avoided. Where does the loyalty of the private sector lie? The current ‘in house’ pathway services have been doing a great job and are loyal to the university. Expanding their role and supporting them is the solution to ensuring the best outcomes for our international students, not hiving off their services to private enterprise. A 25

RESEARCH

State of the Industry Discussing the future of university research Dr Melissa Gregg University of Sydney

Photos: This page: Professor Margaret Sheil, Australian Research Council CEO, addressing the State of the Industry conference. Opposite: Graeme Turner, University of Queensland 26

he State of the Industry conference was a unique national event held in November 2009. Organised by a team of ‘early career’ scholars from a range of universities across the country, the two-day meeting at UNSW provided a platform to discuss the future for research in the University. It was the signature event for the ARC-funded Cultural Research Network (CRN).

This cross-institutional network, headed by Professor Graeme Turner at the University of Queensland (UQ), supported a range of research collaborations over the period 2005–9. Among these was a dedicated funding node designed to support the initiatives of junior scholars through bursaries, publishing programs, research work and mentoring support. A key objective of the conference was to address the working conditions for teaching and research staff in universities. It had

a particular interest in highlighting the experiences faced by the next generation of academics entering the sector, with over 50% of teaching now being done by casual staff (The RED Report, 2008). Conference convenors Clifton Evers (UNSW), Emily Potter (Deakin), Alison Huber (Melbourne), Graeme Turner (UQ) and myself designed an interactive program featuring position statements from invited guests and open microphones for audience participation. Topics addressed included trends in NTEU ADVOCATE

RESEARCH academic employment, teaching with social difference, research beyond the capital city, and the pros and cons of tenure. Speakers also offered arguments regarding curriculum design, supervision, pastoral care – particularly for international students – and the status of teaching in career reward structures. A panel of students presented a manifesto, ‘10 things that graduate students want’, with a range of significant policy suggestions. Throughout the conference, personal reflections mixed with other postgraduate students’ contributions from a range of social networking sites leading in to and during the event.

Historical perspectives The conference provided an increasingly rare opportunity in the university sector: it allowed young scholars to hear how present industry conditions compare with those encountered by senior colleagues decades prior. Debates that unfolded over the two days questioned the confidence with which Baby Boomer academics can continue to plead for young scholars’ patience in a frighteningly competitive job landscape. At the same time, veterans of institutional battles spoke frankly to aspiring academics that their career prospects could be improved with a bit more perseverance and perspective. In each case, the conference showed what benefits can arise when researchers work collaboratively for a larger good. Close to 200 scholars from around the country came to UNSW for the event, alongside industry, union and professional

Moving towards a Research Workforce Strategy

nder the supervision of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research (DIISR), the Research Workforce Taskforce released the ‘Meeting Australia’s Research Workforce Needs’ consultation paper on 28 June 2010.

The Taskforce was established in the second half of 2009 to support the development of a Research Workforce Strategy (RWS), announced by the Federal Government in the ‘Powering Ideas’ White Paper in May 2009. The Reference Group comprised representatives from across the university and business sector, including NTEU. The consultation paper is a culmination of DIISR’s consultation and engagement with the sector around research workforce issues. Its purpose is to gather sectoral feedback on a proposed research workforce strategy that is due to be completed before the end of the year. The paper and its responses will be critical in formulating the Federal Government’s approach to research workforce issues over the course of the next decade. NTEU is encouraging engagement and feedback from our members on these vital issues. Updates about the release of the consultation paper will be posted on our website at www.nteu.org.au/campaigns/policy/research/rws. A

research advocates. Bursaries supplied by the CRN allowed over 30 interstate postgraduate students to attend – an important step in breaking down divisive silos in university resources and governance. But despite some NTEU involvement – NSW State Secretary Genevieve Kelly gave an opening plenary address – it is worth noting that few of the conference delegates were active union members. What follows are some thoughts on why this may be so. Large numbers of today’s ‘junior’ researchers are in their 30s and 40s. They are employed in a range of teaching and admin roles, sometimes across several campuses,

and often in addition to higher degree study. These multiple jobs, and the negotiations involved in keeping them, rarely register on the radar of tenured staff, understandably preoccupied with their own workloads. Likewise union membership presumes a steady relationship with a single employer once studying obligations have been met. But today’s PhD students as much as PhD graduates regularly patch together a range of non-continuing contracts in order to pay the rent.

Forming partnerships What I’m hoping, both in the wake of the conference, and in writing about it here, is that new partnerships may develop between union campaigns and current academic research into workplace culture. Not only would this help to delineate the incentives necessary to encourage large pools of casuals to become NTEU members. It would also build scale and capacity for the Union itself to operate on multiple fronts and keep step with increasingly flexible organisations. If the Baby Boomers are right, and our industry is on the brink of tumultuous change, we must get better at forming research and activist partnerships to fight for the rights accompanying a very different academic workplace. And we must ensure that our Union recruits enough paying members to lead these battles with strength. A

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

STUDENT unionS

Us versus Them Strengthening the relationship between staff and student unions ‘I

don’t repeat gossip, so listen carefully’ – thus is the statement emblazoned on the mug of a senior NTEU Branch official at the University of Adelaide. As President of the Adelaide University Union (AUU) for two years, it somehow symbolises for me the two things that formed a beautiful relationship between the staff and student unions at the University of Adelaide: coffee and information-sharing.

Lavinia Emmett-Grey AAU President 2008-2009 Member of the South Australian Premier’s Council for Women

When I became AUU President in early 2008, there wasn’t much of a relationship between NTEU and the AUU. In fact, the AUU didn’t have much of a relationship with anyone. The years following the Howard Government’s voluntary student unionism (VSU) legislation were a catastrophic freefall for student organisations around the country. Unlike some, Adelaide was able to make it through, though we suffered the loss of over 100 staff, $3.5 million per annum and the ownership of our space and commercial outlets. Not to mention a lot of our legitimacy. Becoming a key student representative in this environment was daunting. Student representative numbers had dwindled and, as a result, we had failed to meet many obligations, including basic things like attendance at university committee meetings. We’d lost all research staff and honoraria for all but one student representative, so were simply unable to make submissions to the University or government on student issues. We were so internally focused on survival that our organisation’s interaction with students was at an all time low, diminishing our

relevance. Most university representatives treated us like children, acting either amused or irritated by our presence. At that point in time there seemed to be such an overwhelming number of things to repair, including relationships, that it seemed almost impossible.

Growth through engagement It all started with a phone call. Bernadette Finnerty, NTEU Adelaide Branch Organiser, asked me to catch up for a coffee and have a chat about the upcoming Bradley Review submissions. On reflection, this was probably a key turning point in my development as a student representative. Since VSU, people had stopped asking us what students thought about higher education issues, and we hadn’t the resources to discover them ourselves. But as we went through the discussion paper, I realised not only did I have strong opinions on a lot of the areas, but that this was an opportunity for our organisation to reinvent itself. As a result of this discussion, I decided to put in a submission to the Bradley Review. It NTEU ADVOCATE

STUDENT unionS was the first paper that the AUU had submitted since VSU. Through the process of preparing it, as I discovered areas that I didn’t have the knowledge or expertise to respond to, I decided to approach various arms of the University and just ask questions. With various sections of the report, we consulted students and researched issues. Bernadette and others provided support, whether it was research on specific issues, or drafts of submissions so that we were able to learn how to write one. Student representatives started informing themselves and discussing issues. The intent was to write a submission, but along the way we started rebuilding bridges and reminding ourselves what student organisations were supposed to do. A few months later, Bernadette invited me to speak as part of an NTEU forum on the Bradley Review. It was probably my first speaking engagement where I wasn’t begging for votes, funding or membership. Many organisations sent letters to the AUU inviting us to make submissions on student issues, but NTEU was probably the first to support and value our contribution. Students came along to the forum as well as staff. There was a sense of community and desire to test ideas. In early 2009, the Adelaide University Union took a lead role on the student income

support campaign. The National Union of Students media monitors indicated that our campus received the most media coverage throughout the campaign. Through my relationship with the Union, I was able to issue a joint press release with the Branch President, Rod Crewther, and we were able to convince to the Vice-Chancellor to also come on board. The release generated positive media for a vital student issue which is often reduced to nothing more than beer-swilling students trying to get a free ride. The relationships we fostered allowed the student union to demonstrate its legitimacy to not only the university community, but the community at large.

Returning support A few months later, I was able to return NTEU’s support in kind. Some clichés hold true – as a general rule students are not early risers. But on the freezing cold morning of the NTEU National Strike in September 2009, University of Adelaide students joined staff on the picket line. As the media came around to ask the inevitable question of whether this action was detrimental to students, our representatives were able to respond that issues like

staff:student ratios and reasonable workloads were as fundamental to students as to staff. It is a simple argument really; the quality of our education is the direct result of the quality of the staff experience.

United we stand My time as AUU President is over, but the importance of building a relationship with the NTEU is not something I have forgotten. I am proud that it is a relationship that has continued past my term, with the new crop of student representatives finding common ground with the NTEU around the issues faced by postgraduate research students, who are also often casual staff. In recent times I have been providing support to Flinders and UniSA representatives. In every meeting I urge them to forge similar relationships with their NTEU Branches. It is expedient for University management to foster a staff versus student mentality. More often than not, staff and student positions on various issues are the same. For staff and student unions, the mission is also the same: to effectively represent and organise around the issues of our membership. That mission is easier when carried out together and over many, many cups of coffee. A

Lavinia Emmett-Grey with NTEU Adelaide Branch President Rod Crewther (left) and Vice-Chancellor Prof James McWha (right). JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

INTERNATIONAL Photo: Craig Wherlock, www.flickr.com/photos/teacherdudebbq2

Bleak prospects for universities in post-GFC Greece U

niversities and academic staff at all levels have been hard hit following the Greek Government’s unprecedented and severe austerity measures demanded by the Central European Bank and the European Commission in an effort to establish fiscal discipline in the country.

Makki Marseilles University World News Athens correspondent

Higher education institutions have been told to cut their academic and maintenance programme budgets by as much as 30%. This target was set by the Education Ministry although the institutions themselves will decide where to make the economies. With just 3% of GNP allocated to education, the lowest of the EU’s 27 nations, Greek universities were already suffering from severe under-funding that inevitably stunted their growth. This year’s reduction, and further cuts expected next year, makes the future look bleak. Many universities will have to reconsider their academic programmes, extra activities and possibly cancel plans for building repairs and renewal of equipment. The Government’s measures are placing an even greater burden on academics. They have not only seen their salaries reduced but are also suffering, like the rest of the people, an unprecedented barrage of rising prices in

basic goods: petrol up by 54%, cigarettes by 17%, drinks by almost 70% and all likely to go even higher from 1 July when VAT will rise from the present 21% to 23%, bringing inflation to 5.4%.

Teachers Union protests As early as January, when the Government’s intentions to cut wages, salaries and supplementary benefits in the public sector were announced, the Panhellenic Federation of University Teachers Associations attempted to protect academics from the worst impact of these measures. In a letter to Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou, the Federation pointed out: ‘Although the salaries in other public sector branches during 2008-2009 rose by 25% to as much as 100% in some cases, such as army officers and judges, the basic salaries of academics had remained unchanged NTEU ADVOCATE

INTERNATIONAL since 2004. As a result, a magistrate receives a monthly salary of €2,027 and a lecturer €1,055.’ Current academic pay arrangements mean that only 50% of the total amount received is a basic salary. The rest is made up by a variety of supplements such as lesson preparation, conference attendance, travelling, library and research supplements. The Federation said academics would suffer far more disproportionately than other public sector scientific staff and concluded: ‘We would like to remind you that academic salaries have remained unchanged for the last six years and therefore they have shown effectively a 15% reduction which does not by any means acts as an incentive for young people to pursue an academic career.’

Salaries shrinking Federation spokesman Stavros Sfindourakis, an assistant professor at the University of Patras with 10 years work experience, took home €1,900 per month but now, after cuts to his salary and Christmas and Easter bonuses, he receives less than €1,700. ‘It is very disheartening,’ Sfindourakis said. ‘They have better salaries in Portugal.’ Nikos Belavilas, associate professor at the National Technological University of Athens and his wife Vasso Trova also a lecturer at the University of Thessalia calculated they are losing around €6,000 a year between them: ‘The cost of our son’s education,’ he says wistfully. In the same vein, a lecturer at the University of Crete, Elefteria Argyropoulou, is married to a secondary school head teacher. She had waited for more than 20 years to be appointed to her current position and her salary is still in the lowest scale. ‘I don’t know exactly how much I am going to lose because I am not receiving all the supplements yet but between us we would probably be short between €4,000-5,000 a year,’ she says. With a child at university she anticipates an increase in the family budget. ‘Fortunately we have some property out in the country inherited from our parents and we might have to sell in order to cope.’ This is perhaps one of the reasons why the effects of the recession are not as yet immediately obvious. Many people are using their savings or selling their assets in order to sustain their standard of living while the JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

universities themselves are looking at their investment portfolios in order to improve their income. Sfindourakis said state universities could be forced to cooperate more closely with private enterprise and firms might become more willing to sponsor programmes at state universities. He rejected suggestions this could be privatisation through the back door: ‘The state university has nothing to fear from the private so-called colleges which will cater for people who will not be able to go to a state university for a variety of reasons and that is very healthy.’

A research lead recovery? One note of optimism in the general gloom is in research which could provide a way out of the crisis. Financed with only 0.6% of GNP, the prospects of this rising to the pre-election promise of 2% are practically non-existent. But research is supported by a large number of different European pro-

SNAPSHOT

grammes that provide much needed relief for researchers. In a recent executive decision, the Federation accused the Government of lacking a plan for dealing with the crisis, claiming it remained anchored to policies of reductions in spending on health, education and research, as well as wages and salaries, which did not provide enough added value to pay off the country’s debt. The Federation demanded negotiations for a new salary structure with all the supplements in the basic salary and a fair and equitable tax system with exceptions for expenditure relating to professional activities such as subscriptions to scientific magazines, travelling to conferences and so forth. The Education Ministry has indicated that a new legal framework for higher education would be brought before parliament in September. Academics hope this will provide solutions for all the major outstanding problems facing higher education in Greece. A UWN c www.universityworldnews.com

BRIGHTON, uK, FEB 2010

Staff at the UK’s University of Sussex prepare for a ‘Teach In’ a protest against the cuts in 2010 to academic staff, student support staff, security and other staff. Photo: Tim Huitson, www.flickr.com/photos/timbrighton

UNIVERSITy news from bargaining the net PAT WRIGHT

eReading rEvolution T

he release of Apple’s iPad in Australia has caused a renewed outbreak of hostilities between the Macophiles and Macophobes in the Australian commentariat. Fans of the Apple Mac computer and all its offspring are ridiculed for their sycophantic hyperbole by those who hate Apple founder, Steve Jobs, and all his works. Reasonable commentators are recruited or dragooned into one of the two opposed camps, both of which are quick to bring in the big guns, mostly from the US, to shore up their respective positions.

with which it connects has yet to negotiate prices with some publishThe Macophobes stereotype the iPad as an overgrown iPhone which ers, so their range of eBooks is not as vast as Amazon.com with which can’t make calls and/or a laptop lid which can’t take files from a data the Kindle connects. However, there is a Kindle app for the iPad, so disk or memory stick because it has no USB port. Besides, the iPad the vast Amazon.com library is available to the iPad, too. Similarly, has no camera (unlike the iPhone4) and, worst of all, it won’t run there is a Borders app for the iPad which emulates their 6inch KoBo Adobe Flash, the most widespread engine for video clips. eReader (221gm and only $199, when new stocks arrive). AlternaHowever, the iPad has a YouTube app and a Videos app for movies tively, one might consider the Australian ECO Reader from $449, a rented or bought through the iTunes Store. The ABC has provided Pico eReader from $238, the DreamBook ePad 7 from $149, the Stash a free app to view such programs as Q&A, Lateline, 7.30 Report, etc W950 from $129 or wait for the HP Slate. – so Insiders and iView can’t be far off. The AFL has provided a free For the ultimate eReading app to view match highlights and experience, however, it’s the softBigPond Sport News. So content To actually hold the Internet in one’s ware which makes the difference, providers seem happy to rewrite hands is an empowering experience, which and the free Stanza for iPad (and their software using Apple tools iPhone) from www.lexcycle.com is rather than the third-party Adobe incorporates, but is not limited to, reading great, particularly when linked to tools, which Steve Jobs claims are books. the free Calibre eBook managebuggy, but then he would say ment software from www.calibrethat, wouldn’t he? ebook.com. Adobe has charged Apple with anti-competitive However, it is hardly fair to compractices in the US courts, and could eventually win, pare the iPad with mere eReaders, but the longer Apple spins out the litigation the when it does so much more. For a more developers will have switched to the Apple start, most eReaders don’t have a tools. Similarly, Apple and HTC of Taiwan are locked colour screen, let alone a 9.7inch in suits and counter-suits in the courts over copyLED touch-screen. Perhaps a more right infringements, but Apple’s superb marketing valid comparison would be with a has already taken it to 40 per cent of the US smartnetbook or laptop, but that would phone market while the litigation rages. almost overlook its superior portWhile it is true that the iPad has no built-in USB ability and, more importantly, its port, it is possible to work around this deficiency touch-screen mode of operation, which utterly changes the way that with its Synchronising cable and a Reader app which can import a one relates to the device and therefore the way one relates to the conwide range of files, including PDF, music and video files. And the lack tent, be it a book, a speech, a song, a picture, a dance, a sport, a movie of a camera certainly doesn’t inhibit importing and displaying photos or TV show, or some other cultural artefact. It is a source of information, from one’s desktop computer or, with an optional attachment, from analysis and entertainment of unprecedented convenience. one’s digital camera. The iPad brings new meaning to ‘touch-typing’, ‘It’s so real you can The main thrust of the Macophobes army, then, is to criticise what almost touch it’ and ‘I have it all at the tips of my fingers’. To actually the iPad doesn’t have or doesn’t do – there is very little criticism of hold the Internet in one’s hands is an empowering experience, which the way it functions as an eReader, apart from the price, and perhaps incorporates, but is not limited to, reading books. the weight, but then you are paying, in dollars and grams, for much The only way one could get closer to the internet would be to have more than an eReader. Not that it’s all that heavy (at 680gm, coma Cochlear-style implant, much like the way we chip our pets... now pared with the Kindle DX at 536gm, which is an eReader only) or all there’s a thought! A that pricey (from $629, compared with the 6inch Kindle2 at $290 and iPat MacWright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of 9.7inch Kindle DX at $543). Adelaide. email: pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au The iBooks app on the iPad works beautifully, but the iBooks Store 32

NTEU ADVOCATE

lowering the boom

IAN LOWE

UNIVERSITy bargaining

Gold diggers and rent seekers T

he debate about the Australian Government’s proposal to tax the profits of mining companies was disappointing in several ways. I was not surprised to see corporations twisting the truth and spending millions on advertising to persuade people they shouldn’t pay more tax. Any change has costs and benefits and those who bear the costs will often squeal, especially if they have always had generous treatment in the past.

5 per cent of our economy and a smaller percentage of our workforce. Those who benefit – in this case, the community as a whole – have So we should not behave as if it were a major contributor. The sector both less reason to participate in the debate and less capacity to is minor. The more fundamental point is that we should not panic to pay for misleading advertising. The inept defence of the proposal maximise the rate of economic growth. The rapid growth economic by former PM Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan was also disgrowth of the last thirty years has not improved our quality of life, appointing, but also not surprising. After all, they had failed to peras shown by the recent Australian Conservation Foundation report suade the troglodytes in their own party of the need to respond to Better than Growth. The things that Australians regularly say they ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’, even though the Garnaut want are more leisure time, vibrant communities, a sense of purpose Report showed that a concerted response to climate change would and wellness in our lives, as well as maintenance of our unique natube better socially and economically than the current approach of ral assets. These desirables do not flow automatically from a growing masterly inaction. economy. On the contrary, some of these goals have been actually But the most disappointing aspect of the debate was the ridicuthreatened by the style of economic growth promoted in recent lous emphasis on short-term economics. The overseas-owned mining years. Discontent with those concompanies obviously think we sequences was a significant cause should be worried by a threat to Iron, copper, gold, bauxite, tin and rare of the change of government in slow down the rate of ‘developing’ 2007. our mineral resources. Such ‘develearth minerals are all likely to be more I am writing this column while opment’ is an irreversible process. valuable in fifty years time than they are attending a conference in Italy. It We start with a mineral deposit, now. So extracting those commodities later concentrated on the loss of biothen have a mine and finally an rather than sooner is almost certainly in logical capacity resulting from our empty hole in the ground. We growing population and increasonly have one opportunity to our long-term economic interest. ing consumption. I was the rap‘develop’ any mineral deposit. porteur for one workshop which Since minerals don’t decompose agreed we should have two goals. We should try to ensure that the underground, it would only be logical to see extraction as urgent if poorest people in the world have the basic services set out in the Milthere was good reason to believe they will be worth less in the future lennium Assessment: clean water, adequate nutrition, safe shelter, than they are worth now. That might be true for coal, since climate basic health care and access to education. Secondly, we need at the change means the world should be phasing out coal-fired electricity. same time to reduce overall resource use so that it is less than the It could also be true for uranium, if you agree with me that nuclear sustainable productivity of natural systems. energy is a dangerous distraction from the challenge of moving to These two goals require us to see both the overall scale of the econclean energy. But it clearly is not true of most minerals. Iron, copper, omy and its emphasis as a means to agreed social ends. There is no gold, bauxite, tin and rare earth minerals are all likely to be more valureason to promote rapid expansion of the mining sector, especially able in fifty years time than they are now. So extracting those comif that involves eroding family life, ignoring environmental problems modities later rather than sooner is almost certainly in our long-term and trampling on the rights of Indigenous people. A economic interest. Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society There are two points here. The first is that the contribution of the at Griffith University. miners to our economy is just that – minor. Mining represents about

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

regional focus

JENNY AUSTIN

Teaching Union Membership 101 T

he decline in union membership over the past 20 years is a challenge yet to be met by Australian unions, including the NTEU, but I’m concerned that little attention has been paid to educating workers who have joined the workforce during that time.

education staff, and the accompanying decline in union membership, Since the 1990s, and now with the departure of the baby-boomer by focusing greater attention on organisation of the Union at Branch generation, our universities and other workplaces are increasingly level and as a result, membership has been steadily gaining ground. staffed by younger employees who have little understanding of what But one of the missing elements from the campaign has been the unions are, what they do, and why their membership is important. education of staff who truly believe the NTEU is a fee-for-service Scholars have put forward a number of theories for the decline in organisation, and who remain completely unaware of their own role membership globally which was greatest during the 1990s in Auswithin the Union to increase and maintain its strength within our unitralia, and they mostly tend to focus on causal factors encapsulated versities. by Andrew Leigh, an economist in the Research School of Social SciI know this from the countless ences at the Australian National phone calls the voluntary memUniversity in 2005. ‘I’m not a member of the union but I’ve been bers of our Branch receive from The first of these are the summoned to a meeting with the head of staff members who matured to changes made to industrial laws adulthood during the Howard during the Howard Governthe faculty this afternoon, so could give me Government’s culture of the ment’s 11-year tenure which some advice before then?’ individual, and whose requests were clearly aimed at breakusually begin, quite naively, ing the unions. When unionisasomething like this: tion became non-compulsory and vilified by the Government and ‘I’m not a member of the Union but I’ve been summoned to a employers, many workers opted out of union membership. meeting with the head of the faculty this afternoon, so could you give However, they didn’t consider that they would continue to benefit me some advice before then?’ or ‘I’m not a member of the NTEU, and from the working conditions and pay scales which unions had won the CPSU isn’t answering its phone, but I’m willing to join whichever for them over previous decades; nor did they consider that those union can help me.’ benefits would be threatened without a strong union membership to In 2008, Melbourne Institute Deputy Director Mark Wooden, was continue defending them. quoted in The Age newspaper as saying that despite the Howard GovAlso, deregulation of numerous industries, including the higher ernment’s WorkChoices policy, most people weren’t worried enough education sector, meant greater competition and to meet that comabout losing their jobs to actually join a union. petition, industries cut jobs wherever they could, leading to fewer Around the same time, the ACTU was focusing on the climate of continuing positions and longer individual working hours. fear in workplaces that had scared workers from joining. However, workers proved to be extremely concerned about losing their jobs when they voted the Howard Government out of office in late 2007 and job security remains a greater concern today than it was in 2008. There’s never been a more urgent time for the NTEU to put addiContinuing positions were replaced by outsourcing, for example to tional resources into educating today’s population of university staff call centres – the sweatshops of the 21st century, increased numbers about the role of the Union, and the importance of solidarity. of part-time and underpaid staff – a development which led to the And there’s never been a more important time for existing memidentification of a new group within the labour force, the underbers to explain the benefits of a strong union and greater memberemployed, which had particularly negative effects for women who ship to all staff, particularly with a Federal election and the spectre of are over-represented within that group. WorkChoices Mark II ahead of us. A This subsequent change in the labour market also resulted in a Jenny Austin is an NTEU National Councillor, NTEU SCUBranch President much wider range of salary levels and because employees are more and a regional commentator on social and political affairs likely to identify with co-workers who enjoy equal stature and pay scales, it led to greater social divisions within the workplace, also This is Jenny Austin’s final column for the Advocate. NTEU would like to thank her for breaking down solidarity between workers. the six years worth of thoughtful, challenging and entertaining columns. The NTEU has recognised this decline in solidarity among higher

Continuing employment has been replaced by insecure, under-employment

NTEU ADVOCATE

letter from new zealanD/aotearoa

TOM RYAN, TEU

Missing out on the chance to learn R

ecently, New Zealand school principals announced that they were worried that pupils leaving their school would end up on the dole rather than in tertiary education study. ‘How do you tell someone who has worked really hard to give themselves the chance of going to university that they might not get in?’ asked Chair of the Secondary Principals Association, Patrick Walsh. ‘It’s very disappointing when students capable of making a very good contribution to the economy for years to come are turned down. Instead, it could lead to more students being unemployed, which is not a good situation.’

The people who are carrying the burden of stretched resources and The cause of this extraordinary announcement is the recent rush by increased workload are staff. Simply put, if the University wants to universities to restrict the enrolments they will be taking next semeshave more students, it needs to hire more staff or better reward its ter and next year. current employees. And the cause of all this is a cap placed on tertiary institutions two The University of Canterbury is not the only institution in this posiyears ago that prevented them enrolling too many students. The cap tion. All around New Zealand rolls are up, while staff numbers remain was initially a response to an excess of competition between tertistatic due to funding cuts the Government introduced last year. No ary institutions with many engaging in huge advertising and promowonder they are reluctant to take some of the many young people tional efforts to lure each others students and potential students. The who want to begin study. goal of the policy was that institutions stop trying to grow their rolls The move by universities across New Zealand to dramatically at the expense of others and put more effort into focusing on qualrestrict entry to many of their courses is the result of government faility – particularly an output of postgraduates and research. The result, ure to anticipate the combined pressure of demographic growth in within universities at least, seems to have been that the promotional student numbers and an increase in people looking to study during and advertising competition has shifted its focus from recruiting the recession. fresh new first year students to attracting post graduate students as The Government’s policy of well as research funding. capping the number of students Sadly the new policy also could it is willing to fund needs to be not have come at a worse time. Just Suddenly the problem was not reviewed. It is hurting the producas it was introduced a demographic institutions competing with each other tivity of our economy. That policy baby boom started leaving school made some sense when tertiand passing into tertiary education. for a fixed number of students, but ary institutions were competing Moreover, that pressure on rolls was institutions overwhelmed by a rapidly amongst themselves for students further exacerbated by the global expanded number of students. and were more focused on growth recession, which also is encouragthan quality. But in an environment ing more people into study. when there is real growth in stuSuddenly the problem was not dent numbers across the sector, the policy now is denying a rapidly institutions competing with each other for a fixed number of stugrowing number of young people the opportunity to get the skills dents, but institutions overwhelmed by a rapidly expanded number and knowledge they are entitled to. of students. Most of those who face missing out on the chance to study are ordiUniversity of Canterbury Vice-Chancellor Rod Carr says his univernary struggling New Zealanders. These are the very people who most sity carried 500 enrolled full time students (EFTS) above its cap last need that opportunity to study, to contribute to the betterment of year and was likely to carry a further 600 domestic students above their families, the wider community, and our struggling economy. A its cap this year. By defying the Government’s EFTS cap last year, the Dr Tom Ryan is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, University cost itself more than $3 million. New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa Dr Carr noted that the lack of Government funding had stretched TEU  www.teu.ac.nz University resources, with the student-to-staff ratio increasing from 19.3 (to one) to 20.3 in 2009. For staff, that represents a five per cent increase in much of the work they need to do, such as assessment, student support and administration.

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

YOUR UNION

New staff in the Branches and Divisions Q

uite a few new faces are to be found in our Branch and Division offices in the last few months. To help you to get to know your local NTEU contact a bit better, we are pleased to present these brief profiles.

Belinda Viset

Naomi Anastasi

Joshua Gava

Branch Organiser UTS

Branch Organiser Griffith University

Industrial Officer NSW Division

Belinda has recently started work as Branch Organiser for the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Branch. She is excited about her organising role at UTS and working with NTEU members for the betterment of their working conditions and advancement of their interests. Belinda has worked for local government and has undertaken voluntary work at community legal/legal aid organisations (in which there was a strong focus on discrimination and employment issues). Belinda is originally from the South Coast and is a BA/ LLB graduate from the University of Wollongong.

David Singh Branch Organiser QUT David Singh is the newly appointed organiser for QUT. David studied at the University of Warwick and the London School of Economics in the UK and received his doctorate from the University of Queensland (UQ) last year. He has also lectured at the University of London and UQ. Outside the Academy, David has worked in the British NGO sector and as an Equity policy advisor in local and state government. Working as an organiser David feels he has come full circle, back to his early days as a community organiser in west London where he advocated on behalf of victims of racial and police violence. Outside work and as befits a Londoner, David is a keen West Ham United fan. However after many years in Australia he still cannot bring himself to call his beloved game of football ‘soccer’. 36

Naomi Anastasi is the new NTEU Organiser at Griffith University. She brings to this role an enthusiasm for the university sector, respect for the work that is done by both academic and administrative staff at universities, and a belief that more is achieved when people work together. Previous to working with the NTEU Naomi was an advocate for postgraduate and undergraduate students at both the University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology. Recently, she completed her Master of Philosophy in the area of research higher degree student writing. All of this means that Naomi is passionate about the sector, and looks forward to meeting all Griffith members at some time in the future.

Josh Gava has recently taken up an Industrial Officer position in the NSW Division. Josh has been allocated the University of Western Sydney and is also conducting bargaining at a number of university and college sites. Living in Sydney with his partner Laura, Josh comes from Wollongong where he obtained degrees in Arts and Law. Josh’s background is diverse and he has spent time in the Australian Army and working as a political staffer. For the past three years Josh has practiced law, primarily as a litigator. A

Marea Wilson Industrial Officer NSW Division Marea is working at the NTEU on a short term basis as an Industrial Officer. She is helping out with member cases as well as doing a record management project. Marea was a delegate for the Federated Clerks Union when she worked as a telephonist at PhoneTAB. This was when her children were small and she was studying law at UNSW. Her experience as a delegate, and her law degree helped her get work at the Municipal Employees Union (now the USU), where she worked as an industrial officer for nine years. Her children are adults now, and Marea is working on a Masters degree at the University of Sydney.

The NTEU KeepCup No waste. Great style.

Just $9.00 buy online now @ www.nteu.org.au/shop NTEU ADVOCATE

YOUR UNION

NTEU elections underway New Queensland Division E

very two years, elections are held in the NTEU for hundreds of important positions in the Union. This year, elections are being held for all positions, including the three full-time National Officer positions – President, General Secretary and National Assistant Secretary. Elections are also conducted for Secretaries of NTEU’s State/Territory Divisions (except in NSW, where the election is in 2012).

Just as importantly, elections are conducted for hundreds of positions in local NTEU Branches. Filling these positions makes sure that members have full control of the Union’s direction and policies. Of particular interest to many members are the elections for National Officers. Neither Carolyn Allport (National President) nor Ted Murphy (National Assistant Secretary) are seeking re-election. Jeannie Rea, from Victoria University, has been elected unopposed to the position of National President, while Grahame McCulloch has been re-elected unopposed as General Secretary. For National Assistant Secretary, there is a contest between Matt McGowan (currently Victorian Division Secretary) and Len Palmer (currently NSW Division President). This national contest means that all members should receive at least one ballot paper through the post (at the same address to which your copy of The Advocate is sent) soon after 4 August. Ballot papers will need to be returned to the Australian Electoral Commission by 10am on Wednesday 25 August 2010. All members are asked to vote in the elections – it is an important part of having your say. A

office opened in Taringa

‘P

roviding financial security is an important step forward in building our Union’, said Margaret Lee, NTEU Queensland Division Secretary, as she opened the new Division Office in the Brisbane suburb of Taringa on 18 June.

Members and supporters gathered to listen to Turrbal SongWoman Maroochy Barambah as she officially welcomed the NTEU to country and cleansed the building. Queensland Division President, Andrew Bonnell affirmed from the Union a strong and lasting support for Indigenous rights as he welcomed all present and officially declared the new office open. Local political satirists and songsters, Absolutely Scandalous delighted us all with a performance that is now so polished that they are sure to be getting gigs on national television before too long – move over John Clarke and Brian Doyle! A Ross Gwyther, Qld Division Organiser

Legislative quirk means newest union members are disenfranchised Under amendments to electoral law passed a few years ago, the only people entitled to vote in Union elections are those who were members as at the date nominations opened. For the NTEU in 2010, this date was 26 May. This means that hundreds of members who joined since that date will not receive a ballot paper and are denied a vote. NTEU regrets this, but it imposed upon us by law. A

GO GREEN WITH NTEU SOFT DELIVERY. Did you know you can opt-out of receiving this magazine by mail? Instead, you’ll receive a notfication email when the latest issue is available online, for you to read as a fully functional e-mag or PDF. l Login to www.nteu.org.au l Click on ‘Your Details’ l Click on ‘Publications & Communication Preferences’ l Select ‘Email notification (Soft delivery)’.

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au

YOUR UNION

Recent human rights actions by NTEU N

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.

Canada

For more information, please visit the organisations’ websites: Amnesty International  www.amnesty.org Labour Start  labourstart.org Education International  www.ei-ie.org APHEDA  apheda.org.au

Action request: Education International Addressee: Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Action: Letter re decision by Canadian Government to remove funding for the First Nations University.

Action request: Andrew Bonnell, UQ Branch President

China

Addressee: Principal KCL

Action request: Amnesty International

Action: Letter re the impact of the ‘reorganisation’ plans for the humanities at Kings College London.

Addressee: Director of the Qinghai Provincial Department of Justice

CANADA

TURKEY CYPRUS

IRAN

Action: Letter seeking immediate and unconditional release of detained Tibetan scholar, Tagyal, detained on 23 April 2010 under suspicion of ‘inciting separatism’. CHINA

SAUDI ARABIA HONDURAS

COLOMBIA

Honduras Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: President Roberto Micheletti Action: Letter requesting investigation into threats made against Rafael Caceres (Deputy Director, School of Fine Arts, Tegucigalpa). Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: Attorney General Action: Letter requesting investigation into death threats and intimidation against teacher and political commentator Rosa Vargas.

Cyprus & Turkey Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: President of the Republic of Cyprus and Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey Action: Letters sent regarding violence used by police and authorities against members of the Cyprus Turkish Teachers’ Trade Union, in response to peaceful protests against unilateral Government decisions affecting public education in North Cyprus.

Saudi Arabia

Colombia

Action request: Amnesty International

Action request: Len Palmer, NSW Division President

Addressee: His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud

Addressee: President Alvaro Uribe Velez Action: Letter seeking fair trial with independent observers for Colombian academic, Dr Miguel Angel Beltran, charged with rebellion and associating with terrorists following his research into political environment in Colombia.

Action: Letter re incommunicado detention of student activist Thamer Abdulkareem al-Kather. Prisoner of conscience.

Australia

AUSTRALIA

Action request: APHEDA/ACTU Addressee: Prime Minsiter Kevin Rudd Action: Opposition to decision to suspend processing of all new asylum claims from Afghan and Sri Lankan nationals.

Iran Action request: Amnesty International Addressee: Ayatollah Sadeqh Larijani, Head of Judiciary Action: Letter re detention and sentencing of student leader Majid Tavakkoli following peaceful demonstration in Dec 2009. Prisoner of conscience. Action request: Labour Start Addressee: President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Action: Message condemning the sham trial, torture and execution of Farzad Kamangar who was hanged (without his family being informed) on 9 May 2010. He was accused of ‘endangering national security’ and ‘enmity against God’.

NTEU ADVOCATE

YOUR UNION

www.nteu.org.au / version 3.0 Blogging on the upgraded NTEU website

fter receiving a top-to-tail overhaul, the Union’s website was relaunched in July. The new site’s architecture will be familiar to regular users of blogs and online services, with the main activity centred around blogs from the National Office, as well as from Divisions, Branches, campaigns and special interest.

The site is designed to better interact with members and improve access to the Union’s vast array of services and information. We are hopeful that these changes will better assist the Union in interacting with members, responding to members’ needs, and running campaigns. A ‘super menu’, which will appear at the top of all NTEU sites, provides easier access to any of the Union’s special campaign websites; to your local Branch and special interest homepages; or membership tools. Quicker pathways and better search functions have been developed to help you locate relevant working condition informations; discover NTEU policy and research

activities; or to simply get in contact with the right person in the Union. Answers to simple questions about your membership and getting involved with the Union are provided in our new FAQ page (www.nteu.org.au/join/faq). Various common questions about your workplace rights can be found in our Advice and Assistance page (www.nteu.org.au/rights/advice).

More active Branch sites Each NTEU Branch homepage is now centred around its own blog featuring local, state and national news. The Branch site is also the place to find

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

information on local issues and campaigns; the Agreement at your workplace; your local Branch Committee member details; and any current and past local publications.

New online Library The new NTEU online Library is packed full of booklets, journals, fact sheets, submissions, discussion papers and much more. This information, which was previously difficult to locate, is now all contained within our fully searchable online Library. c www.nteu.org.au

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: Tamara Labadze, Finance Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email tlabadze@nteu.org.au

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

1: Click on ‘Member Login’ 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 2010 www.nteu.org.au

Contacting NTEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Office

office phone fax email website

PO Box 1323, South Melbourne, VIC 3205 (03) 9254 1910 (03) 9254 1915 national@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au

NT Division

WA Division

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006

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

PO Box U371, CDU, Darwin, NT 0815 (08) 8946 7231 (08) 8927 9410 nt@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/nt

Queensland Division

4 Briggs Street, Taringa, QLD 4068 (07) 3362 8200 (07) 3371 7817 qld@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/qld

SA Division

Ground Floor, Palais Apartment Complex, 281 North Tce, Adelaide SA 5000 (08) 8227 2384 (08) 8227 0997 sa@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/sa

NSW Division

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

Victorian Division

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006 (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. . . . . . . . . . . . Renee Veal

Industrial Unit

ACT Division G Block, Old Admin Area, McDonald Place, ANU, Acton, ACT 0200 (02) 6125 2043 ANU/ADFA/ACU (02) 6201 5355 UC (02) 6125 8137 act@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/act

Tasmanian Division

Private Bag 101, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001 (03) 6226 7575 (03) 6226 2172 tas@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/tasmania

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

Industrial Unit Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleanor Floyd Senior Industrial Officer (Strategy & Policy). . . . Ken McAlpine Industrial Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle Rangott, Peter Summers Industrial Support Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Liebhaber

National President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolyn Allport

Policy & Research Unit

General Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary. . . . . . . . . Ted Murphy

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

Recruitment & Training Unit 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

Vice-President (Academic). . . . . . . . . . . Gregory McCarthy SA Div Vice-President (General). . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo Hibbert UWS

Executive Members 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

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

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); University of Queensland Academic Staff Association (Union of Employees) at University of Queensland; 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...

Fine tune your finances Start your new financial year on the right note with UniSuper Advice. From simple to comprehensive advice, covering short or longer-term goals, our financial advice team can help you: • build wealth and pay off debt faster • invest both non-super and super assets • protect your wealth with adequate insurance • plan for retirement, and much more!

Advice for any goal – great or small Our advisers will spend time assessing your financial goals and objectives to ensure they deliver personalised strategies to suit your needs and desired lifestyle. They will analyse and research a wide range of products from various providers and work closely with you to identify the best products and/or solutions for your situation.

No commissions = greater value for you Our advisers are salaried and do not receive commissions. Wherever possible, they will only recommend financial products or services that have no commissions. Where this is not possible, and UniSuper Advice does receive commissions, we will rebate those commissions directly to you.

Your initial consultation is free To find out more about this member-exclusive service, contact us for a complimentary initial consultation.

ADVICE

Find out more

www.unisuper.com.au/advice

advice@unisuper.com.au

1300 331 685 (local call cost)

Prepared and issued by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799), ASFL 235907. Level 37, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000. 1300 331 685. This information is general information only and is not intended to be financial advice. It has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before deciding to acquire or hold an interest in any financial product, you should speak to a financial adviser to consider whether it is appropriate for you and consider the relevant product disclosure document. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.