Advocate, March 2011

Advocate Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union

ISSN 1321–8476

Volume 18, Number 1, March 2011

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

Base Funding Review

 UNSW members continue campaign for better job security p.10  Members have momentum at Macquarie p.11  Some VCs are out of step with decent work standards p.20

 Learning and teaching deserve a healthy boost in funding p.18

Moving towards equality

Problems with ERA rankings p.24

 Bangkok women’s conference p.28 From CDEP to real jobs

p.14

 Moral IP rights

p.22

 Yasi hits JCU

p.26

 UK tuition fee hike

p.30

hyundai.com.au or call 1800 186 306

EXCLUSIVE OFFERS FOR EDUCATIONAL STAFF It’s easy to qualify for national fleet pricing discounts across the range of quality Hyundai cars.

STEP

1

STEP

Obtain your letter of endorsement from your employer

2

Visit your local Hyundai dealer

STEP

3

Present the letter to get national Hyundai fleet pricing and save

HYUNDAI 5-STAR QUALITY ■ ■ ■ ■

Five Year Unlimited Kilometre Warranty Safety Award Winning Cars Innovative Technology

ASPLEY ZUPPS ASPLEY HYUNDAI (07) 3246 8000 BEAUDESERT SCENIC HYUNDAI (07) 5541 4000 BROWNS PLAINS ZUPPS HYUNDAI (07) 3802 4000 CLEVELAND KEEMA HYUNDAI (07) 3479 9888 INDOOROOPILLY WESTPOINT HYUNDAI (07) 3878 0440 IPSWICH LLEWELLYN HYUNDAI (07) 3282 2922 MOOROOKA MOOROOKA HYUNDAI (07) 3848 7811

MORAYFIELD KEYSTAR HYUNDAI (07) 5498 5800 MT GRAVATT KEEMA HYUNDAI (07) 3426 1500 NUNDAH NORTHSIDE HYUNDAI (07) 3635 5300 ROTHWELL KEYSTAR HYUNDAI (07) 3817 7600 SOUTHPORT GOLD COAST HYUNDAI (07) 5583 8810 SPRINGWOOD KEEMA HYUNDAI (07) 3884 8300 WINDSOR METRO HYUNDAI (07) 3866 9720

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

Advocate JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, MARCH 2011

Publisher................................Grahame McCulloch Editor......................................Jeannie Rea Production................................Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance..................Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback and advertising....... advocate@nteu.org.au All text & images © NTEU 2011 unless otherwise stated.

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

On the cover: Newman College, Melbourne

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

Photo: © HL Kretzenbacher SPECIAL FEATURES

FROM THE OFFICERS

2

Unions pledge to act for Indigenous workers

POLICY 18

Jeannie Rea, National President

3

4

The Base Funding Review will advise on the funding of Commonwealth Supported Places.

Time for an ACTU rethink Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

Floods, levies and education

20

5

6

7

8  10 11 12

13

Members fill Fighting Fund Student Union Award coverage Tranby College nears end of 1st Agreement New student system causes uncertainty ERA National Report Draft legislation for new quality & standards agency International Women’s Day centenary celebrations Bargaining state of play UNSW members continue campaign for better job security Members have momentum at Macquarie Rapid response saves key functions of ALTC Pushing the Boundaries on climate change Budget 2011: the urgent need for workforce renewal

 22

From CDEP to real jobs Indigenous Forum 2011 Indigenous employment in higher education 2011 ACTU Indigenous Conference Bargaining Update Indigenous doctors

YOUR UNION  36 37 38 39  41 42 44

WA CPSU/CSU higher ed members transfer to NTEU Delegates Networks and Working Groups New NTEU staff Recent human rights actions by NTEU Casuals get a makeover Updating your membership information Contacting your Union

Knowing and defending your moral IP rights Matthias Maiwald and Kathy Harrington explain how to ensure your moral intellectual property rights are protected.

OPINION 24

A new ERA? Or a return to the dark ages?

Ian Dobson delves into the murky world of ARC journal rankings, and tells how the ERA is making matters worse.

26

iPad-eology Rod Crewther responds to Pat Wright’’s recent ‘iPadagogy’ column concerning the use of iPads at the University of Adelaide.

CLIMATE  27

Big noise, no trees Peter Whalley-Thompson describes the destructive effect of Cyclone Yasi on James Cook University.

INTERNATIONAL

INDIGENOUS NEWS  14

15 16 17

Insecure employment The Vice-Chancellors of UNSW, Macquarie and Wollongong continue to refuse to face up to how far out of step they are with the concerns of employees and with international decent work standards.

Matt McGowan, National Assistant Secretary

UPDATE

Base Funding Review: Learning and teaching deserves healthy boost in funding

28

Can we do more? On the move for equality Gabe Gooding reports from EI's 1st World Women's Conference.

 30

Protesting tuition fees in the UK Despite unprecedented protest from students and staff, university tuition fees in the UK are set to triple.

COLUMNS 32

InterNeT E-Unions News from the Net, by Pat Wright

33

The advancement of knowledge with cuts, caps, cullings & classroom sex Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

34

Some problems can be solved simply by throwing money at them Knowledge is the Economy, Stupid, by Tammi Jonas

 35

Thanks for being good neighbours Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Sandra Grey, TEU

FROM THE OFFICERS

JEANNIE REA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Unions pledge to act for Indigenous workers T

he greatest challenge and greatest shame for non-Indigenous Australians remains the glaring disparity between the implementation of the social, economic and civil rights of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

There are successful labour market programs which have develI started writing this column in Darwin having just listened to Abooped into sustainable income streams and contributed to commuriginal people from Central Australia and the Top End describe the nity development, but many more have not. Programs are often tragedy of their lives accelerating over the past few years following starved of financial subsidy too soon, mismanaged, imposed withthe ‘Intervention’. The suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, the out consultation, rundown by uninterested participants, or just revoking of land rights and garnishing of wages and income support don’t work because the reality is that schemes can fail for all sorts for modern day ration cards (Basics Card) would have been unbelievof reasons, whether in Indigenous or non-Indigenous communities. able just a few years ago.

Many people claim to have had training for non-existent jobs, but Remember the ‘invasion’ (and that is the correct language as the there are also unfilled jobs and jobs to be done. These are often jobs army was used) into Northern Territory communities was premised that would be government funded in a mainstream community, but upon the need to immediately address a damning report of child are treated separately and differently in Aboriginal communities, abuse and neglect. Child abuse was and continues to be a problem particularly when done by Aboriginal workers. in Australia, the extent in NT Indigenous communities debated – but On so many levels, it is very sadly not remedied by the Interhard to look at what is happenvention. The relationship between ing in poor Indigenous communi... the symbolic and actual successes taking away the civil, political and ties and not see apartheid, racism economic rights of Indigenous over the last forty years by Indigenous and hate as being the basis of the people and dealing with violence Australians in carving their place in White problems. The consequences are and abuse was never justified.

Australia were unravelled in a matter of a younger generation without Western liberal democracies months. hope, and an older generation pride themselves on being forwhose hopes and achievements ward thinking communities with have been ruthlessly smashed up enlightened and generous attiagainst the wall of indifference and outright hostility. tudes. Of course, we know this to be rubbish with so many glarAs the Union representing people who work in universities we ing anomalies, but the general faith remains that things get better have a particular and important role, as what we choose to investiand for more people. Australians are particularly pompous about gate, to say, to teach, to write and to support does matter and has this. Yet the symbolic and actual successes over the last forty years influence far beyond the (metaphorical) gates of our workplaces.

by Indigenous Australians in carving their place in White Australia At times, and particularly in this climate of declining government were unravelled in a matter of months. For Aboriginal people from (public) financial support and increasing instrumentalism, we have my part of the country, south eastern Australia, the peoples of the to struggle hard to maintain our commitments to discovery and Northern Territory, who got their land back were supposed to be challenge. A recently released survey from the University of Western fortunate ones.

Sydney, that confirmed our worst suspicions of Australians’ racist What to do? The trade union movement has a patchy history of attitudes, is indicative of the research and intervention in public support for Indigenous political struggles and in advocating for discourse that is expected of our universities acting in the public Indigenous workers. But there is a continuity of some trade unioninterest and for the public good. ists across varying industries and regions, recognising and acting The ACTU has announced a new partnership with Indigenous upon their common lot with Indigenous people. A challenge has Australians to campaign for decent jobs and sustainable economic been made to the ACTU and affiliates to genuinely apply our experdevelopment. NTEU will continue to work on our commitment to tise on labour rights to find a way forward.

Indigenous matters as core Union business internally and exterCurrently the CDEP, which many of us condemned as the original nally, as advised by the NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) ‘work for the dole’ scheme, is being withdrawn as a failed scheme See NTEU Indigenous Officer, Adam Frogley’s report of the ACTU – not because it did not provide jobs on award rates, but because Indigenous Conference on page 14. I also welcome Celeste Liddle it was tainted as ‘sit-down’ money and a welfare handout. The comto the National Office as our new National Indigenous Organiser munity development role of CDEP was dismissed. Many people are (see page 38). now saying that all the current labour programs (and their acronyms) should be thrown out and we start again.

2

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

FROM THE OFFICERS

GRAHAME Mcculloch, general secretary

Time for an ACTU rethink S

ince the August 2010 Federal Election, the ACTU Executive has been debating the future political and industrial strategy for Australia’s trade unions. The debate is being shaped by three intersecting trends.

First, a profound realignment of the landscape of Australia’s Centre Left with a sharp fall in the Labor primary vote, and the rise of the Greens as a significant political alternative.

Second, a continuing decline in trade union density with large segments of the economy (notably service sector industries) having little or no union presence, and existing unionised sectors struggling to maintain membership.

Third, wider current and projected future changes in the structure of the economy and labour market based on growing casual and part time employment, rapid expansion of the services and resources sectors, and the urgent need to move to new energy efficient, low carbon modes of production and consumption.

A brief historical overview These trends pose a fundamental challenge to the current structure and outlook of Australia’s trade unions. This outlook has its historical origins in the late 19th and early 20th century when unions emerged to protect and improve the industrial and social interests of a dominant (and largely white male) industrial working class. This involved an umbilical relationship with the Labor Party which was established to provide political representation of the industrial working class in Federal and State Parliaments.

This relationship shaped successive waves of economic and social transformation - in the early 1900s, the establishment of the Australian Federation (with a commitment to industrial arbitration, domestic manufacturing industry, and basic social protections); in the 1940s, the prosecution of the Second World War effort and the subsequent post war reconstruction and development of the welfare state and a late modern industrial economy; in the 1970s, the consolidation of a bigger role for the Commonwealth Government in economic planning, education, health and social reform, and in the 1980s and 1990s, the liberalisation of Australia’s labour and product markets, and exchange rate.

The more recent waves of change carried within them the seeds of today’s trade union dilemmas. The pioneering Whitlam Government’s social base rested not only on the traditional industrial working class, but also on a growing tertiary educated professional middle class whose outlook and interest in unionism was different and discrete from their proletarian cousins.

In the late 1970s, large numbers of non Labor affiliated trade unions joined the ACTU (notably in the banking, finance, education, health and government employment sectors). Some of these unions brought with them a new commitment to a progressive social agenda in addition to the traditional union concerns of the economy MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

and employment conditions. Their membership did not embrace the Labor Party as an automatic outgrowth of union identity.

The sweeping economic changes of the 1980s and 1990s accelerated the expansion of service and export industries, and a contraction in share of economic activity and employment generated by domestic manufacturing. The culture and structure of newer industries created large numbers of younger workers with no a priori understanding of the need for trade unions, nor any instinctive sympathy for the Labor Party-trade union connection.

ACTU should look forward not backwards The outlines of the next wave of economic and social transformation are already clear – the need for environmental sustainability and a low carbon economy, and the need to create new industries and jobs to achieve this. Inevitably this involves sharp social tensions between cities and regions, established and emerging industries (including old and new workers) and old and emerging political formations. These tensions underpin and amplify the declining fortunes of the Labor Party and the inability of trade unions to reestablish their historical influence.

The recent report of the Review Panel on the ACTU 2010 Election Campaign highlights the problem. One of its key findings is that many older and younger workers felt that the ACTU lacks independence and is too close to the Labor Party, and that unions need to develop a distinctive and independent voice on behalf of union members and their families. Notwithstanding this, the initial instinct of many union leaders is still to focus on the internal politics of the Labor Party (including its National Conference and the role of ALPaffiliated unions) as the means by which policy differences with the Labor Party should be pursued and resolved. Such thinking might have been appropriate for 1891, 1945 and 1991 but it will not deal with the union dilemmas of the 21st century.

Around 40% of the ACTU’s existing membership are in non-ALP affiliated unions and young workers frequently have views independent of organised political formations (including Labor). Many vote for the Greens and (less often) the Coalition. While the ALP-ACTU relationship remains (and should remain) important, the ACTU needs an independent community campaigning focus and a stronger and public relationship with the Greens.

This shift in strategy is a necessary pre-condition for securing a broadly based community alliance to drive a new environmentally sustainable economy, for improving working conditions for casual and insecure employees for recruiting young un-unionised workers and for achieving big improvements in the flawed Fair Work Act. 3

FROM THE OFFICERS

MATThew MCGOWAN, national assistant secretary

Floods, levies and education N

early everyone in higher education agrees that more funding is needed to ensure that the sector is able to deliver increased participation without sacrificing the quality of the teaching and research done in our Universities. The NTEU has been preparing to put the case to the Government, both through the Base Funding Review that is currently under way, and through a longer term public campaign.

The Greens reflected their base by calling for fewer cuts and changAs part of our preparations for the campaign, the NTEU has been ing the expectations of the Budget, advocating that the Budget didn’t conducting polling to determine how the public views the sector really need to come into surplus by 2012. Tony Abbott whistled to and the results are very encouraging. While details of the polling his base by opposing any levy, and calling for much deeper cuts to will be released after a full analysis has been completed, the results expenditure. All very predictable. show very strong public support However, more importantly for the sector. In general, the sentiand unexpected was the focus ments that came out of the polling The announcement of the cancelation on the university sector in the included: of the Australian Teaching and Learning Budget cuts announced by the • University funding should be a Council ($88 million) and the Capital Government. Given the unanipriority for the Government. mous view being put to them • Students pay too much for their Development Pool ($299 million) from the sector (including NTEU) university education, and it’s the represented a combined contribution of that more funds are needed, this Government’s job to fund it.

12% to the saving made to the budget was not a good sign.

• Universities should have high directly from the sector.

The announcement of the canquality education and research cellation of the Australian Teachas their primary focus. ing and Learning Council ($88 • Universities should not be million) and the Capital Development Pool ($299 million) reprediverted into entrepreneurial activities. sented a combined contribution of 12% to the savings made to the However, the signals from the Government have been mixed at Budget directly from the sector. While the outcry that followed saw best and they haven’t improved in the aftermath of the Queensland the retention of the key functions of the ATLC, the more substantial floods. financial loss of the Capital Development Pool will be keenly felt in The debates about how to fund the recovery efforts following the the long term. floods have been largely predictable with the key participants sendThis was money designed to improve the infrastructure on campus. ing clear signals to their constituents. But what were the signals being That means, providing better classrooms, lecture theaters, libraries, sent by each of the participant parties/politicians, and what were the laboratories, research facilities, IT signals being sent to the university infrastructure, student amenities, sector through this process? … and the list goes on.

The possible responses to an This is substantial loss to the sector at This is a substantial loss to the unexpected increase in expenditure sector at a time when it needs are fairly straightforward, i.e. tempoa time when it needs more funding, not more funding, not less, and it rarily increase revenue, change your less, and it sends a strong signal ... sends a strong signal that we are expectations about your bottom not the Government’s top priorline, reduce other expenditure, or ity. It would seem that we are not a mixture of these three options. In even in the top 10. their responses to the floods, each of the three main players used this There is no doubt that the Government has and will continue to as an opportunity to send signals to their respective constituents. face difficult budgetary decisions in the next few years. When they The Government chose to keep its Budget expectations the same, first came to office, no one could have predicted the global financial by increasing revenue through a flood levy, and with some modest crisis or the Queensland floods. However, this does not excuse the expenditure reductions. This reflects their outlook as a centrist party continuing decline in the real value of base funding for the sector, seeking to maintain government services (and therefore expenditure) with the threat this represents for the quality of teaching and research while signaling that it is financially conservative by making some cuts at our universities. It is up to us to remind them of this. and keeping to their timeline for returning the Budget to surplus.

4

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

UPDATE NATIONAL

NATIONAL

Members fill Fighting Fund

M

embers from around Australia responded enthusiastically to appeals to donate to the NTEU Fighting Fund, established to support members stood down in November and December at the University of New South Wales and Macquarie University.

Just under $170,000 was donated to the Fund in December, even though it was in the lead-up to Christmas, when everyone’s finances are under pressure.

Members were stood down without pay for taking protected industrial action, as part of those Branches’ campaigns for improved job security and other provisions in new Enterprise Agreements (see articles on pages 10 & 11).

Even though participating members had placed a ban on only one part of their duties, managements at both Universities elected to stand people down outright, preventing them from performing the rest of

their normal duties, and denying them any pay at all.

The attitude of contributors was perhaps summed up by one individual who emailed the NTEU National Office to say: I am very happy to support my colleagues at UNSW and Macquarie in this struggle. Staff at those universities deserve the same job security protections that are now in place at most other universities. If the management at UNSW or Macquarie succeed in lowering those protections, the management at my university will be seeking the same here next time around. A Michael Evans, National Organiser

NEW SOUTH WALES

Tranby College nears end of its first Collective Agreement

M

ay 2010 marked a significant event in the history of Tranby Aboriginal College: staff voted for the first Collective Agreement in the organisation’s history. All the more significant when consideration of the strong support that Tranby has had since beginning from many organisations with strong social concepts and in particular unions.

A one year Agreement was finalised with NTEU and bargaining is about to begin again. It must be noted that during the term of the Agreement, Tranby has been a much more settled workplace with the bonus that its finances have not been as strained as they have been in the past due to unfair dismissal cases.

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Student Union Award coverage

A

ll NTEU members employed in university unions and student unions are now unambiguously covered by the Higher Education Industry–General Staff Modern Award.

When the Award was made in 2010, under the Award Modernisation process, a Fair Work Australia decision indicated that student unions would be covered by the Award. However, this aspect of the decision was not fully reflected in the wording of the Modern Award: although a definition of university unions and student unions was included, the coverage clause in the Award did not include student unions.

This year, NTEU made an application to correct this oversight, which was heard by Fair Work Australia on 31 January. On 4 February, the Tribunal granted the Union’s application and issued an amendment to the Modern Award. A

Tranby, located in Glebe, Sydney, is the oldest independent Indigenous education provider in Australia. It is a not-for-profit organisation offering courses in an environment that supports Aboriginal learners.

The College also offers fee for service courses for the likes of Aboriginal Land Councils, Legal Services and in partnership the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program and the Indigenous Women’s Leadership Program. They also offer conference facilities.

Four nationally accredited Diploma Courses are offered: • Diploma of National Indigenous Legal Advocacy • Diploma of Business (Governance) • Advanced Diploma of Applied Aboriginal Studies • Diploma of Community Development.

Tranby is embarking on its next fifty years of commitment to providing high quality education with a strong social and political voice.

We look forward to a productive negotiation this round to build a stronger and even more effective workplace.

A good news story for a valuable asset to education. A Terry Mason, National Executive

5

UPDATE NEW SOUTH WALES

USyd student system causes uncertainty

R

ecent moves to employ new staff for the Sydney Student administrative system have denied existing staff the chance for internal redeployment.

This is despite budget constraints across the University, staff freezes and a commitment by University Management post-White Paper to provide redeployment opportunities before redundancies. Some six new positions in direct or central admissions have not been made available for internal merit-based redeployment.

The main concern is that with the commissioning of the new Sydney Student system (to replace FlexSIS operations), existing student administration staff have well founded fears that their jobs may be made redundant. Technically, no redundancies have yet been forced by the new system but the implications from the centralised services agenda are clear.

More alarming is the anecdotal evidence from some of the consultations with frontline staff. Reports have emerged that those overseeing the new system have dismissed claims about the need for flexibility in dealing with student needs, and the inevitable case work that occurs in Faculties and departments. One Sydney Student implementation consultant was alleged to have stated that “the student who demands flexibility today is the academic who demands flexibility tomorrow” and that this “was not good enough anymore”. It is attitudes such as this which have caused the most concern amongst student services staff.

Sydney Student is the new student system and the backdrop to the Sydney Lifecycle Management (SLM) program. Sydney Student will be involved in enrolment, admission, course choice and progress, unit of study progress, examinations, results, HECs, graduations – everything to do with a student’s progress. The SLM is presented as an idyll of administration: a simplified, personalised, seamless student experience from first enquiry through to alumni engagement and provide staff with improved support to make clear decisions, reduce risks and spend more time on valuable activities.

What the new system fails to address is that it will change job positions, workflows and duties for many staff involved in student administration. While work practices within organisations are open to change, there has been little engagement with the effects of Sydney Student on existing staff and their specialized duties managing student needs.

6

Staff working in Departments, Schools, Faculty Offices and central student administration are all feeling threatened by the lack of information about the implications of the new student system to their current positions. It is clearly more than a new system just for students.

General Staff are already concerned about job security – the White Paper is very clear in pursuing centralisation of administration as a means of efficiency and cost reduction.

The planning since the White Paper, however, has been silent about how the varied tasks student services staff currently carry out will continue to be resourced. Clearly, centralisation of services does not include centralisation of planning and support for across the board staffing changes. It is the Faculties, Departments and Schools that will bear the brunt of any centralised staff efficiency measures (read, redundancies) without regard for the workload that will continue locally.

University Management are saying that the new system will make incremental changes to work flows so they cannot predict the outcomes in regards to positions and workflows. This seems counter intuitive to many staff who work with the student system. Surely they have not invested vast amounts of money and university resources on this very important, central part of the University’s business without having considered the implications it has for staff?

The NTEU USyd Branch has set up regular fortnightly meetings with management of Sydney Student to raise issues of concern members have with the new project. The Branch will also be organising regular members’ meetings to discuss what is happening and allowing members to raise issues of concern. To get involved, phone the Branch on (02) 9351 2827. A Michael Thomson, NTEU USyd Branch President Sydney Student & SLM c sydney.edu.au/staff/slm/

NATIONAL

ERA National Report released

T

he Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2010 National Report was released in late January by the Australian Research Council (ARC). The Report provides discipline and institution based reports on the standard of research excellence at Australian universities.

ERA is not only intended to establish benchmarks of Australian research performance. Since its release, Minister Carr has confirmed that after the 2012 round ERA will influence the allocation of research block grants, in particular $300 million of the $510 million allocated through the Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) program from 2009-2013.

The ARC is currently reviewing the ERA 2010 ranked journal and conference lists. Public consultation will remain open until 4 April at the following link: https://roci.arc.gov.au/ Submissions for new journals and conferences close on 21 March. The first phase of public consultation will be followed by a phase between April to July in which the ARC will contract peak bodies and academic groups to make recommendations regarding the final rankings and field of research assignments for the ERA 2012 lists. A ARC public consultation c https://roci.arc.gov.au

The latest Australian Universities’ Review (AUR) contains an article by Simon Cooper and Anna Poletti, ‘The new ERA of journal ranking’, exploring the unintended consequences of ERA upon Australia’s academic and research culture.

See report by Ian Dobson in this issue of Advocate, p.24. Also see www.aur.org.au Regular Advocate columnists, Ian Lowe, discusses how the journal People and Place is a victim of the ERA rankings. See report, p.33.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

UPDATE NATIONAL

Exposure draft legislation released for new quality and standards agency: TEQSA

A

fter many months of sector consultation, the Federal Government finally released the exposure draft of the legislation that establishes the new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).

A key recommendation of the Bradley Review of Higher Education, TEQSA will be the new national regulatory and quality assurance authority for Australian higher education. It will essentially combine the regulation of higher education institutions undertaken by the States and Territories with the quality assurance activities of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), reducing the number of Federal, State and Territory regulatory and quality assurance bodies from nine to one.

Importantly, the exposure draft addresses many of the early concerns that NTEU and other sector bodies raised in earlier discussions with the Government that centred on the roles and responsibilities of TEQSA. This included the incorporation of principles that minimise the regulatory burden on higher education providers and insure that the regulation of standards and quality are risk based and proportionate.

In doing so the legislation effectively recognises that not all higher education pro-

viders are the same and therefore do not present the same risks, taking into account a provider’s history, its scale and mission and minimising the regulatory burden on low risk providers.

Following the public exposure process, the Government will introduce the TEQSA legislation to the Parliament in the week commencing 21 March 2011 and will also refer the TEQSA legislation to the Senate Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for inquiry.

NTEU will continue to advocate strongly for TEQSA to be a regulatory authority that streamlines the current processes, and that the raft of new teaching, learning, research and governance standards to be developed under the umbrella of the Agency will be effective in ensuring the quality and reputation of Australia’s higher education system.

The closing date for submissions on the exposure draft is Thursday 10 March, 2011. A Exposure draft legislation c www.deewr.gov.au/teqsa

NATIONAL

NTEU celebrates 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day

N

TEU branches around the country organised events to recognise the centenary of International Women’s Day on 8 March. In a number of places, Branches partnered with their University Equity sections to celebrate the achievements we have made towards gender equality, equity and women’s rights for all women and girls.

Higher education industry leadership on paid maternity and parental leave is recognised throughout Australia, and has been very influential in increasing the availability of paid parental leave through industrial agreements and legislation. Women in higher education have achieved equal pay and conditions through the removal of discriminatory policy and practice.

Affirmative action programs have challenged structural, sys- Pictured: At the IWD 2011 Breakfast at University of Queensland, Director Equity Office Ann temic and attitudinal prejudice. We have witnessed women Stewart, HR Director Shard Lorenzo, NTEU National President Jeannie Rea, Professor of English and moving through their careers to positions of leadership and Women’s Studies Carole Ferrier, NTEU Queensland Division Secretary Margaret Lee. influence, but despite all our efforts, the aspirations, course and career choices of Australian women and men continue to be highly gender segregated.

In order to understand these issues better, NTEU has partnered with Unisuper and Universities Australia Executive Women in a ARC project, led by Professor Glenda Strachan of Griffiths University, to investigate these practices in the university sector by examining recruitment, promotion and career progression. A major survey, reprising the NTEU gender equity survey fifteen years ago, will be undertaken this year. The particular focus is upon contrasting pressures from entrepreneurial developments and advances in equity policies. The objective is to provide new evidence of the ways gender inequalities are reproduced and to inform strategies to promote gender equality. A NTEU Women c www.nteu.org.au/women

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

7

UPDATE NATIONAL

Uni Bargaining – Victory close but a few battles still to win

R

ound 5 bargaining is drawing to a close, with only six universities still to finalise Agreements. The Union has recently reached agreement at the University of Newcastle (Academic) and all-staff Agreements at the University of South Australia and the Australian Catholic University.

The tables below summarise the outcomes in recent Agreements. At the outset of bargaining, the Union set itself the challenging task of

Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Salary increase (flat) Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

restoring conditions lost under John Howard’s WorkChoices, making new gains for casual and Indigenous members and getting decent pay increases reflecting the strong financial position of most universities.

Despite these challenges, NTEU has achieved the following: • Annual pay rises averaging around 4.5%.

• The restoration of the limitations on fixed term employment.

• Limits on the use of casual employment, and separate pay for all marking for casual academics.

FINALISED AGREEMENTS NEWCASTLE Aca ACU

UQ

ADELAIDE

UTAS General

NEWCASTLE Gen

FLINDERS

FWA Approved

FWA Approved

FWA Approved

FWA Approved

FWA Approved

FWA Approved

Awaiting approval

27-Nov-10 15-May-13 18.5% 20% 4.0% 4.0%

27-Nov-10 31-Mar-13 18% 19.3% 4.2% 4.2%

11-Nov-10 30-Jun-12 16% 17.1% 4.3% 4.3%

30-Jan-11 30-Sep-13 20% 21.6% 4.5% 4.5%

8-Nov-10 30-Jun-13 16% 17.2% 4.3% 4%

8-Nov-10 30-Jun-13 16% 17.2% 4.3% 4%

25-Feb-11 30-Jun-13 20% 21.7% 4% 4%

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ n/a n/a n/a

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

✔

n/a

✔

✔

n/a

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

? ?

✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ n/a

? ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

NOTES & SPECIAL FEATURES

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ • Contingent continuing research staff provision

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ • Data on IFAs to be provided to Union • Serious research miscon- twice a year duct provisions • Soft casual limits

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (May 09)

• Protected action ballot (Aug 10)

• Protected action ballot (Aug 10)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• Work stoppage (9 Sep 10)

• Work stoppage (9 Sep 10)

• Bans on results (Dec 09)

• Bans on results (Nov 09)

• All bans enabled

• Strike + O-Week action (Mar 10) • Rolling stoppages (Aug/Sep 10) ✔ Claim achieved

8

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

UPDATE • Reversal of most conditions lost under the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements, including the restoration of disciplinary rights, the structure of review committees, and the restoration of staff rights under disputes procedures.

• The entrenching of Indigenous employment targets, and ensuring that universities carry out their Indigenous employment policies.

and have failed to come good on pay and claims which have been achieved elsewhere. Of greatest concern is the fact that these universities have refused to restore basic award rights which limit the use of fixed term employment to legitimate circumstances.

Even worse than this, management has succeeded – with the support of the CPSU – in making sub-standard agreements for general staff which undermine these basic award standards. NTEU is doing everything it can to protect the rights of its general staff members at these universities, and has appealed against initial decisions in Fair Work Australia which approved these Agreements. A For results tables for all universities c www.universitybargaining.com.au

UNSW, Macquarie and Wollongong At these three universities, the situation has been more difficult. Management has been clinging to their WorkChoices-era Agreements,

Status Approval Date by National Executive Expiry Date Salary increase (flat) Increase compounded Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry) Annual wage growth (payrise to payrise)

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING CDU USC

VU

W’GONG Aca

Continuing

Continuing

UNISA

UNSW Academic

MQ Academic

Awaiting Approval

Continuing

Continuing

Continuing

Continuing

3yr from cert. date

30-Sep-14 16% 17.2% 3.3% 3.3%

16% 17% 4%

31-Dec-13 26.5% Gen; 26% Aca 29.2% 4.41% 4.27%

✖ ✔? ✔? ✔?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

17-Dec-10 30-Jun-13 18.5% 19.9% 4.4% 4.4%

18% 19.5% 4.5% 4.3%

May-14 4%* 3.5%

20.5% 22.36% 3.73% 3.73%

HEWRRs RESTORATION

HECE fixed term limits Discipline & termination Job security/managing change Union rights

✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ ✔ ✖

? ? ?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ ✔ ✖ ✖

? ? ? ?

✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✔

?

✖ ✖ ✖

✔

?

✔?

?

✔

✖

✖

✔ ✔

✔

? ?

✔ ✖

✔ ✔

✔

?

?

✔ ✖

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

? ?

? ?

✔? ✖ ✔ ✖

✔?

✔

✖

?

✖

? ?

CASUALS

25% loading Pay for marking Limits on casual numbers More secure jobs

?

ACADEMIC WORKLOADS

Quantifiable and effective regulation INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

Strategy & targets Monitoring Committee OTHER CLAIMS

Superannuation Dispute resolution Intellectual freedom General staff classifications NOTES & SPECIAL FEATURES

INDUSTRIAL ACTION

✔ ✔ n/a n/a • Bargaining sus• Previous agreepended from July ment covered 2010; impasse over academic and HECE provisions general staff

✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ n/a • Pay increase • Original 1 yr Agreeincludes 2007 ment, exp 28 Feb 10 catch-up in original • NTEU rejected further 3% offer 1 year 2009 Agree- as insufficient and conditional on ment, expired Dec dropping academic workloads 09

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Protected action ballot (May 09) • Strike (21 May 09)

• Protected action ballot (Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• Protected action ballot (May 10)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• All bans enabled

• All bans enabled

• 24 hour strike (28 June 10)

• Protected action ballot sought for exam bans (Oct 10)

• Bans on results (Nov • Bans on results 09) (July 10) • Strike (18 Aug 10) • Rolling stoppages (Aug 10)

• 4 hr stop work (29 June 10) • 24 hour strike (8 Aug 10) • Bans on results (11 Jun 10–9 Aug 10)

• Work bans (Sep 10) ✔ Claim achieved

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

✖ Claim rejected or stalled ? Claim under serious negotiation ✔? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute

9

UPDATE NEW SOUTH WALES

UNSW members continue campaign for better job security

N

TEU members at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) have vowed to continue their long campaign for improved job security and other provisions in a new Enterprise Agreement.

The campaign has so far involved bans being placed on the transmission of exam results in June and November 2010, rallies outside successive University Council meetings, and various stop work actions. The exam results bans in November led to 34 members being stood down without any pay for two months over DecemberJanuary.

Negotiations with UNSW management have now dragged on for nearly two years, with the major sticking points being UNSW’s refusal to reinstate provisions on enhanced job security for fixed term and casual employees, quantifiable and effective regulation of academic workloads, and a raft of other improvements.

VC clings to outdated approach These employment conditions (which UNSW staff previously enjoyed) were arbitrarily stripped away by the Howard Government’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and the discredited WorkChoices legislation.

Agreements reached at 32 other universities, including all of the rest of the ‘Group of 8’, have reinstated the employment conditions. Only UNSW and Macquarie University have refused to do so.

Unfortunately, UNSW Vice-Chancellor Professor Fred Hilmer has history – in a previous role as head of Fairfax Media – of enthusiastically embracing an industrial relations approach that takes away employment rights and conditions, and enshrines unfettered management prerogative.

Despite Australians overwhelming reject10

arguing that the uncertainties around the international student market and on-going funding issues warrant this approach.

But since these provisions were stripped from the current Agreement, the use of fixed-term contracts has dramatically increased, leading to high workloads for all staff, gender inequity, deteriorating quality of the education experience for students, declining standards of intellectual freedom and decreased levels of job security that seriously impact on staff members and their families.

In reality, UNSW’s circumstances are little different to most other universities that have agreed to improvements in job security provisions. In fact, given UNSW’s relatively strong asset base and university ‘brand’, it is arguably better off than most to withstand the shortterm fluctuations of student demand.

Fighting on ing this at the 2007 Federal Election, UNSW is still clinging to this approach.

The campaign has been complicated by UNSW management preparing a sub-standard Agreement covering General Staff in late 2010, which offered a low pay rise and no significant improvements on rights for casual staff members and fixed term contract employees. NTEU campaigned strongly for staff to reject the Agreement, but it was voted up by a small margin.

NTEU subsequently challenged the Agreement’s approval in Fair Work Australia (FWA).

FWA eventually approved the Agreement, but only after UNSW management gave additional undertakings around particular clauses that may have resulted in UNSW employees being worse off than the underlying Award provisions. This outcome vindicated NTEU’s stand. We have now lodged an appeal against the FWA decision, which at the time of writing is yet to be heard.

Staff conditions deteriorating UNSW asserts that it needs to retain ‘absolute flexibility’ on the ways it employs staff,

NTEU UNSW Branch President Sarah Gregson said that the Branch is planning a range of activities to continue the campaign during first semester.

‘We want to impress upon Council and management the disquiet felt by many staff who view the lack of bargaining progress as a graphic illustration that management does not value staff, students or the quality of education and research that we collaborate to produce’, Sarah said.

‘We all know that these collaborations take time and long-term investments –they cannot flourish in an atmosphere of insecurity and fear.’

UNSW management’s stance means that the University runs the risk of being less attractive to potential staff due to its inferior employment conditions. If UNSW wants to continue to attract and retain high quality staff, it’s important that these issues are successfully resolved during this bargaining round.

This is why NTEU members will continue the campaign for as long as it takes to achieve a satisfactory outcome. A Michael Evans, National Organiser UNSW Campaign site c www.unswstaff.org

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

UPDATE NEW SOUTH WALES

Members have momentum at Macquarie

M

acquarie University saw more industrial action in February, with staff in each of the faculties striking for 24 hours on successive days in the second week of first semester. This was part of the members’ ongoing campaign to achieve improvements in job security and other provisions in a new Enterprise Agreement.

Sticking points Similar to UNSW (see article, opposite), Macquarie University refuses to reinstate provisions on enhanced job security for fixed term and casual employees, quantifiable and effective regulation of academic workloads, and a raft of other improvements including an improved pay offer.

The February action followed the successful bans on the transmission of exam results instigated in December, which led to over 60 staff members being stood down without pay for several weeks. The wide support for the bans and the large regular meetings of members to talk about the campaign has created a strong sense of momentum towards a satisfactory outcome, and has put management on notice about the seriousness of NTEU members’ commitment to achieving better outcomes on pay and job security.

FOI reveals top level bonuses NTEU Branch President Cathy Rytmeister highlighted some of the contradictions in Macquarie management’s stance, particularly on pay.

‘Following a freedom of information request, the University was forced to release data showing that the University’s most highly-paid managers received bonuses in 2009 ranging from around $50,000 to more than $60,000. The Vice-Chancellor, on top of his salary of almost $600,000, received $150,000 in 2009 and is eligible for $300,000 to be paid in the first quarter of this year if he achieves long-term ‘objectives’,’ Cathy said.

‘These are the people who have been assuring us of their confidence in the profitability of the University’s property ventures, MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

marketing $250million worth of bonds to overseas investors and boasting publicly about the University’s healthy financial position, sizeable surpluses and solid credit rating. ‘ ‘Now they are trying to cry poor and convince us that if they can’t maintain ‘workforce flexibility’ (i.e. no limits on fixed term and casual employment for the lowest-paid staff ), it will all come tumbling down like a house of cards!’

Another WorkChoices fan The reality is that this has come down to the VC’s ideological fixation with maintaining the WorkChoices regime of unfettered managerial discretion in determining contracts of employment.

The combination of the Management’s pay offer and their position on fixed-term contracts would provide substandard working conditions for Macquarie staff. The goal appears to be to pay most staff at a low rate relative to the sector while keeping them compliant through fear of non-renewal of contracts.

‘This would diminish members’ ability to defend our workplace rights and in particular, make it very challenging to implement the regulation of workloads set down in the Enterprise Agreement,’ said Cathy Rytmeister.

‘In a short space of time, without an increased pay offer and limits on fixed-term employment, we will see the emergence of an army of fixed-term, poorly paid employees teaching more hours and more students, enabling the diversion of funds earned through teaching (i.e. Commonwealth funding and student fees) to service massive debts on risky property development and other entrepreneurial projects.’

Campaign continues Similar to UNSW, members at Macquarie are determined to continue the campaign for as long as it takes to get a new acceptable Agreement that respects staff by providing more secure employment. A Michael Evans, National Organiser Macquarie Campaign site c www.mqstaff.org

11

UPDATE NATIONAL

Rapid response saves key functions of ALTC

Q

uick action across the sector, including by NTEU, plus the support of Greens and Independent MPs, halted the Federal Government’s proposed complete abolition of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) to fund flood reconstruction.

At the end of January, when the Prime Minister announced her intention to cut higher education programs to fund flood reconstruction, the NTEU immediately objected, arguing that this was short sighted economic and political management.

The cuts centred on the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and the Capital Development Program, both respected and well targeted projects, and any savings gained through their abolition is disproportionate to their impact.

‘While the NTEU fully understands the urgency of rebuilding flood affected areas, we question the wisdom of funding this through cuts to investment in other important nation building areas.

Around 13% of the savings are coming from our universities, with only climate change programs suffering greater cuts,’ said NTEU President Jeannie Rea. ‘What is more important, a small deficit by international standards or investment in our country’s future?’

Abolishing the ALTC, which supports the continuous improvement of quality in university teaching through research, award and grant programs, was argued to be at odds with the Government’s often stated commitment to improving teaching standards and student outcomes. It also raised questions about the Gillard Govern-

ment’s rhetoric on the critical importance of education to Australia’s economic and social future. The loss of $300m in capital development funding will impact especially heavily on regional universities who have been the major recipients of this funding in recent years.

The Government’s cuts met with an immediate outcry from within universities amongst NTEU members, teaching and learning centres, Professors of Education, and beyond.

The Government was flooded with protest and Opposition and Independent politicians were lobbied. The Union prepared and disseminated a briefing paper providing the detail lacking in the announcements and joined others in calls to consider funding the flood recovery through the extension of the budget deficit for another year or two.

In response the Green and Independent MPs listened and tied their support for the flood levy to maintaining the key functions of the ALTC. Within a matter of weeks, the Government had pulled back and agreed to maintain key components of the ALTC. However, regional institutions will still be affected by the loss of capital development funding, and so NTEU will continue to push for this decision to be overturned. A ALTC c www.altc.edu.au

Corrections Advocate vol. 18, no. 4 (Nov 2010)

Gerry Voll and John Saw were the authors of the obituary for Bill Robbins, originally published in Labour History. Thank you to Celia Bevan for the information.

Advocate vol. 18, no. 2 (June 2010)

The cover image for this issue was incorrectly credited. The photographer was Bevan Bache, NTEU member at Griffith University.

12

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, r acgp, 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

NATIONAL

Pushing the boundaries on climate change

N

TEU’s climate change conference (28-29 April) aims to ‘Push the Boundaries’ on the ways we are thinking, talking, connecting and acting on climate change and environmental sustainability.

Following very little progress at the international Cancun talks last December, the Australian debate has opened up again as the Federal Labor Government proposes a price on carbon. But this is under attack, on the one hand, for being insufficient to tackle the immensity of the accelerating crisis and the need for massive investment in renewable energy and behavioural change, and, on the other, it is being dismissed by the Opposition and vested interests as another ‘big tax’. The frame of the Australian debate is far too narrow and unambitious considering the immensity of the realities facing us.

Leading commentators, researchers, educators and activists from our membership, and unions and organisations will be debating and challenging the increasingly narrow framing of these critical issues. The objectives are to inform, educate and facilitate debate and action amongst our membership; to provide a platform for informed discussion drawing upon the professional expertise of our membership; and to influence public debate.

Organisation of the conference is well underway, please contact your local Branch if you are interested in participating or have suggestions. We hope to have videoconferencing to facilitate participation from outside of Melbourne. A For information, please contact: National President Jeannie Rea jrea@nteu.org.au or National Organiser Michael Evans, mevans@nteu.org.au c www.pushingtheboundaries.org.au

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

UPDATE NATIONAL

Budget 2011: The urgent need for action on workforce renewal

N

TEU’s 2011 Budget submission has focused on the now urgent need for workforce renewal in higher education. While there is an awareness that Australia’s general workforce is aging, with current figures showing that 42% of Australian workers are currently in the ‘baby boomer’ age groups, the problem of an aging workforce is exacerbated in the higher education sector, where currently 56% of academics are baby boomers.

Furthermore, the university sector is set to be challenged by the need to not only substantially replace almost half of its staff but also accommodate a projected significant growth in demand, driven to a large extent by the Federal Government’s 2009 objective of lifting the proportion of 25-34 year olds with tertiary qualifications in the country from 32% to 40%.

In short, while there is an immense workforce challenge rapidly approaching the higher education sector, as yet there is no nationally based strategic plan to address the problem of workforce renewal and any planning taking place in institutions is sporadic and on an ad hoc basis.

Academic career development NTEU has therefore proposed the establishment of a new Academic Career Development Programme (ACDP). This programme would ensure universities have the necessary resources to train and develop the next generation of academic staff, reduce the

excessive reliance of universities on casual staff, and provide career opportunities to the thousands of highly qualified casual staff unable to obtain entry into the academic workforce, due in part because of the high levels of casualisation.

The ACPD would provide universities with a direct subsidy to appoint early career academics as new full time staff appointments for a three year period. Any such appointments would be selected on merit, be genuinely new positions that increase the size of the non-casual academic workforce, and convert some existing casuals to more secure forms of employment. NTEU is proposing that the number of such positions be equivalent at least to 10% of each university’s full time equivalent casual workforce.

The underlying objectives of these positions would be to attract recently qualified persons to pursue a career in academia by establishing a clear entry career path, and provide newly appointed academics with an opportunity to participate in staff development programs, build their teaching and/or

research profiles, and to develop national and international collaborations and networks.

In terms of cost, NTEU has proposed that the Commonwealth provide a subsidy equivalent to $50,000 per annum for each Academic Career Development Programme appointment, which equate to approximately 50% of the direct cost of a Level B appointment. At this level of subsidy the Commonwealth could fund the appointment of 1,000 such appointments each year for an initial cost of $50m and an ongoing cost of $150m per annum after three years.

NTEU stresses that unless measures are introduced to train, recruit and develop suitably qualified staff, within the next 10 years Australia’s higher education sector will find it extremely difficult to remain internationally competitive in terms of teaching, learning and research. If adopted, the ACPD would be a small but significant step in addressing this urgent problem and act as a starting point for both Government and institutions to strategically address the impending crisis in workforce renewal. A

Want to receive your own copy of AUR? AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU.

Since 1958, the Australian Universities’ Review has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life.

vol. 53 , Pub lished by

no. 1, 2011 ISSN 081

NTEU

NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis – so you need to let us know.

8–8068

AUR

If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive AUR, please email aur@nteu.org.au

Austr alian Unive rsities ’Rev iew vol. 52, no.

Publish ed by

NTEU

2, 201 0 0818–8

ISSN

068

AUR is listed on the DEEWR register of refereed journals.

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

AUR

Austra lian U nivers ities’R eview

13

INDIGENOUS NEWS

From CDEP to real jobs T

he Northern Territory Emergency Response (the Intervention) continues to have enormous impact upon Aboriginal communities, without any tangible impact on the Government’s ‘Close the Gap’ campaign. In November 2010, the ACTU Indigenous Committee and a delegation of union leaders, including ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence, met with Indigenous communities and related organisations to ascertain how communities are coping with the Intervention.

Over three years after its introduction, few of the measures implemented have addressed the underlying socio-economic issues, and today Aboriginal communities are living a second class existence. In reality, they are now further ostracised from wider Australian society than ever before.

The ACTU delegation heard from many Community members who spoke of their frustrations with the Basics Card, the moves to dismantle the Community Employment Development Program (CDEP), the inappropriate signage that detail items restricted from those communities, the restructure of local Government in the Northern Territory and forced land lease arrangements tied to Federal Government funding.

If Aboriginal communities are to have aspirations for a better life for individuals and their families, one key lynch-pin in achieving this as yet aspirational goal is employment. Whist the CDEP program was never the ‘be-all-and-end-all solution’; restructuring this program and diminishing the possibility of obtaining a minimum two days work or even removing it altogether, as has been done in Victoria, will do little to over-come the employment gap. How do we move toward the goal of real, ongoing jobs for Aboriginal communities, when all that exists is the current piece-meal approach?

To quote some stark statistics, currently: • The workforce participation rate among the Indigenous population is 43.2%, compared to 65.1% for the entire population.

• The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is 15.5%, three times the national rate.

• Indigenous workers are among the most vulnerable in the workforce. Many are employed casually or part14

time in jobs that have little security or stability.

How can Indigenous communities ever aspire to have a future with self-determined options, if we are continuously subjected to limited employment opportunities, with sub-award pay and conditions? The Jobs with Justice campaign calls upon Government to pay Aboriginal workers minimum award rates of pay and conditions, including access to superannuation, something that even in our progressive society does not exist today.

The ACTU delegation to Alice Springs was a first step, but in context it is just a small step. The real work begins now and has progressed during the recent ACTU Indigenous Conference in Darwin.

If the union movement is to achieve an outcome anywhere close to the 1966 Gurindji walk-off, we need to work alongside communities, support those communities and advocate on their behalf to achieve real jobs and provide the possibility of real aspirations.

If something big is to grow from the dismay that is the Northern Territory Intervention, we all need to work on building on the little things and getting the fundamentals right – otherwise, I fear the future for Aboriginal employment will look no better than what exists today. A Adam Frogley, National Indigenous Officer

Indigenous Forum 2011 N

TEU Indigenous Forum 2011 will be held on Friday the 6th and Saturday the 7th of May in Melbourne. This year, we hope to achieve a greater number of Indigenous delegates from Branches and Divisions across the Country.

Members of the Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) as well as senior Elected Officers and NTEU Staff will attend Forum and participate in the meeting and training workshops.

This year, Forum will include a little of the local Kulin Nation culture, with delegates being invited to attend the Womin je ka River Walk. The river walk, conducted by the Koorie Heritage Trust, is a fantastic opportunity for all Forum delegates to experience some of the Kulin Nations culture that existed in Melbourne prior to the settlement of Port Phillip in 1830’s.

Indigenous Forum 2011 will give delegates an opportunity to provide input into the development of Indigenous policy and strategies that relate to Indigenous employment, teaching, research and social justice issues.

A series of training workshops will be conducted at Indigenous Forum and these workshops will cover a range of topics that are relevant to Indigenous members and Industrial/Organising staff in Branches and Divisions.

Registrations for Indigenous Forum will be circulated to all Branches and Divisions shortly. For further information on Indigenous Forum 2011, please contact Celeste Liddle, National Indigenous Organiser on (03) 9254 1910 or via email to cliddle@nteu.org.au A NTEU Indigenous c www.nteu.org.au/indigenous

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Indigenous employment in universities: The road to employment parity is paved with good intentions A

t first glance, the employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic and general staff has been on a steady increase over the last decade; although the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff to all staff employed in the higher education sector comprises only 0.99%. On this basis, achieving the minimum employment parity figure of 2.5% will take universities well into the next decade and beyond. The nature of Indigenous employment in the sector remains, in the majority, casualised or fixed-term appointments, and for some the goal of ongoing employment at their university seems a bridge too far.

An examination of the higher education statistics compiled by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), from 2000 to 2010, initially shows a promising overall trend (see Table 1). Data is broken down into the total actual number of Indigenous staff and the full time equivalent (FTE) which rounds all actual part-time employees into a comparable number of full-time employees.

In 2000, the total number and FTE Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic and general staff were 517 and 487 respectively. In 2010, the number and FTE for Indigenous staff was 1022 and 923, and while on the surface, it would seem that the total number (and FTE) have effectively doubled, we need to be mindful that overall trends do not necessarily dictate continuous progress.

When examining year on year trends, there have been wild fluctuations in employment outcomes. One factor in particular was the advent of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) under the Howard Government’s WorkChoices regime.

As part of funding requirements under the HEWRRs, Indigenous employment was considered to be ‘banned content’ in all university Collective Agreements. While the HEWRRs were overturned in 2008, the effects of those requirements can still be seen today.

Total employment in the period 2000 to 2005 saw Indigenous staff appointments increase, but by the end of 2006 Indigenous staffing numbers had decreased year on year (2005 to 2006) by 3.4%. The greatest impact was felt by Indigenous Teaching and Research Only staff, who experienced a 12.5% decrease. Year on Year Indigenous employment trends compared to overall academic and general staff employment trends can be seen in Table 2.

Whilst the decrease in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff appointments may seem insignificant, a 3.4% decrease in Indigenous university staffing has major ramifications upon student recruitment, pastoral and academic support, and of course the university sector as a whole from the view of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Universities are mandated under the provisions of their individual Collective Agreements to have an Indigenous employment target, an Indigenous employment strategy, and NTEU or Indigenous representation on employment implementation monitoring committees.

Universities are also required to develop and implement their Indigenous Employment Strategy as part of their reporting requirements under the Institutional Assessment Framework, as part of their funding acquittal for the Indigenous Support Program.

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

1,200

Indigenous Staff 2000 to 2010 FTE Indigenous Staff 2000 to 2010 Number

1,000

a

800 600 1,200

Indigenous Staff 2000 to 2010 FTE Indigenous Staff 2000 to 2010 Number

400 1,000

a

200 800 0 600 400

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Table 1 – Indigenous Employment Trend (FTE and Number) – 2000 to 2010 a - Data not available for BIITE, 2009

200

It is an ignominy that in some cases, management of these public 0 institutions needs to be forcefully cajoled into producing a fair and 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 equitable employment platform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. We all have a long way to go to reach the minimum 25.0% Indigenous employment parity2001-2010 figure of 2.5%, although I question Non-Indigenous Staffing Indigenous employment Staffing 2001-2010 road needs to be paved with so why the Indigenous 20.0% many varied troughs and peaks along the way. A Adam Frogley, National Indigenous Officer 15.0%

25.0% 10.0%

Non-Indigenous Staffing 2001-2010 Indigenous Staffing 2001-2010

20.0% 5.0% 15.0% 0.0% 10.0% -5.0%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

HEWRR’s Introduced - 2006

5.0% -10.0%

2009

2010

a

0.0% 2001 -5.0%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

HEWRR’s Introduced - 2006

2008

2009

2010

a

-10.0%

Table 2. Indigenous Employment compared to non-Indigenous employment: Year on Year Trend – 2000 to 2010 15

INDIGENOUS NEWS

2011 ACTU Indigenous Conference TCONFERENCE 2011

he ACTU Indigenous Conference 2011, held in Darwin from 16–18 February, was called to discuss employment and social justice issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers and communities across Australia.

movement on what is happening in Indigment benefits; reflecting the current life A total of 114 representatives attended the enous communities now. ’ expectancy gap between Indigenous and conference, with a number of union affiliDay 1 - Wednesday 16th February ‘As always, the pathway to economic non-Indigenous Australians. ates and trades and labour councils being development is through decent employThe ACTU Indigenous Action Plan will represented by their Indigenous members 9:15 – 9:30 Welcome to Country ment and workplace rights. While unions incorporate all current ACTU policy positions and senior elected officials. To complehave been able to achieve gainsSecretary and will seek to vastly improve access to real, ment the Indigenous and non-Indigenous 9:30 – 10:15 Introductory Address Jeff significant Lawrence, ACTU Darryl Florance, Territory employment Account Manager, AustralianSuper for members and communities thoughNorthern barongoing and working to restore unionist cohort, a number of Indigenous Lang, State Manager (SA human & NT), ME Bank The development of the gaining and communityDavid campaigning, thoubasic rights. community Elders, representatives and sands of Indigenous workers remain without Action Plan is a first step toward rebuilding organisations were also invited to provide 10:15 – 11:00 Report from the Indigenous Committee Role and Work of the ACTU Indigenous Committee basic rights and are usually employed in the and reinforcing the partnership that has input into the development of an ACTU most vulnerable and insecure types of work.’ existed between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Indigenous 11:00 – 11:30 Action Plan.

Morning Tea Islander communities and unions, ensuring Jeff Lawrence, ACTU Secretary, detailed that Indigenous business is union business. the ACTU’s goals for achieving real jobs and 11:30 –12:15 Report Back – Central Australia Delegation Jeff Lawrence, ACTU Secretary NTEU was invited to present an overjustice and made reference to the Union’s 12:15 -1:00 DraftTorres Action Plan view of their Indigenous bargaining claim involvement with Presentation Aboriginal ofand In developing an action plan, a number of and achievements across various bargainStrait Islanders in previous disputes includpriority areas were raised for discussion at 1:00 – 2:00 Lunch ing rounds. Terry Mason, Indigenous Policy ing the Gurindji walk off in 1966. the conference. These included: Committee Deputy Chair, detailed the man‘Australian unions have always stood by • Northern Territory Emergency Response 2:00 – 3:30 Panel Discussion: Social Justice issues for Darcel Russell, AEU Deputy Federal Secretary Indigenous settlement CEO points and our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

We (The Intervention).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Romlie Mokak, Australiandatory Indigenous Doctors’ Association, suggested clauses. Terry also discussed the stood with Indigenous workers in the Wave • Employment (including CDEP) andTerritory Vince Kelly, Northern Police Association, President challenges associated in achieving real gains Hill–Station fighting for decent work.

3:30 3:45 walk out; Afternoon Tealand rights, for Indigenous employment in the higher and stolen wages. The courage and commit• Social Justice issues.

3:45 – 5:00 Promoting Justice of Unions Group Discussions and Plenary education sector. ment of Gurindji people whoSocial led the walk-– The• Role Land Rights.

The ACTU Action Plan is currently in the off at Wave Hill Station in 1966 in pursuit The ACTU has a range of policy platforms 5:30 – 7.00 Conference Evening Event final drafting stage and will be presented of equal wages and treatment must not be that detail a number of important initiatives to the next ACTU Executive meeting. It is forgotten’. in the areas of Indigenous health, education Day 2 – Thursday 17th February expected that the ACTU Indigenous Action ‘But it is clear that Indigenous Australand social justice issues. Included in this PlanMinister will beformade available on the ACTU ians– 9.45 have been leftKeynote behindSpeaker: by theIndigenous strong Employment range of policy positionsSenator is the NTEU’s 9.00 the HoncamMark Arbib, Indigenous Employment website. A growth of the Australian economy over the paign that calls upon Government to provide and Economic Development 9.45 Morning Tea announcing ACTU c www.actu.org.au past– 10.15 decade, so today we are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers a greater emphasis and focus of the union early access to superannuation and retire10.15 - 11.30 Panel Discussion: Community Development Andrew Tongue, FaHCSIA, Deputy Secretary Employment Projects (CDEP) David Ross, Central Land Council, Director Kelvin Costello, Larrakia Development Corporation, Deputy Chairman Shaun Fowler, Darwin Regional Indigenous Advancement & CDEP Inc, Operations Manager

Action Plan development

11.30 – 1:00

Panel Discussion: Indigenous Employment

1:00 – 2:00

Lunch

2:00 – 3:30

Promoting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development

3:30 – 3:45

Afternoon Tea

3:45 – 5:00

Promoting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development – The Role of Unions

Adam Frogley, NTEU, National Indigenous Officer Ian Bray, MUA, Assistant National Secretary Peter Simpson, ETU – QLD & NT, Secretary

Group Discussions

Plenary

Day 3 – Friday 18th February

16 9:00 – 9.45

Keynote Speaker: Reconciliation

Mick Gooda, Aboriginal and Torres

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Bargaining Update

Institution/ Branch

Indigenous Employment Target

Indigenous Employment Strategy

Cultural/ Ceremonial Leave provision

T

NTEU representation on Indigenous Employment Committees

Adelaide

✔1

✔

✔

✔2

3

✔

✔

✘

he current round of bargaining is in its final stages and NTEU has achieved excellent outcomes for our current and future Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members, providing greater employment opportunities and improved conditions.

These include: • Securing a numerical/percentage target for Indigenous employment across the university.

• Ensuring NTEU and/or Indigenous representation on Indigenous employment monitoring/implementation committees.

• University wide Indigenous employment strategies.

• Cultural and ceremonial leave provisions.

Table 1 provides an overview of what has been achieved since the previous edition of The Advocate. These bargaining outcomes are welcomed and provide measurable outcomes that give greater opportunities for Indigenous staff members at these institutions; but the real work is only beginning.

The NTEU Indigenous Unit will work to review the progress of the Indigenous employment strategies and targets for employment that have resulted from this current round, and look to enforce breaches if required. We congratulate the bargaining teams and look forward to working with the remaining Branches who are currently in the process of negotiating their Agreements. A

UQ

✔

UniSA

4

✔

UTAS Newcastle QUT

✔ 8

12

Flinders ACU

✔ ✔ ✔

16

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Commitment to appoint senior Indigenous Staff*

Representation on Selection & Assessment Panels

✘

✔

✘

✘

✘

✘

✔

5

✔

✘

✘

✔

7

✘

✘

✘

✘

✔

9

✔

13

✔

✘

15

✘

17

✘ ✘

6

10

✔

✔

14

?

✘

✘

✘

✘

✘

✘

✘

✔

11

* e.g. Indigenous Employment Coordinator and/or Pro/Deputy Vice Chancellor Indigenous.

Notes 1. University will fund an increase in Indigenous staff by at least 2 new staff positions per year, preferably at least one academic and one general staff position.

2. Up to 3 days paid leave per year for cultural requirements and obligations, 10 days leave without pay every two years for Indigenous ceremonial or cultural purposes.

3. Aspirational target of 2.8% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment across the University.

4. Target of 2% Indigenous employment across the University.

5. 10 hours leave during NAIDOC week. Employees can take two days recreational or long service leave as cultural leave.

6. $2,091.25/ $3,489.24 per annum

‘I am an Aboriginal doctor, not a doctor who is Aboriginal’ P

rofessor Helen Milroy graduated as Australia’s first Indigenous doctor in 1983. Ten years later, seven more Indigenous medical students had graduated. In 2010, there were 150 graduates and 160 Indigenous medical students. Most Indigenous doctors are in general practice. There are just five specialists; a surgeon, an obstetrician, a cardiologist and two psychiatrists.

These statistics explain the quote in the headline. There are not

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

✔

✔

Language Allowance provision

depending on level, to be adjusted in accordance with CPI. 7. One day paid leave for NAIDOC events. Employees can use accrued annual or long service leave for cultural leave.

8. University will establish employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students or graduates including cadetships.

9. 5 days paid Indigenous Australian Leave for purposes of, bereavement leave, participation in NAIDOC celebrations & ceremonial obligations & community & cultural events.

10. $1400/2800 per annum depending on level.

11. The University will appoint an Indigenous Employment

Coordinator as an identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander position.

12. Commitment to having overwhelming majority of Indigenous staff in the Oodgeroo Unit.

13. Cultural leave can be taken as part of 7 days paid personal leave 14. $2,092/ $3,490 per annum depending on level.

15. Cultural leave can be taken as part of 7 days Special Paid Leave.

16. Target of increasing Indigenous staffing numbers to be equivalent to two percent (2%) of total University staff.

17. Cultural or ceremonial leave may be taken as part of 20 days paid Personal Leave per annum.

enough Indigenous health professionals yet, so every Indigenous doctor must be a role model and an advocate for Indigenous people. Only 1.2% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are in the health workforce, compared to 3% of the non-Indigenous population. The biggest gaps are in medicine, nursing and allied health. There has to be strong and supported pathways across all the professions.

This was the reasoning behind the formation of the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA), explained CEO, Romlie Mokak, at the recent ACTU Indigenous Conference in Darwin.

Established in 1998, AIDA provides critical personal and political support to Indigenous medical students to help them get through to graduation and then to become established as doctors. The medical students also work through the Association to encourage young Indigenous people to stay in school and consider pursuing a medical career.

Many Indigenous doctors, though, do not come straight from school. Current President, Associate Professor Peter O’Mara was a fitter in the Hunter Valley coal mines before deciding to become a doctor. A Australian Indigenous Doctors Association c www.aida.org.au

17

FUNDING

Base Funding Review

Photo © HL Kretzenbacher

Learning & teaching deserves healthy boost in funding T

here is an overwhelming consensus amongst universities, university staff, students and the business sector that the current level of funding available to Australian universities to educate government-supported students is totally inadequate.

The Bradley Review of Higher Education acknowledged that universities had experienced declining levels of real public investment for learning and teaching and recommended an immediate 10% increase in Commonwealth funding per student.

The Government’s response to the Bradley Review’s recommendation to increase public funding by 10% was to commission a review of the base funding levels for learning and teaching in higher education. In October 2010 the Government appointed Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, former Education Minister in South Australia, to chair the Base Funding Review, which is due to report in October 2011.

18

According to its terms of reference, the Base Funding Review is expected to provide advice and make recommendations on the funding of Commonwealth Supported Places in relation to: • The level of funding needed to provide internationally competitive education.

• Funding relativities between different discipline clusters on the basis of the costs of delivery.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

FUNDING • The student contribution amounts for different disciplines.

• A funding model that provides all institutions with a strong incentive to deliver high quality teaching and enrol more low SES students.

Who is responsible for funding higher education?

140

130

Student- Staff Ratios and Public Funding per Commonweath Supported Student 1996 - 2008 (INDEX NUMBERS 1996 = 100)

Student:Staff Ratio (Universities Australia)

120

110

100

90 NTEU is concerned that the review is being couched in terms of the appropriate level of 80 government subsidy for higher education. In Real Commnwealth Funding per Student (NTEU Estimates) Australia the provision of all levels of educa70 tion, including higher education, is primarily a government responsibility. Education is seen 60 as being for and in the public good.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Furthermore, access and participation in post compulsory education has been framed www.nteu.org.au). In particular, it is important to outline how increasaround questions of equity and merit, not in ing tutorial sizes, changes to the nature and/or frequency of assessterms of capacity to pay. Indeed this right is articulated in the UN’s ment and the increased use of casual staff to teach are undermining Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which Article 26 states ‘… the quality of the educational experience. higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of Student-staff ratios and funding data should be seen as diagnostic merit.’ aids which will aid the Review Panel in its assessment of the health of Therefore, NTEU will be urging the Review Committee to frame the sector. The Panel needs to make a final diagnosis on the issue and its considerations in terms of what contribution students should be recommend a strong prescription to the Government, and ultimately asked to make toward to the cost of a publicly provided university the public for increased funding. place and not in terms of what subsidy the Government might be asked to make to encourage students to participate in a private education market.

Funding relativities

Funding and student-staff ratios Every NTEU member and others working in Australia’s universities knows that their commitment to providing their students with a world class education is becoming increasingly unsustainable as they are being expected to teach more students with fewer resources. This is more than rhetoric, with the evidence of this being that student staff ratios at Australian universities have blown out from about 15 to 1 in the mid 1990s to more than 20 to 1 today.

In this regard, NTEU is highly sympathetic of the views expressed

by Professor Vin Massaro at the Australian Financial Review Higher Education Conference in 2009, where he noted that ‘(S)taff:student ratios are the most eloquent indicator of the system’s health’.

The data in Chart 1 shows there is a very close inverse relationship between student-staff ratios and real public funding per student over the last decade and a half. If base funding is one of the main drivers of student-staff ratios, then one would also conclude that it will also be an important determinant of the sector’s health and therefore its capacity to deliver the quality of education and training Australian society expects from its universities.

In order to convince the Government that increasing student staff ratios are undermining the quality of education being delivered at our universities, the Union is encouraging its Branches and members to make submissions to the panel with examples of what the funding cuts have meant at the level of the class room (for more details see MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

The differences between total funding available to universities for different disciplines is essentially based on research which was undertaken in the early 1990s and formed the basis of the relative funding model (RFM). NTEU is strongly of the view that the primary objective of this review should be to determine what the real dollar costs of delivering a high quality education for various discipline groups and which takes into account the costs associated with: • The development and delivery of courses using modern communication and information technologies.

• The delivery of programs that require clinical, professional or artistic practice such as in the visual and performing arts.

• Maintaining the same quality of education for students attending rural or regional campuses.

• Providing student support services for the increasing number of enrolments of students that are not academically or socially as well prepared for university.

Student contribution amounts Prior to the 2010 Federal Election, NTEU surveyed the higher education policy commitments of all the major political parties. In that survey, the ALP committed to maintaining a real cap on HECS fees.

The NTEU is determined to make sure the Government keeps this commitment. A Paul Kniest and Terri MacDonald, NTEU Policy & Research Unit 19

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Insecure employment Lack of regulation at UNSW T

he Vice-Chancellors of UNSW, Macquarie and Wollongong continue to refuse to face up to how far out of step they are with the concerns of employees and with international decent work standards. This article deals specifically with issues at UNSW, but it is a case study of the issues which affect all NTEU members.

The most recent DEEWR statistics (2009) indicate the extent of job insecurity at UNSW: • On a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis, just under half (49.9%) of UNSW staff – a scant majority (51.6%) of men and 48.1% of women – had continuing employment.

• This was below the national figure of 52.6% for all Australian universities – 53.8% (men) and 51.7% (women).

• It was also a deterioration from the situation in 2005, when UNSW was above the national average in employment security, with 60.1% of men and 56.4% of women in continuing jobs compared with 53.8% and 51.7% nationally.

UNSW Management likes to quote a different set of statistics, based on the following staff increases at UNSW between 2005 and 2010: • FTE continuing staff : increase of 159 (5.5%) from 2864 to 3023 • FTE fixed term staff: increase of 589 (39%) from 1493 to 2082.

Although imprecisely sourced, these figures are accurate. But problems arise with the next step: by adding these two figures, UNSW Management claims a ‘total’ staff of 5105, an increase of 748 (17%) from 2005. This ignores casual employment – a major source of job insecurity – writing it out of the story and overstating the fraction of staff who are now continuing .

By ignoring casuals, UNSW are able to claim that in 2010, 59.2% of staff enjoy continuing employment, considerably more than the actual 2009 figure of 50%. Management then go on to compare this inflated secure employment figure with similarly-inflated figures for other Go8 universities, in order to argue that UNSW provides a higher rate of continuing employment than most of its comparators, whose continuing employment levels are described as ranging from 56.2% (Melbourne) down to 46.3% (Queensland). However, ANU, the most research-intensive university and Australia’s highestranked in international league tables, has an ongoing employment rate of 76.9% (ignoring casuals). This suggests that to use researchintensity as a justification for insecurity may involve an element of special pleading.

It is certainly the case that, since 2005, the fastest-growing group of staff at UNSW has been research-only staff, and that their employment growth bears some relationship to the growth in research grants obtained in the past five years. Nevertheless, the growth of 482 FTE in research-only staff falls well short of the increase of 589 in fixed term employment between 2005 and 2010. Given these figures 20

are full-time equivalents, the actual numbers of people affected by insecurity have been considerably larger.

Regulation of the conditions of contract research staff is a serious issue, both in Australia and overseas. A sustainability and succession crisis in Australia’s national research workforce lay behind a 2009-2010 Consultation by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Stable careers for university research-only staff, all too often employed on a succession of grant-funded shortterm contracts, must be a high national priority. Whilst UNSW Senior Management take refuge in the fact that its reliance on fixed-term contracts is lower than some other Go8 universities, the case of ANU suggests that fixed-term employment is not a necessary concomitant of research-intensity.

The important issue of regulating contract research employment is however not the central issue in the protracted fixed-term dispute at UNSW. The clauses over which there has been such a long-running dispute relate instead to the recent growth of fixed-term employment in teaching-and-research and professional staff positions.

The circumstances under which the Vice-Chancellor is asserting the right to refuse conversion are linked in his rhetoric about student enrolments rather than the University’s growing success in gaining research grants. Staff are happy to accept a range of contingencies that may require fixed term contracts. They do not accept however, that it is reasonable for job security to be refused on the basis of a vague notions of ‘uncertainty’.

Given the lack of transparency attached to School budgeting processes, staff fear that such a clause would allow latitude to ‘cry poor’.

The portrayal of the University as being at risk from fluctuations in student numbers sits oddly with the University’s high claims for its reputation, and also with its apparent zeal for buying up land around the University and seeking high-rise rezoning, apparently for additional student accommodation. Staff are wondering whether they are being asked to forgo job security as collateral against property speculation.

Costs of insecure employment Like other universities, UNSW is an association of students and teachers with collective legal rights ensuring academic freedom. Under the UNSW Act 1989 (2010), UNSW is responsible for upholding the Object NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS of promoting scholarship, research, free inquiry, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

The Act defines the University’s principal functions to include encouragement of free inquiry, the provision of courses and carrying out of research to meet the needs of the community; participation in public discourse; provision of teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry; and the development of governance and procedural rules underpinned by these values and goals.

In addition, the University may exercise commercial functions.

Many staff feel that commercial considerations are over-riding and putting at risk the University’s principal functions and Object.

For non-continuing staff, there may be limited opportunity for linking research and teaching, or for engaging in free speech, as required by the Object and principal functions of the Act: • Job security is likely to be tied to unrealistic short-term performance goals, with early career staff lacking the opportunity to learn their craft, and outcomes such as burnout, conformity and reliance on patronage – all inimical to free inquiry and speech.

• Growth of fixed-term employment will mean a shrinking pool of people with sufficient contractual duration to undertake higher degree supervision. The increased load on continuing staff may restrict their own research, or reduce the volume of doctoral supervisions, thereby reducing the overall succession pool in a climate where continuing staff are ageing (56% of university academics are ‘baby-boomers’). In turn, this may skew recruitment unduly towards reliance on external appointments.

• Quality of service to students may be compromised by staffing discontinuity, affecting marking standards, curriculum integration, and program sequencing. The commitment of individuals is not the question – rather, it is high concentrations of people inexperienced in administrative and policy matters. Quality has also been linked to issues of morale, particularly if insecure employment is prolonged. Inevitably people on fixed term contracts must devote their energies to securing their next job.

Costs to individuals and society A study of non tenure track staff in the US found that the length of time in this role acted progressively as a trap, locking people out of the tenure track. Applicants with more than five years on fixed term contracts were stigmatised and their experience was devalued.

Staff on fixed-term contracts are likely to be required to take large introductory classes and to pick up new subjects at very short notice, to accept timetables in which teaching hours clash with peak family responsibilities, such as late afternoon/early evening. Non-tenured staff have been found to suffer from role conflict, over-use for teaching purposes, and lack of research and publication opportunity. They have been found to be subject to more stringent individual appraisal, despite wide remuneration gaps relative to tenured staff with similar qualifications.

Many studies of temporary and fixed-term contract work provide evidence of transfer of risk, based on poor ergonomic conditions (Benach et al, 2000), lower levels of awareness of occupational health and safety standards and distress resulting from fears of job loss. In a large US study, researchers found that employment insecurity, resulting in ongoing ambiguity about the future, inability to take action and perceived lack of institutional support were stronger predictors MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

of ill-health than smoking or hypertension. Unpredictable earnings result in lack of capacity for financial and lifecourse planning, lack of capacity to borrow and lifelong insecurity in the form of low pension income.

The gender dynamics of the tenured/fixed term divide have long been recognised as sending women very discouraging messages about academic careers. Temporary appointments compromise equal employment opportunity mechanisms by detaching merit recruitment from career opportunity. This is an ethical issue, given the existence of ‘demographic inertia’ - the length of time it takes for a compositional shift in recruitment practices to have an impact on the overall gender dimensions of university employment. As public institutions helping to shape national opinion, universities have the responsibility to model ethical values, including good employment practice.

From the inception of federal and state equal opportunity monitoring in the mid 1980s, universities were amongst the first organisations to be required to report their staffing policies and practices to EOWA. UNSW has sought a 5 year exemption from EEO reporting after its designation as an ‘Employer of Choice’, but has rejected requests to make available the statistics that would allow a check of the gender impact of the growth of non-continuing employment.

Conclusion In seeking the power to undermine university job security, the Vice Chancellors of UNSW, Macquarie and Wollongong are out of step with developments overseas. The European Council Fixed-Term Work Directive 1999, which operates through framework agreements: • Defines continuing employment as the norm.

• Requires justification of departures from this norm by reference to objective and specific conditions mutually agreed at the beginning of a contract.

• Is based on the principle that fixed-term workers should be treated no less favourably than their permanent counterparts.

• Explicitly defines employment on the basis of successive fixedterm contracts as an ‘abuse’.

In a landmark 2008 decision, the European Court of Justice confirmed the equality of rights of fixed-term and permanent workers in areas such as pay and pension entitlements.

The UK University and College Union (UCU) Fixed-Term and Hourly Paid Staff Committee has been working towards career stability for grant-funded staff. In June 2008, it rejected Science Minister, Ian Pearson’s ‘Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers’ drawn up between Vice-Chancellors and funding bodies, for failing to tackle the problem of fixed-term contracts.

Despite implementation issues, Europe and the UK are well ahead of UNSW and its few followers. In understanding the links between job security, good governance, academic freedom and quality of student experience, UNSW is no world leader. A Full version of this article, with tables, charts and references cna be found online c www.nteu.org.au/library/advocate/18_01_appendix

21

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Knowing and defending your moral IP rights Matthias Maiwald KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, and National University of Singapore

Kathy Harrington NTEU Division Industrial Officer Flinders University Branch

C

opyright is certainly the most well-known intellectual property right, enabling its owner to legally utilise intellectual or creative materials. However, few academics are aware that there is another, independent set of legal entitlements, termed moral intellectual property rights.

The purpose of this legal provision is to ascertain that an author or creator is appropriately named for his or her works. It is also to prevent false attribution, damage to an author’s reputation and some forms of plagiarism. In the present example, a teaching curriculum was licensed by one Australian university to several others. While this is consistent with copyright ownership, the moral rights of the original authors of these materials were overlooked. Teaching materials had the names of the original authors removed and were used at the receiving institution without appropriate attribution.

Case of the copied cases Flinders University School of Medicine is a well-respected medical school in Australia with an established postgraduate four-year curriculum. Its two main teaching components are problem-based learning (PBL) cases and lectures, supplemented with other teaching formats. Around 2006 or 2007, it became known that the curriculum would be licensed to other medical schools; named as recipients were Deakin University in Victoria, Griffith University in Queensland and St. George’s Medical School in the UK. This was generally commented upon and viewed as a sign of recognition and success for the school. It would also help the other schools to start up a new curriculum quite quickly and efficiently.

In late 2008, a Flinders University academic staff member noticed a pattern in relation to the teaching materials that were in use at Deakin University. The PBL cases were almost identical to the Flinders ones. However, what was missing at Deakin was the attribution of the Flinders academic staff who had been involved in writing and updating the cases. It is worth noting that writing good PBL cases is quite a demanding task, since it requires good clinical knowledge and teaching skills.

A slightly different picture was seen for the lectures. The degree of identity of the Deakin lectures with the Flinders lectures varied, but generally approximately 22

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY one half to two thirds of the Deakin lectures were identical to the corresponding Flinders lectures. The rest varied by way of modification, extension or shortening. However, none of these lectures at Deakin showed any of the names of the original authors among the Flinders academic staff. Instead, the names of Deakin academic staff appeared on every slide of the lectures.

The matter was subsequently raised with Flinders Medical School, and a request for appropriate attribution and acknowledgement of authorship was made. In July 2009 the Medical School effectively declined this request and responded that the teaching materials at Deakin were used appropriately and in accordance with the terms of the licence agreement between the Universities.

Union involvement In late 2009, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU) became formally involved in the matter. The NTEU provided an analysis of the legal situation. While most Australian Universities, including Flinders, assert the copyright to intellectual materials developed by their academic staff, these economic rights are separate and distinct from authors’ moral rights. Moral intellectual property rights are regulated in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, an author’s or creator’s moral rights are defined as the rights (i) to be attributed as the creator of their work, (ii) to take action if their work is falsely attributed, and (iii) to take action if their work is distorted or treated in a way that is prejudicial to the creator’s honour or reputation. While moral rights cannot be sold or transferred, an author can consent to have his/her moral rights waived (e.g. elect not to be named as author).

Effectively, the Copyright Act intends to prohibit some forms of plagiarism: falsely claiming to have authored, invented or created something that someone else has, by omitting appropriate attribution to the appropriate source(s), or by providing false attribution. This is also consistent with the widely known principles of academic integrity that when the work of others is used, appropriate credit and attribution should be given.

In February 2010, the then NTEU President, Dr Carolyn Allport, wrote to the Vice Chancellor of Flinders University, asking for a remedy to the situation. Such a remedy should consist of steps to rectify the situation (that is to ensure attribution) and to issue a formal apology to any academic staff member whose moral rights had been infringed.

Flinders University responded in June 2010. A path to acknowledge the authors of the PBL cases was agreed to. However, the other concerns were still not resolved, including the failure to appropriately attribute lecture materials, the failure to address the situation at the other universities apart from Deakin that had been recipients of Flinders materials, and a failure to provide a formal apology.

Subsequently, further correspondence ensued.

In January 2011, the University responded again and advised that steps had now been taken by Deakin UniverMARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

sity to provide, on their teaching website, a list of original Flinders lectures and their authors, and also to provide, in the lectures, a reference to that list, but still no authorship attribution on the actual lectures. It also offered a formal apology, but only to the individual who had originally raised this issue. The situation at the other universities that had been recipients of Flinders materials was not explicitly commented upon. Further, the University advised that it was now reviewing its own processes to ensure that when curriculum materials are provided to third parties, the issues of copyright and attribution of authorship would now be systematically addressed.

Conclusions There are a number of interesting conclusions and further questions coming from this case. First, it is important for academic staff to know that they have a legal entitlement to be named as authors or creators of their work, even if the copyright (and with it the right to engage in commercial licence agreements) lies with their employer. Second, the way in which the teaching materials in this case were handled is clearly against the established principles and common notions surrounding academic integrity, even aside from a legal framework. Third, this case may have broader implications for Australian academia in general and important ramifications for Australian universities in the future when engaging in licence agreements concerning the transfer of intellectual property. Such transfers are increasingly becoming an important part of academic interaction, and entire curricula are often being transferred between institutions.

In summary, as the level of commercialisation of intellectual property increases, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need to maintain the principles of academic integrity and to maintain and respect the moral intellectual property rights of individual academics. A

The authors thank Paul Kniest, NTEU Policy & Research Coordinator, for his helpful comments on the draft of this article.

Matthias Maiwald was an Associate Professor of Medical Microbiology at Flinders University School of Medicine, South Australia, and is now a Consultant Microbiologist at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Department of Microbiology, National University of Singapore.

23

journals vol. 53, no. 1, 2011 Published by NTEU

A new ERA? Or a return to the dark ages?

ISSN 0818–8068

AUR

Australian Universities’Review

Ian R Dobson Editor Australian Universities’ Review

T

he latest issue of Australian Universities’ Review (AUR, vol. 53, no. 1) includes a paper by Simon Cooper and Anna Poletti of Monash University that examines the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) current exercise of ranking scholarly journals. They say ‘... this process is not only a flawed system of measurement, but more significantly it erodes the very contexts that produce ‘quality’ research’. This paper is a ‘must read’ for everyone, because it highlights yet another time wasting and energy-sapping scheme foisted on the higher education sector by governments and government agencies that ought to think things through a bit more.

Arbitrary assessment of journals Cooper and Poletti note that ‘the ERA represents a full-scale transformation of Australian universities into a culture of audit.... Instead we suggest the need to return to ‘basics’ and discuss how any comprehensive auditing regime threatens to alter and undermine the capacity for universities to produce innovative research and critical thought’. They go on to point out that any attempt to rank journals is at best arbitrary.

That is the problem in a nutshell! These attempts are arbitrary, illogical, random, unreasoned, unsupported and whimsical, to list just a few of the synonyms in my Thesaurus. Whatever good might come out of other aspects of the Excellence in Research Australia exercise, its system for ranking journals is at best the result of extremely muddled thinking.

Journals have been accorded one of four ranks: A*, A, B and C, comprising 5%, 15%, 30% and 50% of journals respectively. Perhaps the first question ought to be ‘why not A, B, C and D’? What’s wrong with using the normal alphabet? One presumes that we have followed the Poms with the terminology they employed in their Research Assessment Exercise, but why?

Within this schema, AUR is ranked ‘B’. Why B, and not A*, A or C? Well, we don’t know. The ARC won’t tell us. According to their website, ‘a journal’s quality rating represents the overall quality of the journal. This is defined in terms of how it compares with other journals and should not be confused with its relevance or importance to a particular discipline’. What doesn’t seem to be on the 24

website is a definition of ‘overall quality’. Who decided what it is?

How did they do so?

AUR is listed in field of research (FoR) 1301 Education Systems (probably 130103 Higher Education). An examination of the list of journals in the 1301 field reveals that it contains 184 journals, seven of which aren’t ranked. Only three journals in this field of research are ranked A* (1.7%), 18 are ranked A (10%), 46 are ranked B (26%) and 110 are ranked C (62%). However, the ARC website says that AUR is not being compared with journals it is like (of which there are but a handful), but rather a Pandora’s Box of all journals from all fields of research.

The FoR a journal is linked to is another mystery. Journals can be linked to up to three research fields, but most are linked only to one.

Who picked these, and how were they picked? Other journals in FoR 1301 cover primary, tertiary, vocational and adult education, and a number of other journals appear to be ring-ins. Why is the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education listed in this category, when its European equivalent isn’t there? Come to think of it, if the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education is there, why aren’t Australian journals such as World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education and the Global Journal in Engineering Education there as well? It’s a mystery!

Among the journals that AUR is arguably similar to are the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management (ranked B), Higher Education Management and Policy (ranked C), and Higher Education Policy (not listed at all). The first two of these journals are ranked in a completely different FoR, to wit 1303 Specialist Topics in Education, and NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

JOURNALS within that FoR, one can only presume that they are there under category 130304 Educational Administration, Management and Leadership. Apart from the failure to list the journal Higher Education Policy anywhere, why isn’t AUR also classified in this FoR? It is clear that it would sit quite well there. At the same time, why aren’t these other journals also categorised where AUR and the other higher education journals mentioned before are, under FoR 130103 Higher Education?

Surely their titles are a dead give away!

Another problem is the assumption of homogeneity, and this is a problem on two fronts. First, some journals are niche journals, and these will be targeted by writers with an interest in that specific area.

Such journals have natural constituencies, and therefore in the nontransparent ERA journal ranking system, authors who seek to publish in such areas are likely to rate such journals highly. Why would an author tell anyone that they publish in poor journals?

What about generalist journals, such as AUR? Where is its natural constituency? It doesn’t have one. There must be quite a few journals that suffer under this ranking regime not because someone has said they are a poor journal, but because they weren’t mentioned at all.

However, AUR publishes papers across a wide range of higher education areas, and scanning its tables of contents over the past several years demonstrates just how broad its coverage is.

The other area where homogeneity is presumed is in the rankings themselves. By definition, 50 per cent of journals have been ranked ‘C’, and some of these journals will be better than others. But wouldn’t it be better to rank the papers, rather than the journals?

Surely some of the papers published in C journals are excellent papers, perhaps written by new researchers, just as some papers published in A* journals written by more experienced writers are dross. Let us hope the ERA people at the ARC never become restaurant reviewers, because following their current methodology for ranking journals, they would probably rank restaurants according to the photographs on the menu, rather than by assessing either the restaurant’s food or the service.

It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurts This would all be humorous if it weren’t so damaging to scholarship. Readers will have perhaps seen recent press reports about the demise of an Australian journal called People and Place, at the end of its 19th year. This journal, published via Monash’s Centre for Population and Urban Research, punched well above its weight right from the start, and has been responsible for many changes in Australian social policy.

It was ranked ‘B’ for the initial ERA journal ranking exercise, but it was subsequently demoted to ‘C’, something that has sounded its death knell. It is apparent that Monash University no longer values a journal that has been responsible for so much social policy change in Australia. Part of the problem for People and Place is that it is a local and national journal, rather than an international journal. More government-sponsored cultural cringe!

Which overseas journals could be expected to publish papers on topics such as Austudy and Youth Allowance, overseas students’ English language standards, and the myths behind the value of education exports or the effect of equity policy? People and Place was a major player in these areas, as well as in welfare policy, health policy and immigration.

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

The editorial from the last issue of People and Place, written by editors Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell makes for salutary reading.

If it isn’t bad enough having ministers, government departments and their agencies producing dud policy, it’s a pity that our universities and their mouth pieces don’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up defend the staff who work at their institutions. What have we heard from Universities’ Australia or university blocs such as the Go8? Perhaps their silence reflects the fact that they see the ERA as a power management tool which will allow them to take care of some difficult cases.

In this zero-sum game, by definition half of the listed scholarly journals have to be ranked C. If a writer has a paper published in a C Journal, it will actually diminish the chance of their university to rank highly. Therefore, more journals than People and Place are likely to close their doors, because which Australian authors will want to be published in a C journal? Of course, if we follow this process through to its logical conclusion, there will eventually be only one journal for each field of research, as the ‘worst’ in each category will no longer be good enough for ERA metrics. I don’t suppose it will go that far, but the whole logic behind this smacks of former US President Bush’s desire for all US schools to be above average.

The known unknowns of journal ranking The overall problem with the ERA journal ranking exercise isn’t so much what we know about it, but what we don’t know about it. How was the ranking for each journal arrived at? Who did the ranking?

What is ‘overall quality’, as NOT defined on the ARC website? Why compare journals in one discipline with journals in another?

Given the unending government rhetoric about transparency and accountability, why are these attributes always absent when the government (or one of its agencies) does things?

Clear answers are needed on all these questions.

The so-called peak bodies and their role in ranking journals also needs to be looked at. The process doesn’t seem to have included any requirement for the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

How many of the peak bodies are giving their own preferred journals a helpful plug? How much self-serving is there in this exercise? Again, we don’t know, and this is the problem.

Perhaps the final insult with ERA is some of its use of English. What we are going through at the moment is called ‘the ERA 2012 Ranked Outlets Consultation’. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English (2005), an outlet is ‘a pipe or hole through which water or gas may escape’. It is also ‘a point from which goods are sold or distributed’.

Quite what an outlet (or an ‘oultet’ as it is written in one place on the ARC website) is in the ERA context, adds further to the mystery of this whole exercise.

In the future, the right thing would be for everyone to remember the Minister/s and the ARC leadership that we should blame for the ERA journal ranking exercise, but I don’t expect these things to be recorded in Derryn Hinch’s ‘Shame File’. Universities and individuals have to move on; they can’t dwell on the past or even the present.

In any case, they don’t have access to the endless funds that government departments and agencies seem to have to produce poor policy. A Australian Universities’ Review c www.aur.org.au

25

TECHNOLOGY

iPad-eology Rod Crewther Faculty of Sciences, University of Adelaide NTEU Adelaide Branch President

P

at Wright’s article ‘iPadagogy’ (Advocate, Nov. 2010, Vol. 17 no. 4, p. 30) about iPad-based learning at Adelaide raises sensitive industrial and academic issues on which I have been asked to comment. Pat suggests that the Federal Government’s plan to expand the university sector by including TAFE could go a lot further: TAFE’s ‘collaborative learning practices’ should become the basis for university teaching, and iPads are a very effective way of ensuring that this will happen. It would eliminate discrimination against low SES (socio-economic status) students, and make learning ‘more congenial’, part of a multi-tasking environment in which students could text each other during lectures and enjoy ‘Tools of Conviviality’: ‘dates’ contacts, games and infotainment, favourite music and videoclips’. Academics may get increased workloads and would certainly have to improve their teaching, but ‘why bother if it’s more work? ... it works!’

The iPad proposal came from my Faculty (Sciences) and assumed huge discounts on e-textbooks from publishers. Each 1st-year Science student and lecturer gets a free iPad, with increased enrolments paying for everything, in theory.

Last September, a week before the Education Research Group of Adelaide (ERDA) conference attended by Pat Wright, the NTEU was briefed by the Dean. At that time, e-copies of some first-year textbooks were known to exist but almost none were for sale, so could academics please write e-textbooks for iPads?

We said ‘no way’: the workload would be impossible. The production of each e-textbook would require academic support of Faculty size, as was evident from the preface of a 1,200-page textbook we brought with us. Perhaps this encouraged him to put pressure on publishers, because some of them have now agreed to supply e-versions at moderate discounts. Not all disciplines have the textbook they want, but competition is likely to force publishers to solve that problem by producing e-versions in the near future. So the iPad’s role as an e-rucksack seems not to be an issue.

26

The iPad is supposed to be compatible with the University’s on-line Blackboard suite (called MyUni at Adelaide). No doubt Pat knows about MyUni, but having retired to an adjunct position in 2002 (still within Labour Studies) when MyUni went live, he may not realise how much experience academics now have judging the usefulness of on-line quizzes, pre-reading boards, wikis, blogs, voice boards or whatever for their discipline (not a lot). These aspects of iPaddery will not be a problem provided disciplines are not forced by iPad-eology to use tools known not to work, such as e-mail correspondence with large numbers of individual students (workload again). Everything else is contested.

First, the idea that students can learn a science or indeed anything with academic backbone while multitasking is absurd.

Unless students can concentrate long enough to pick up the logic of an argument, they are lost. Surely good lecturing involves the ability to engage students in a concentrated way, with short rest breaks at suitable steps in the learning sequence. Moreover, great lecturers are good at getting students

to ask questions in front of the rest of the class so that the whole class hears the discussion and benefits from it. Why destroy this by turning it all into disorganised e-chatter?

It is certainly evident to first-year lecturers that some areas of secondary education have been multitasking student ‘learning’.

This has meant a shift of costs from the States to universities and a consequent increase of workload for academics appalled by the disadvantage for students deprived of a decent academic school education. The NTEU must defend members in this position, and not accuse them of discriminatory entry policies.

(What is really needed is CommonwealthState agreement to fund a Year Zero for students whose academic subject choices at school are affected by teacher shortages.)

Perhaps Pat could have clarified his position at this stage by noting that he was Chair of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (SSABSA) and its successor the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) Board from the mid-90s to 2009. (I was a University representative on SSABSA from 1991 to 2000 until Mary O’Kane booted me off.) As noted in the final SSABSA Annual Report (2008), ‘Pat has been with SSABSA since its inception, and is proud of its high standing and achievements, particularly in the recognition of VET and community learning in the SACE.’ A result of Pat’s move to adjunct status in 2002 may be his reduced exposure since then to spiralling workloads for regular staff caused by the underfunding of teaching and research, the proliferation of academically challenged control freaks, and rampant e-bureaucracy. Also he may not have NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

TECHNOLOGY been aware of the grave concerns of NTEU National Council last October (just after the ERDA conference) about the Gillard Government’s plan for a unified university-TAFE sector: ‘Strangling the Goose that lays the Golden Egg’ (Advocate, vol. 17 no. 1, p.18).

Finally, I should report that at Adelaide, iPad courses for lecturers are being run without proper discipline involvement. I am not aware of any discipline meeting being visited by iPad proponents to find out if iPad instruction will make the slightest sense.

Certainly my subject, Physics, with its mathematical basis (try texting that) is nothing like the other end of the Faculty, nor even like its next-door neighbour, Chemistry.

What iPad-eologues and managerialists seem unable to accept is that each discipline or sub-discipline is distinguished by its own way of thinking; that’s why all students except polymaths find that they are really suited to the study of only one or two disciplines at advanced levels. It follows that the way students learn is very discipline dependent. Therefore iPad strategies for lecturers should be developed in collaboration with each discipline, not the reverse.

Can Adelaide provide any further surprises? Has obsolescence planning for iPads started already? Possibly, because our ViceChancellor is on record that we don’t really need either disciplines or lecture theatres. A email: rodney.crewther@adelaide.edu.au

Pat Wright comments: I still think that the pedagogies showcased at the ERGA conference - including, but not limited to, the use of the iPad to enrich the student experience - would help attract and retain the broader range of students which the projected expansion of Higher Education implies. I do not think that iPads should displace all current pedagogies, such as inspirational lectures, for all students of all disciplines.

Nor do I think that their use should be imposed upon academics without at least consultation, if not negotiation. A onedimensional, conflated tertiary education sector in which VET diluted higher education and/or higher education assimilated VET would be a double tragedy, and something which I have long fought against in the various positions in which I have served. A

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

CLIMATE

Big Noise, No Trees

Peter Whalley-Thompson NTEU Branch Organiser James Cook University

I

f any more natural disasters happen this year, they will struggle to find space in the headlines. We seem to have had so many events this year, each one topping the last for scale and scariness. I’ll see your flood and raise you a cyclone or two.

It’s only been a few short weeks since we were looking at the images of flooding in Central Queensland, and sharing mixed feelings of sympathy for the loss of locals with relief that decent rain had fallen into river systems which would feed the heavily depleted Murray Darling basin.

Then things took a turn for the worse and we were all contacting family and comrades in Brisbane as the force of nature proved that all the containment strategies from the 1974 floods were no match for Big Water.

North Queensland then had a practice run with Cyclone Anthony, which was the usual sort of storm we expect here in summer. These weather systems have the capacity to do substantial damage where they come ashore from the Coral Sea, but provided you clear your premises of anything which can be picked up by the wind and your house has been built to the required standard, the most likely inconvenience will be a few days without power.

The sun had hardly had a chance to shine when we were all hearing the news that a cyclone coming our way was at the top of the severity scale, and as big as Victoria.

That storm, Cyclone Yasi, did come ashore, and if there is any way we could be described as lucky, the landfall location, almost at the mid-point between Cairns and Townsville was the luckiest thing that

could happen for North Queensland. Not so lucky if you lived at Mission Beach, Tully or Cardwell, where entire communities were destroyed, inundated by sea water and left under metres of sand, but on the scale of natural disasters, a minor blip compared to the effect if Yasi had been 200km further north or south.

The State Government decided to evacuate the entire hospital in Cairns, airlifting the patients with serious medical problems 2,000 km south, which made us all think this could be a bit of a blow. Then the army came to my door in Townsville and said we should evacuate to higher ground because the storm surge could potentially reach 10 metres above the high water mark.

As it turned out, the cyclone didn’t decimate Townsville or Cairns, but the winds were strong enough to blow down almost 50% of the trees on the JCU campus, and the cleanup effort has been massive.

Coming as it did on the Wednesday before Orientation Week, many events had to be relocated or rescheduled, everywhere was boggy and wet with paths closed and heavy machinery keeping up the soundtrack for new students, it was a marvel that we managed to start lectures this week at all.

But you should see the excitement over at the cyclone testing station... A Photo of JCU campus post-Yasi courtesy of Megan Sperring 27

NATIONAL COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL

Can we do more?

On the move for equality: Education International 1st World Women’s Conference Gabe Gooding NTEU National Vice President

H

ow can I talk about women’s rights when my people have no human rights?’ ‘How can we expect mothers to send their daughters to school when they are raped and murdered within the school?’ ‘Mothers in my country who choose to send their daughters to school for an education, know that the cost is that they must mutilate their daughter’s faces to keep them safe from child sex traffickers who steal the girls from school. Why do they have to choose between an education which will save them from poverty, and mutilation, to keep them safe?’

These are just some of the confronting, humbling and challenging questions and stories told by women delegates to the first Education International (EI) World Women’s Conference that I was recently privileged to attend on behalf of NTEU (along with National President Jeannie Rea, Women’s Action Committee members Donna Weeks and Paula Johnson, and On the o NSW Division Secretary Genevieve Kelly). ve fo First Worlm d Womenr Equality This was the first opportunity for women ’s Conferen Objectif E c e unionists working in education from across the g a li té Première c onférence globe to come together to discuss key equity m En cam ondiale issues, and it very quickly became clear that it is Primera Cino hacia la igua des femmes onferencia ld Mundial dad not possible to separate women’s rights from the e la Mujer broader issues of human rights. For all of us in the NTEU delegation this was a stark reminder of how far many women still have to go on the road to equality, and a humbling reminder of the relative privilege that we experience here in Australia. Much of that privilege, particularly in the areas of maternity rights, protection and benefits, has come about because of the outstanding work of women activists who have come before us, and I personally found myself with a new appreciation of their efforts and a real need to acknowledge that work.

For many women at the Conference, mere attendance was a remarkable achievement as they struggle for equality and recognition of the right to contribute, particularly in leadership roles, within their own unions. I will not forget listening to the young woman who explained to us that her union did not support any women attend28

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INTERNATIONAL

NTEU National Vice President, Gabe Gooding and National President, Jeannie Rea with other union Presidents and Vice-Presidents, and EI President Susan Hopgood at the Education International First International Women’s Conference, Bangkok, January 2011 Photo: Genevieve Kelly ing, that she had fought to get herself to the Conference and paid her own way, and that there are no women leaders in her union. I was compelled to seek her out to express my admiration for her courage and determination, and to point out to her, that simply by taking a stand about attendance at the meeting, she had become a ‘woman leader in her union’. By affording an opportunity to her, and other women like her from around the world who have no forum for engagement on women’s issues, Education International demonstrated what a force for good it can be and how important it is for the NTEU to remain an active participant.

The theme of the Conference was ‘On the Move For Equality’ and the question that we were constantly challenged to answer was ‘Can we do more?’ Within that context we attended many workshops on a wide variety of topics including gender equity in employment in

NTEU delegates Donna Weeks, Gabe Gooding, Genevieve Kelly & Paula Johnson. Photo: Jeannie Rea MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

education and research, maternity rights, protection and benefits, the role of networks, women and climate change, strategies for the economic empowerment of women, and the participation of pregnant and parenting girls in education.

In every one of these workshops there were opportunities for the NTEU to contribute to the discussion, either through relaying experiences of strategies and tactics which have worked here, or through suggestions of how tertiary education workers could contribute to the solutions. It was clear to us that our colleagues in our region would welcome a greater role being played by NTEU in support of their campaigns for the basic women’s rights that we take for granted in this country; and it was also clear that we must remain active and vigilant to ensure that no women and girls are left behind within Australia.

As a union, NTEU can and will do more, but as members we should all be asking ourselves ‘Can I do more?’ If I was ever tempted to reply no to that question I will simply remember Fatina (I never knew her other names) the Palestinian delegate who tearfully told us that she only attended the Conference because of the support of a union leader who had since tragically died.

Fatina, who bravely told us her story which such grace and dignity, a story of struggle and hardship for the right to educate her daughters in safety, and the right to be heard not just within her society but within her union. Fatina who said that the support of the women at this Conference had changed her life and who vowed before us all to return to her homeland and stand for election despite the barriers in her way.

Fatina answered the question ‘Can you do more?’ with a resounding ‘Yes’ and if Fatina can do more then I am sure that we can too. A EI 1st WWC  www.ei-ie.org/women2011/en/ 29

INTERNATIONAL

Tuition fees in the UK Staff and students take protests to the streets Rob Copeland Policy Officer University and College Union (UK)

D

espite unprecedented protests from students and staff, in December last year the UK Government successfully passed legislation to triple university tuition fees and raise interest levels on student debt. In one fell swoop it made England the most expensive country in the world in which to study at a public university, at a time when we are already lagging behind our main economic rivals in terms of producing graduates.

The media has sought to characterise the changes as primarily a rise in tuition fees. But the centrepiece of the policy is an 80% cut in the ‘block grant’, the money which the state pays to the universities to cover part of their teaching costs. From 2012 onwards, core funding will focus on the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. All funding for arts, humanities, and social sciences will need to be made up through tuition fees – the effective privatisation of universities like LSE, SOAS and Goldsmiths.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition claims that these funding changes are needed as part of their plans to eliminate the public deficit. In reality, policy experts point out that the savings that will accrue to the Government will be much lower than anticipated, and that far from a saving, there may even be a cost to the Government. Critics note that the new system of student tuition loans will become financially unsustainable if the majority of institutions charge £9,000. The latter seems a distinct possibility, particularly as UCU has shown that universities will have to charge an average fee of nearly £7,000 just to maintain current funding levels. A number of universities, such as Imperial College and Cambridge, have already announced that all courses will charge £9,000 a year. In the coming weeks and months more universities are expected to follow suit.

Government plans to ensure a market in higher education and limit universities charging the full £9,000 fee are currently in disarray as ministers have only just discovered that the fair access regulator, OFFA, does not actually have the power to impose fee levels on universities.

An ideological belief in privatisation and consumerism are the main drivers behind the policy. According to Government Ministers, students competing on the basis of price and standardised performance indicators, such as satisfaction surveys and employability data, 30

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

INTERNATIONAL

will ‘drive up quality’ in our universities. A forthcoming White Paper on higher education is likely to suggest further deregulation, for example, by making it easier for private for-profit organisations to award degrees.

Changes in university funding must be seen alongside cuts in other parts of the education system, including provision for adults and young people. One of the nastiest changes has been the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), a payment of up to £30 a week to 16-19 year olds from poorer families who remain in postschool education. The removal of the EMA, alongside increased debt levels and the abolition of widening participation schemes such as Aim Higher, will make it harder to attract working-class students into higher education.

Politically, UCU is continuing to make the case that post-16 education needs more public investment, not less, and that increased funding more than pays for itself in terms of the economic and social benefits it brings. The Westminster Government’s current myopic approach will lead to the worst of all possible worlds – greater social inequality, lower economic growth and the country falling further and further behind other nations prepared to invest in the future.

The cuts will also have major implications for job security and conditions of employment. Thousands of jobs have already been lost in higher education and up to 40,000 more could be at risk as the government cuts 80% from the teaching budget over the next few years. The university employers have refused to negotiate a nationally MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

agreed approach to improving job security and defending provision.

Recent pay gains are also being eroded – for example, the employers’ organisation has responded with an offer of 0.4% when inflation is 4.8%. Because of these attacks UCU is currently balloting members for strike action in defence of jobs and pay.

Public sector pensions are also under sustained attack from the Government. Higher and further education staff will be one of the first groups to be affected by proposed changes. Previous generations fought to secure decent retirement benefits and UCU is doing everything in its power to defend those rights. For example, both the 40,000 UCU members in the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) and the 60,000 UCU members in the separate Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) are being balloted for industrial action to protect their final salary pension schemes.

In November, student protests, demonstrations and occupations kick-started the resistance to the austerity and privatisation agenda in post-school education. As the cuts begin to bite across the public sector, trade unions are increasingly in the forefront of the campaign to demand an alternative. As part of this process, the Trades Union Congress is organising a massive national demonstration on 26 March against the cuts. This demonstration will see vast numbers on the streets of London. UCU members and their students will be there to put the case for public investment in our colleges and universities. A UCU  www.ucu.org.uk 31

NATIONAL COUNCIL news from the net

PAT WRIGHT

InterNeT E-Unions U

nions around the world using the Internet for communicating, organising, campaigning and even recruiting appear to have reached a new stage of development. The fundamental use of email messaging remains, the use of websites with graphics, images, video and radio grows, and the use of social networking is making a quantum leap into a new era in which all of the existing uses are available to unions. And there is a new generation of graphic designers and web constructors who are bringing a new level of sophistication and professionalism to the ways in which unions are making use of the Internet.

their LaborConnect at connect.alp.org.au. And the NTEU would seem Eric Lee, founder of LabourStart, recently published on www.unionto be one of the leading Australian unions in this regard, particubook.org the results of the first annual global survey of trade union larly its Victorian Division, thanks largely to the efforts of Alex White use of the net. He got 1,336 respondents from more than a dozen and Atosha McCaw, who one year ago founded Creative Unions at countries, with the Anglophone countries predominating thus: www.creativeunions.org.

UK 260, USA 243, Canada 236 and Australia 167 – nearly all (92.5%) Creative Unions presents well, as befits the brainchild of some access the net at home, many (71.3%) at work, and almost always bright, young graphic designers, but there is substance as well as with broadband access. style – the hard-nosed, practical advice in Alex White’s free e-book, Most (79.2%) use desktop computers, but nearly as many (70.8%) Introduction to Email Campaigning for Unions, is evidence of that, use laptops or netbooks. Some (31.4%) use smartphones to access reinforced by his second free e-book, Social Media for Unions. Both the net – probably as well as their computers), but very few (4.5%) e-books are available as downas yet reported using tablet comloads from Creative Unions, as are puters such as the iPad. The most Creative Unions presents well, as befits numerous other resources, includpopular browsers were Internet ing Atosha’s Mini-history of Trade Explorer (67.1%), Mozilla Firefox the brainchild of some bright, young Union Poster Design.

(51.5%) and Google’s new Chrome graphic designers, but there is substance Both Atosha and Alex run blogs browser (26.5%). Obviously, some as well as style... (www.mortartown.com and alexuse more than one browser, prewhite.org respectively) and, of sumably for different purposes. course, Facebook pages and TwitMore than 90% of the respondter accounts. Recent postings include a US ents said that their national union had a Foreign Affairs magazine article about the website, but only 54.5% said that of their political power of social media and its role in local union – though it might have had facilitating political change, an article about a presence through their national union Egypt and social media, an item on ‘Why website, of course. Around 65% of respondUnions Should embrace Social Media’, an ents considered their national union interview with one of the authors of an Auswebsite above average, whereas only 45% tralian Journal of Political Science article on of respondents considered their local union Developing the power of politicians’ use of Twitter, news of social action website above average. The most useful union communication and design organised on Twitter to oppose budget cuts pro-union websites and services were in the UK, and news of the use of social media LabourStart (93.3%) and UnionBook (48%). to resist the proposed abolition of collective In terms of social networks, Facebook bargaining for public sector workers in the is clearly the most popular, with 88.1% of state of Wisconsin in the US. respondents as members, followed by UnionBook (56%) and LinkedIn In addition to this treasure trove of interesting news and informa(29.1%). Just under a third use Twitter and over a third are members tion, Alex provides practical assistance for union print publications, of YouTube. The union presence on these networks was reported in such as page layout templates, at resources.aleithia.com.au. Such similar proportions. developments in union use of the Internet, particularly social networking and tablet computers suggest that Australian unions and social media might well feature even more prominently in the second annual global survey of union use of the net next year. A Along with technological advances, such as readily accessible broadPat Wright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of Adelaide. band and more portable wireless devices, there is a trend for unions, email: pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au too, to be ‘moving forward’ with social networking, as is the ALP with

//creative unions.org

Unions moving forward

32

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

lowering the boom

NATIONAL COUNCIL

IAN LOWE

The advancement of knowledge with cuts, caps, cullings and classroom sex R

ecent Government policy decisions are having significant impact on higher education. The planned removal of the caps on university places, the impact of the research assessment system and the financial decisions made after the Queensland floods are all furrowing staff brows. To complicate matters, there is renewed pressure to concentrate research funds or to align research to teaching strengths, as well as continuing efforts by some private education providers to call their institutions universities.

ventional ‘. Otherwise, they were told, any academic publishing there In its panic to find money to repair flood damage in Queensland, the would downgrade their university’s ERA score. This is not a new debate.

PM seems to have cast around for activities that bureaucrats would When I was directing Griffith University’s Science Policy Research be happy to see discontinued. So ‘green ‘ programs that the relevant Centre, some of my colleagues department didn’t defend vigorthought it was putting too much ously were shut down, as was the ...the editors [of People and Place] were effort into influencing Australian Australian Learning and Teaching science policy. We should, they Council (ALTC). That was an astonpressured to make the journal more thought, instead be publishing ishing decision, given the work ‘conventional ‘. Otherwise, they were told, more papers in prestigious internathe ALTC does on a shoestring to any academic publishing there would tional journals that are only read by encourage quality teaching and downgrade their university’s ERA score. a handful of our fellow experts. student learning.

People and Place has a long Any outsider would see that as a record of influencing public debate core function of higher education about issues related to immigration and cultural identity. If the consethat otherwise gets relatively little attention. Some of those decisions, quence of the ERA is to direct research effort into areas that are acaincluding the ALTC closure, were reconsidered when the Government demic in the pejorative sense, that will hardly improve the quality of had to gain support from Independents and Greens for its package. public debate. As a number of politicians seem happy to espouse eviBut there are hints the Government is looking for ‘alternative savings‘ dence-free policy, a cynic might see a motivation for the change. to meet its budget goals. Did we really need the new multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers and support vessels?

The Government has announced lifting the caps on university enrolments next year. Some institutions have over-enrolled to position themselves better for the new regime. While the transitional There is some good news. Chicago’s Northwestern University broadarrangements provide extra funding, there is nervousness about its ened the scope of higher education and titillated the media when it continuation. One Vice-Chancellor was quoted as saying that univerrecently enriched a lecture with a live sex demonstration. As part of sities need ‘urgent reassurance ‘. a course called Human Sexuality, the lecturer invited four members At the same time, a Government Minister told a conference that of the local fetish community to speak and answer questions, before the expansion must not come at the expense of quality. This looks like a 25-year-old woman stripped and ‘demonstrated sexual behavior ‘, an example of the adage that in politics, as in sport, it isn’t whether as the press report coyly said, with her fiancé. ‘The students seemed you win or lose, but how you place the blame! Where the person in really intrigued ‘, she was quoted as saying. Now there’s a surprise! the street would expect that expanding student numbers without Who would have thought students would be interested in sex? adequate funding would lead to lowering standards, the Minister can The university administration told the media that students were now say that he told universities explicitly that this must not happen. not obliged to attend the session to be graded, as if this was a critical So when the inevitable results, the Minister can blame the institutions. factor in its acceptability. But I was fascinated by the official comment from Alan K Cubbage, the Vice President for University Relations, who seemed to link the lecture theatre activity to the research agenda when he said: ‘The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge. ‘ The changes to research support are even more worrying. Pressure I can think of some really interesting ways to advance my knowlarising from the ERA research assessment has led to closure of the sociedge. I wonder if the university will support me? And how will it affect ological journal People and Place, edited by Bob Birrell of Monash Unithe ERA? Certainly the Chicago exercise achieved high impact… A versity and Katherine Betts from Swinburne University of Technology.

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society Because the journal was given the lowest possible ranking in the ERA at Griffith University, and a life member of the NTEU. exercise, the editors were pressured to make the journal more ‘con-

Practical measures in Human Sexuality class

People and Place falls victim to ERA

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

33

NATIONAL COUNCIL Knowledge is the Economy, Stupid

TAMMI JONAS

Some problems can be solved simply by throwing money at them R

eports from one university recently that all tutorials in a particular faculty had been re-badged as demonstrations were met with outrage amongst the few casuals and activists from the sector who heard them. Yet another penny-pinching measure by a university under financial pressure from years of underfunding by government, and one that universities are accustomed to getting away with as casuals are all too often isolated and unable to organise collectively (the ‘silent underclass’). So your pay goes from $100/hour to $35/hour – I guess you just stop preparing for classes or consulting with students? Yeah, right.

ate forums, etc. places enormous burdens on staff, much of which is At another university, we learn that a faculty has eliminated tutoriborne by underpaid casuals. als altogether and is now calling its lectures ‘seminars’, with 50-100 Because student staff ratios contribute 20% to QS World University undergrads in each 2-hour class. Who loses from such a move? EveryRankings, Vice-Chancellors are paying attention, but many of them one. The undergrads who no longer have any small class interaction are proposing to uncap student contributions to make up for fundfor discussion, the postgrads and other early career academics who ing shortfalls. The incoming head of UA, Melbourne University VC no longer have tutorials to teach, and the permanent staff who no Glyn Davis was quoted in The Australian arguing for just that, citing longer have the support of tutors and will bear the extra workload concerns that the Government won’t make appropriate public conon their own. tributions and therefore universities should be able to charge stuThe first case above is one we’ve all seen far too often, and goes dents more. And yet if the student experience is worsening, on what hand in hand with other exploitative measures such as non-payment grounds would society presume to for required lecture attendance, ask students to pay more? department or subject coordinaParallel to the Base Funding tion meetings, student consulta...if the student experience is worsening, Review is the ongoing work to tion and marking. The second fits on what grounds would society presume establish the Tertiary Education neatly into a neoliberal paradigm Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). where anything can be made to ask students to pay more?

Although there have certainly affordable by so-called economies been teething problems with early of scale – bigger class sizes are just drafts of the legislation, the idea of the tip of the iceberg. At the Universities Australia (UA) conference on 2-4 March this year, a ‘futurist’ an ‘AUQA with teeth’ is exciting. If an audit finds that a certain university’s class sizes are compromising quality, TEQSA will (or should) suggested that as well as bigger class sizes, universities should simply have the authority to demand improvements in its role as protecput more online, as he runs a transnational company and the board tor of the integrity of a publicly-funded higher education system. It meetings go very well on Skype. If that’s the future, I want out. simply remains to be seen whether some who will confuse autonomy It’s hardly a secret that universities are coping with funding preswith unaccountability will manage to dilute the legislation so that sures with increased casualisation, as highlighted again recently by staff and students see no real QA benefit from the new body. the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland Paul Greenfield But will the Government step up and address the many issues at the UA conference. And while casuals have never been particularly plaguing the sector by providing appropriate public funding to create well supported in the sector, increased class sizes are making their a vibrant knowledge economy? It’s rather inauspicious when our jobs harder. The much-awaited results of the National Research StuMinister for Tertiary Education Chris Evans addresses the sector and dent Survey survey conducted last year by ACER and the CSHE for assures us the Government is open minded about the ‘very imporDEEWR indicate that only 14% of research students who have worked tant independent review of base funding’, but hopeful the findings as tutors or lecturers report having received any teacher training. And will preclude recommendations to increase Government expendias numbers of casual academics increase, there is a concurrent negature on higher education. It is especially worrying given the Bradley tive impact on permanent academic staff workload, and none of this Review, Research Workforce Strategy and countless other reviews can possibly be benefiting undergrads. and inquiries have repeatedly emphasised the dangers to the system A quick aside on the question of shifting to more online learning posed by increasing casualisation and higher student staff ratios. We – apart from research over the past 20 years that in most cases it is don’t need any more reports to tell us these are problems, we need to not an ideal replacement for face-to-face learning opportunities, but throw some public money at them. A can work well as a supplement – it is disingenuous in the extreme to Tammi Jonas is a former President of the Council of Australian Postgraduate suggest it decreases workload. The amount of unpaid labour to mainAssociations (CAPA). She blogs at www.tammijonas.com tain websites, respond to student emails, participate in and moder34

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

letter from new zealanD/aotearoa

NATIONAL COUNCIL

SANDRA GREY, TEU

Thanks for being good neighbours A

s I write this, the tertiary education institutions in Christchurch where TEU members work are shut for the second time in less than six months. At this point, as far as we know based on sketchy information, all our members are alive and have avoided serious injury. But is likely that most will know someone who was either seriously injured or killed, and many will have lost homes, belongings and are still without water and power.

Hopefully, by the time you read this the people of Christchurch will be on the way to rebuilding their city, and opening their learning institutions.

We, as New Zealanders, spent the summer looking on in horror as similar tragedy unfolded in Queensland and Victoria – in your case floods. The plague of tragedies that have struck both New Zealand and Australia in recent months has emotionally reinforced what we already knew intellectually; that New Zealand and Australian workers are very closely connected. New Zealanders have nothing but gratitude and respect for the hundreds of police officers who dropped what they were doing in Australia to come to Christchurch and help get Canterbury up and running. Some of the first images on our TV after the earthquake were Australian doctors who happened to be attending a conference in Christchurch rushing to help injured New Zealanders.

Last year it was Australians who rushed to support us during the mining disaster at Pike River. New Zealanders will recognise all this and likely be reticent, at least in the near future, to make our usual quips and derogatory comments about Aussies.

But, for those of us in the tertiary education sector, the links are normally more prosaic. Very few academics in New Zealand have not either worked in Australia, intend to work in Australia or have a close working relationship with colleagues in an Australian university or TAFE. Here in New Zealand we often conceptualise this as a problem.

‘How do we keep our good people here on this side of the Tasman when they can get 25 per cent more pay over the ditch?’ Or ‘Australia is so big and economically powerful that it could overwhelm us if we

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

get too close.’ Or ‘our Vice-Chancellors and Chief Executives might start copying some of the nefarious behaviour that goes on over in Australia.’

But, if we are honest, there are also exciting opportunities. Pay is lower here, but there is no doubt that it would be lower still if tertiary education employers did not feel the pressure of higher wages that union members in Australia have negotiated. Australia is big and powerful, but for people involved in tertiary education, who like to share ideas and collaborate, it is pretty special to have all Australia’s resources and people so near. And, as for the nefarious bosses, it might well be that you have the same fears about your proximity to us.

For us, at this point in time, it is also incredibly important to be able to point across the Tasman and show that, despite the current economic climate, it is possible to view tertiary education as an investment rather than a cost.

Your Government may not be doing all that you and your students need for high quality education and research, but it does seem from afar to recognise the education is a crucial tool for building a sustainable, equitable and strong economy. Our Government may say it values tertiary education, but it is cutting funding not just in real terms but in actual dollar amounts. Worse, the places it is making the biggest cuts are to those courses and providers that would give skills education and opportunities to those who would not otherwise get a chance.

Last year we counted over 50 major reviews resulting in restructuring and loss of jobs at universities, polytechnics and wānanga, and hundreds of smaller reviews and restructures. Good people are losing their jobs and good students are losing their chance to study because the Government is not funding enough places. Then the Government has the temerity to say that people should get off the benefits because there are jobs, it is just that there is a skills shortage.

No doubt you have been through this in the past and New Zealand, at that time, has looked attractive by comparison. Together we continue to support each other through, not just the tragedies over which we have no control, but also the short-sighted and short-term policies of politicians who refuse to invest in our young people’s future. Because as union members we can influence those things, by working collectively on both sides of the Tasman Sea. A Sandra Grey is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa TEU  www.teu.ac.nz Left: Knox Church, Christchurch, after the February earthquake.

Photo: Francis Vallance ©2011, www.flickr.com/photos/francisvallance 35

YOUR UNION

WA CPSU/CSA higher education members move across to NTEU I

n mid 2010, after many years of competitive unionism in universities in Western Australia, the CPSU/CSA announced that it was withdrawing from active involvement in the WA higher education sector. Following an Agreement with the NTEU, at both the national and WA Division levels, the CPSU/CSA wrote to all WA public universities appointing the NTEU as their agent for all bargaining and industrial purposes. The CPSU/CSA wrote to its members advising them of this decision and encouraging them to transfer to NTEU membership. To date over 300 CPSU/CSA members have transferred to the NTEU in WA and are reporting that it has been a positive experience.

The CPSU/CSA’s advice to members acknowledges that the NTEU is best placed to represent a united general staff membership. The CPSU/CSA State Secretary and Assistant Secretary, together with NTEU WA Division and Branch Elected Officers and staff attended a series of meetings after this decision was announced, to explain the decision and what it means for CPSU members. For most members it means a seamless transition into the NTEU where they will be treated as if they were existing NTEU members and for most it also means a reduction in membership fees!

The NTEU won coverage of general staff in WA universities only eleven years ago, and

Kerrie Carr I was in the CPSU for 10 years before changing to the NTEU. In this time I never had a reason to need the union. However upon moving offices and being put in a workstation as small as a library carrel, it was recommended that I contact the NTEU. Our union rep visited our new workplace that week and from there a complaint was lodged due to occupational Health and Safety concerns. Although the situation has not yet been rectified, it has been agreed upon that our new workstations need fixing. The NTEU has followed our discussions from the beginning and are still in contact with our office to make sure that things are still moving forward.

36

has been taking a leading role in general staff representation ever since. We are very happy to welcome these new general staff members into the industry union. This will enormously strengthen the NTEU’s position at the bargaining table on behalf of general staff and will for the first time in WA effectively unite almost all university staff in a single union.

All WA Branches have been working hard to make this transition for the former CPSU/ CSA members as smooth as possible and will be encouraging all remaining CPSU/ CSA members to transfer their membership to the NTEU. When contacted many former CPSU/CSA members reported that they wish that this had happened many years ago!

The WA Division has a number of events planned for 2011 specifically for general staff, to which all CPSU/CSA members who have not yet transferred will be invited. The NTEU hopes that this is the beginning of a new era of untied general staff unionism in Australia. A

Tracie Pollin I’m a Librarian and have seen myself as a professional within my chosen field. I have been a member of a University Staff Union for the entirety of the sixteen years I have been at Murdoch. During much of this time I would never have thought of joining the NTEU as I thought it was only for academic staff and that the Union did not recognise the professionalism and skills of general staff, and so wasn’t relevant to me.

However, my recent experiences at Murdoch have shown me that the NTEU is present on campus to represent professional staff.

During the EB negotiations, it was the NTEU who negotiated with management around employment conditions and provided advice regarding our current rights and the new rights they were seeking to enshrine in the Agreement. The elected officers and staff kept members fully informed regarding negotiations, which I feel my previous union had failed to do.

The NTEU has always seemed to fight that bit harder for our rights, I also see now that the NTEU values the professionalism of all university staff and I’m happy to have made the switch from my previous union.

Any CPSU members in WA who have not yet transferred across to the NTEU should contact the WA Division Office: ph 08 6365 4188 or email wa@nteu.org.au

Sue Dowling I have worked at Murdoch as a librarian for over 20 years, having started here in April 1990. I joined the CSA/CPSU around that time, and maintained my membership until June 2010. I am now an NTEU member.

I decided to join the NTEU as the Union negotiates the Enterprise Agreements for staff. I think it’s important that I support the NTEU’s negotiation efforts by paying my union dues. It doesn’t seem fair to not be a member but then get the benefit. I also see the NTEU as an effective advocate for its members (both academic and general staff), and able to represent their views to University Management.

Joining the NTEU was easy! I filled out the form, sent it in and within 24 hours I received emails welcoming me to the Union and giving me lots of useful information, including the fact that I can receive NTEU publications (Advocate, Australian Universities’ Review) in electronic format.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

YOUR UNION

FAST TRACK YOUR CAREER:

COMUNICATION IS THE KEY! Do you want to work as a communication or PR professional in Australia and internationally?

The postgraduate programs in Communication and Public Relations at Victoria University are designed to meet your needs. Courses are fully articulated and include: • Graduate Certificate (6 months full time) • Graduate Diploma (12 months full time) • Masters (18 months full time).

With up-to-date expert academics and advisors, core units include international communication, organisational communication, public relations writing and campaign management, and electives include digital design, cyber cultures, an internship, environmental and public health communication and more. It is flexible so you can design the course that works for you. In addition our Public Relations courses are fully accredited by the Public Relations institute of Australia (PRIA).

A postgraduate qualification in communication or public relations is a great way to branch into new areas or extend opportunities in your current field of work. Graduates can confidently seek careers in Professional Communication in Australian and international companies and agencies, and in the government and not for profit sectors.

Any undergraduate degree is accepted for entry and there is generous recognition of prior learning and professional experience. Semester 1, 2011 enrolments are now open!

For more information about our courses click on the following link to the Faculty’s

Webpage: http://www.vu.edu.au/courses/faculty-course-structures/course-structuresin-arts-education-and-human-development

All classes take place in the evening at our Flinders Lane venue. Fee Help is available on application.

For further information contact the Victoria University School of Communication and the Arts and speak to: Dr Maree Keating (Post grad Communications PR co-ordinator) 9919 2280 maree.keating@vu.edu.au or Dr Jane Landman (Post grad Communications co-ordinator) 9919 2313 jane.landman@vu.edu.au

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Delegate Networks and Working Groups A

union is only as strong as its active members, and while the NTEU has a proud history of involving members in its activities and campaigns, the recognition has grown that more needs to be done if the Union is to remain strong. To this end, NTEU passed a motion at its 2010 National Council committing the Union to supporting the formation of campus-based delegate networks.

A delegate network is a way of involving members more directly in the activities of the Union, as well as a means for the Union to share the workload among more people, and more effectively to communicate its message.

Australian unions have recently built successful delegate networks in other industries. In fact there seems to be a correlation between those unions which have experienced strong membership growth in recent years and those with successful delegate structures.

Intuitively, this makes sense. With a delegate network, the ‘public face’ of the union – the delegate – is much closer to people’s day-to-day workplace.

A delegate network also empowers members to get involved more directly in the activities of the Union – through formal delegate meetings, for example – and to advocate on behalf of their fellow members.

It makes sense that this would lead to more people joining, as the Union is able to reach out to more staff.

Existing members also develop a greater stake in the Union, thus engendering longer term commitment to the Union.

The NTEU NSW Division has set up a working group to assist Branches establish delegate networks. It will be a forum for: sharing information about successful delegate networks; for organising the training of delegates; and for recommending policy about delegates to the Divisional and National levels. Already we have been able to draw upon the excellent work of the Charles Sturt University Branch where construction of a delegate network is well under way.

If you are interested in becoming involved in the NTEU delegate network, or if you want to help set one up at your campus, get in contact with your local Branch. A Damien Cahill, Vice President (Academic), USyd Branch 37

YOUR UNION

New staff in NTEU offices H

elping members better know the Union’s staff, we are pleased to present these brief profiles of recently arrived staff.

Celeste Liddle National Indigenous Organiser National Office Celeste Liddle is a proud Arrernte woman who was born in Canberra, and has lived most of her life in Melbourne. Following the (long awaited) completion of her Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Theatre and Drama, Celeste started working at the Wilin Centre, VCA as the Indigenous Liaison Officer.

Celeste held that position for 6 years before taking up the role of Team Leader – Recruitment and Engagement at the Centre for Indigenous Education, University of Melbourne. Celeste served on the NTEU Victorian Division Executive and the Division Council, as well as the UniMelb Branch Committee where she created enough waves to get noticed by the Indigenous Policy Committee and the National Office, leading her into her current role.

Celeste is currently undertaking a Grad Dip in Arts, and her main hobbies include listening to very loud music, adding to her collection of Doc Marten boots, dancing, travelling, catching films and plays, and putting off enrolling in a PhD. She is the proud mother of two dogs called Jeffrey and Indi.

Fran Blackbourn Division Organiser ACT Division Fran has been an active member of the NTEU since 2003, serving as Vice-President (General Staff ) and National Councillor for the University of New England (UNE) Branch, along with being a Women’s Action Committee and Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) representative.

Fran comes from a strong and proud working class background. Her first union membership was with the Storeman and Packers Union and she later became a delegate with the Financial Services Union. Having a com38

pleted a degree in Adult Education from UNE and with an interested in how people learn and develop through their involvement in social movements and informal workplace learning, Fran is acutely aware that there is always more taking place than what we are presented with on the surface.

Outside of work, Fran is singing her heart out with the Canberra Gay & Lesbian Qwire, dancing her little feet off with her wonderful partner Nicki and enjoying the privilege of helping her two children grow into themselves. Asked what her greatest union moment is, Fran will tell you of her then three-year-old daughter scribbling on the side of the bath and proudly saying to her mum ‘that says NO VSU’.

Lee Powell Financial Officer National Office Lee recently joined NTEU after deciding on a new career direction. With over 16 years experience working in the insurance industry, Lee had been in charge of a number of different roles including being part of credit collections through to leading the Policy Services Improvement team.

Lee took the opportunity to join the NTEU as a Finance Officer last October and is enjoying the change. Outside of work, Lee enjoys life’s simple pleasures which include, reading, gardening, spending time with her two sons and going out with friends.

Julie Smith Branch Organiser UNSW Julie worked previously at the LHMU, where she organised at Star City casino and the Clean Start team, and handled industrial cases for members in the various industries.

Prior to her time there she worked at the FSU handling industrial enquiries nationally. She

has been a committed union delegate while working in a Telstra call centre in Melbourne and has been involved in several social justice campaigns, including the refugee campaign.

Julie enjoys walking, her ipod, weekend markets, drinking coffee and trying to change the world. She loves Facebook, where she networks and shares information with labour activists from all around the globe. While she declares herself to be a serious unionist, she insists that there is fun to be had in fighting for what’s right.

Adam Knobel Branch Organiser University of Sydney Adam is the second Branch Organiser at the University of Sydney. He is looking forward to continuing his work with the Branch and local delegates to strengthen and expand the new Delegates Network.

Adam comes to the NTEU from the community sector, where he worked on legal, health and social justice projects as a communications officer. Before that Adam was a student unionist at the University of Wollongong while completing his undergraduate degree in journalism.

Earlier this year, Adam handed in his final Masters project. He is currently pretending he hasn’t already started looking at course enrolments for another degree.

Catherine Kirkman Division Organiser Tasmanian Division Before her recent appointment as Division Organiser, Catherine has previously held a number of elected positions on the Tasmanian Division Council and has been involved with and strongly committed to unions since 2002 when she was first employed as Research and Advocacy officer with the Tasmania University Union (Student Union).

Catherine has a BA (Sociology) and a Graduate Certificate in Counselling. She has spent the past few years working for UTAS as an International Student Adviser, walking the wild places of Tasmania, having the most beautiful and enjoyable second wedding NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

YOUR UNION (and marriage) imaginable, renovating an old house and kitchen garden and wondering how she could work for NTEU at the same time as appearing on ‘Masterchef’.

Proudly sponsored by

Raffle2011

Jason Tebbutt

1st prize: Travel voucher to the value of $8,000

Division Industrial Officer WA Division Jason has been a troublemaker from a young age, with the larger part of his academic life coinciding with his involvement in various grass roots community groups and student activism. Starting his union life as a delegate in the federal public service, Jason soon fled to become an organiser in the federal Community and Public Sector Union (PSU) and the CSIRO Staff Association, representing members across 25 different federal departments and agencies.

Holding a strong belief in the importance of community enlightenment in Australia since graduating from Murdoch University in Asian Studies and Politics, it wasn’t long before Jason made the move to the NTEU to stand up for higher education. A

TAKE ThE hOlIDAY Of YOUR DREAmS!

2nd prize: Travel voucher to the value of $1,000 PlUS PRIzES fOR: NEW Booksellers draw: iPad to the value of $799

(those who sell more than 3 books will go into the draw).

Top Bookseller: iPad to the value of $799.

ORDER YOUR TICKETS TODAY! 20 tickets per book – $2 per ticket.

Ring 1800 888 674 or email office@apheda.org.au or Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA’s agricultural project in Cambodia works with poor rural farmers to help diversify their crops - increasing the level of food security for their families and generating more consistent incomes.

Photograph by Chhea Thao

visit www.apheda.org.au Closes May 20, 2011 Winner drawn June 2, 2011

NTEU KeepCup No waste. Great style.

Just $9.00

Professional Academic Editing Service

fits all commercial coffee machines buy online now @ www.nteu.org.au/shop

www.eliteediting.com.au Having your thesis, article or book professionally edited will correct and improve your: • • • • •

Grammar, punctuation and spelling Expression, vocabulary and writing style Organisation, structure and flow Clarity and consistency Format, layout and referencing

Submit your document to be edited by one of our professional and experienced editors now!

(All editing conforms to relevant university guidelines)

Contact Dr Lisa Lines: 0402 361 452 Email: info@eliteediting.com.au Web: www.eliteediting.com.au

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

39

YOUR UNION

Recent human rights actions by NTEU Canada

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.

Action request: Education International To:

Beverly J Oda, Minister of International Cooperation

For more information, please visit the organisations’ websites: Amnesty International  www.amnesty.org Scholars at Risk  scholarsatrisk.nyu.edu Education International  www.ei-ie.org

Action: Letter re decision by Canadian International Development Agency to withdraw funding for CTF international programs.

Russia Action request: Scholars at Risk RUSSIA

CANADA BELARUS USA

BAHRAIN

EGYPT

COLOMBIA

USA Action request: Education International To:

Presidents of the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Union

Action: Message of solidarity re campaign by public sector unions following introduction of a bill in Wisconsin which would deny 175,000 public employees the right to collectively bargain.

Similar legislation is being introduced in a number of other States.

To:

Action: Letter re detention of Professors Syvatoslav Bobyshev and Yevgeny Afanasyev (Baltic State University St Petersburg). Detained without trial or formal charge since 16 March 2010. Accused of spying and passing State secrets to unidentified Chinese citizens following a cooperative relationship between Baltic State University and Harbin Engineering University in China which allowed the Professors to deliver lectures at the Chinese University.

Belarus Action request: Scholars at Risk To:

President Alyaksandr Lukashenka

Action: Letter re arrest (20/12/10) and detention of Alyaksandr Fyaduta, lecturer at European Humanities University following his involvement in a post election protest.

Concerns re his health.

Egypt/Australia Action request: Education International To:

Bahrain

Action request: Education International

Action request: Scholars at Risk

To:

To:

President Juan Manuel Santos Calderon

Action: Letter seeking release of academic and unionist Dr Miguel Angel Beltran – detained since May 2009 – ‘charged with rebellion and breaking the law for terrorists purposes’. Imprisoned for his independent academic research and political views.

Vice President Angelino Garzon

Action: Letter re constant human rights violations against members of FENSUAGRO.

40

The Hon. Kevin Rudd, Minister for Foreign Affairs

Action: Letter requesting Australia pressure Egyptian Government to ensure transition to democratic government and guarantee fundamental human rights.

Colombia

To:

President Dimitri Medvedev

His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al Khalifa, PM

Action: Further letter re arrest and mistreatment of Professor Abdul Jalil Al-Singace (University of Bahrain) following address to the House of Lords on the human rights situation in Bahrain.

Result: Received advice from Scholars at Risk that Professor Abdul Jalil Al-Singace was released on 23 February 2011.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

A CASUAL RESTYLING

YOUR UNION

Design intern brings fresh approach to NTEU’s Casual communications

S

winburne graphic design graduate, Andrew Li, is the creative genius behind the new look for Connect, NTEU’s magazine for casual academics. Employed in NTEU’s National Office in Melbourne for two weeks in January 2011, he is the Union’s first ever graphic design intern.

Andrew was given responsibility for overhauling all visual communication concerned with Casual academic members. This includes logos and designs for Connect, the website www.unicasual.org.au and a forthcoming range of posters and flyers.

A field trip to RMIT University was arranged early in the fortnight to provide some background information for the project. Local Branch Organiser, Sam Maynard, showed Andrew around campus and discussed how the Union interacts with casual staff, how union membership benefits casuals and recent wins in bargaining.

NTEU member and casual academic, Liam Ward, showed Andrew the typical working conditions of a casual academic, providing real on-the-ground insight into the issue.

Back in the office, Andrew employed both modern and traditional graphic techniques to develop a suite of design ideas centred mainly around the concept of the machine cog. Simple, yet effective and requiring little explanation, the cogs will form the basis for a range of exciting new campaign design developments.

See more of Andrew’s work at www.andrewli.com.au

MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

41

YOUR UNION

2011 Seminars

Copyright and Educators The Australian Copyright Council will be holding copyright seminars and workshops throughout 2011 including some tailored to provide educators and others working in education institutions with the latest copyright issues.

Specific topics covered include the use of text and images, the use of AV materials and implications of new educational technologies.

Seminars are held in all capital cities.

For further information on seminar sessions, dates & times please visit

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

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

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

MEMBERSHIP DETAILS Have you moved house recently? ÎÎ If you have nominated your home address as your NTEU contact address, you must update it.

Has your family name changed?

Have your workplace details changed?

Has your Dept/School had a name change or merged with another?

Are you moving to a different institution? ÎÎ Transfer of membership from one institution to another is not automatic.

Have your employment details changed? ÎÎ Please notify us to ensure you are paying the correct fees.

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

CREDIT CARD/DIRECT DEBIT PAYMENTS Have your credit card (ie expiry date) or direct debit account details changed? ÎÎ Please notify us immediately.

Are you leaving university employment? ÎÎ If you are no longer an NTEU member, deductions will continue until the National Office is notified.

For all credit card and direct debit enquiries, please contact: 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.

42

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

Win back your Union Fees! or win one of two $250 cash prizes • Register and sign-up for eNews online = 2 entries • Make an electrical or Motor Market purchase = 5 entries Offer valid 1 February – 30 April 2011

register your union membership and sign-up for our regular enewsletters on our website or make a purchase with Union Shopper’s electrical or Motor Market services and you’ll automatically be in the running.

Find out more at www.unionshopper.com.au/feesrefund

* For terms and conditions please visit www.unionshopper.com.au/feesrefund Winners will be drawn on Tuesday 10th May 2011

Participating brands include:

Big Savings for Union Members

Measuring & Enabling

University Research & Innovation Capacity Strengthening your capacity to deliver world class research

info@crite Email rionco for a free bnferences.com rochure

26th & 27th July 2011, Citigate Central, Sydney Hear from:

To Register

Professor Paul Johnson, Vice-Chancellor, La Trobe University, Member of the Australian Research Council Advisory Board & Former Deputy Director, London School of Economics

Professor John Hattie, Director, Melbourne Institute of Educational Research, University of Melbourne & Past Chief Moderator, Performance Based Research Fund, New Zealand

Professor Caroline McMillen, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research & Innovation, University of South Australia

Professor Arun Sharma, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research & Commercialisation, Queensland University of Technology

☎

1300 316 882

1300 918 334

Benefits of attending: Utilise ERA data to accurately inform your strategic research decisions Short and long-term methods to increase the quality and quantity of your institution’s research outputs Building a research workforce to sustainably manage your research capacity Sector collaboration to cultivate an Australian reputation for research excellence internationally

registration@criterionconferences.com

www.uniresearchinnovation.com

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) 8066 6600 (02) 8066 6677 nsw@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/nsw

Victorian Division

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF Officers & Central Resources Unit

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

Executive Officer – President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea Sauvarin Executive Officer – General Secretary. . . . . . . . . Anastasia Kotaidis IT Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Riley ICT System Administrator/Help Desk. . . . . . . . . . Tam Vuong Executive Officer – Meetings & Events . . . . . . . . Tracey Coster Administrative Officer – Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . Renee Veal

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

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

ACT 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

Policy & Research Unit

National President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeannie Rea

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

Vice-President (Academic). . . . . . . . . . . . Gregory McCarthy SA Div Vice-President (General). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabe Gooding UWA

Indigenous Unit

General Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary. . . . . . . . . . Matthew McGowan

National Indigenous Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam Frogley National Indigenous Organiser. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celeste Liddle

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gracia Ho, Joanne Dunn, Alex Ghvaladze,

Tamara Labadze, Lee Powell, Sonia Uthuppu

44

Executive Members Lyn Bloom WA Div Margaret Botterill La Trobe John Fitzsimmons CQU Kelvin Michael Tas Div Colin Long Vic Div Terry Mason UWS Neil Mudford ACT Div Michael Thomson Sydney

Andrew Bonnell UQ Derek Corrigan ANU Genevieve Kelly NSW Div Margaret Lee Qld Div Virginia Mansel Lees La Trobe Helen Masterman-Smith CSU Susan Price UNSW David Wise NT Div

Indigenous Executive Member. . . . . . . . . Jillian Miller UniSA

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18 no. 1

MEMBERSHIP FORM

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION  I want to join NTEU

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

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

YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS

|SURNAME

TITLE

|GIVEN NAMES

HOME ADDRESS

|STATE |POSTCODE |MOBILE |DATE Of BIRTH | MALE  fEMALE |ARE YOU AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL/TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER?  YES

CITY/SUBURB PHONE |WORK INCL AREA CODE

HOME PHONE INCL AREA CODE EMAIL HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY BEEN AN NTEU MEMBER?

 YES: AT WHICH INSTITUTION?

YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT DETAILS

|CAMPUS

INSTITUTION/EMPLOYER

|DEPT/SCHOOL |CLASSIfICATION LEVEL LECTB, HEW4

fACULTY POSITION

 PlEASE USE MY HoME ADDrESS For All MAIlINg

STEP/ |INCREMENT

|ANNUAL SALARY

WHAT IS YOUR EMPLOYMENT gROUP?

 ACADEMIC STAFF

 gENERAL/PROFESSIONAL STAFF

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

 FULL TIME  PART TIME

‡Associated bodies: NTEU (NSW); University of Qld Academic Staff Association (Union of Employees) at UQ; 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 ECU

 SESSIONAL ACADEMIC  gENERAL STAFF CASUAL

HrS PEr WK

 $38.50 for 6 months  $77 for 1 year  $55 for 6 months  $110 for 1 year  PLEASE ACCEPT MY CHEqUE/MONEY ORDER OR CREDIT CARD:  MASTERCARD  vISA $10,001–$20,000:

NAME ON CARD

FEES AT ALL bRANCHES = 1% OF gROSS ANNUAL SALARY

PLEASE CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWINg PAYMENT OPTIONS

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

OPTION 1: PAYROLL DEDUCTION AUTHORITY I INSErT YoUr NAME

|HEREBY AUTHORISE

IF KNoWN

SIGNATURE

OPTION 2: CREDIT CARD

 MASTERCARD  VISA

|PAYMENT:  MONTHLY

SIGNATURE

OPTION 3: DIRECT DEbIT

| Of

YoUr ADDrESS

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 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.

INSTITUTIoN

|DATE |CARD NO. — — — —

|ExPIRY

— — — — — — — — — — — —

 QUARTERLY  HALf-YEARLY  ANNUALLY

|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 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

I INSErT YoUr NAME fINANCIAL INSTITUTION

office use only: % of salary deducted

ProceSSed on the 16th of the month or following working day

NAME ON CARD

|BSB NO.

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.

Full text of DDr available at www.nteu.org.au/ddr

|ACCOUNT NO.

|PAYMENT:  MONTHLY

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: NTEU National Office

5% DISCOUNT FOR ANNUAL PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 DIRECT DEbIT PAYMENT

BRANCH NAME & ADDRESS

SIGNATURE

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.

|$ CARD NO. |ExPIRY ———— ———— ———— ———— SIGNATURE |DATE

 CONTINUINg/PERMANENT  FIxED TERM CONTRACT DATE oF ExPIrY

ACCOUNT NAME

office use only: Membership no.

CHOOSE YOUR SALARY RANgE... DETERMINE YOUR FEE... TICk THE APPROPRIATE bOx: Salary range $10,000 & under:  $27.50 for 6 months  $55 for 1 year Over $20,000:

WHAT IS YOUR EMPLOYMENT TERM?

CARD:

|DATE

OTHER:

WHAT IS YOUR EMPLOYMENT CATEgORY?

STAff PAYROLL NUMBER

If KNOWN

‡

SIGNATURE

 TEACHINg & RESEARCH  RESEARCH ONLY  RESEARCH ONLY

|MAIL/ BLDG CODE MONTH NExT | INCREMENT DUE

 QUARTERLY  HALf-YEARLY  ANNUALLY

|DATE

T (03) 9254 1910 F (03) 9254 1915 E national@nteu.org.au

Trying to solve your financial puzzle?

Find the missing pieces with UniSuper Advice.

Introduced exclusively for UniSuper members, UniSuper Advice takes the guesswork out of piecing together your financial future – quality advice from a fund you know and trust.

UniSuper Advice can partner with you to fit together a wealth strategy designed specifically for your needs. From simple to comprehensive advice, our financial advice team can help you on a range of strategies including: • wealth creation

• wealth protection

• non-super investments

• redundancy

• superannuation

• Centrelink entitlements

• retirement planning

• remuneration strategies.

• cash flow and debt management

To find out more about UniSuper Advice or to arrange a complimentary initial assessment: visit www.unisuper.com.au/advice or call 1300 331 685.

ADVICE

Find out more

www.unisuper.com.au/advice

advice@unisuper.com.au

1300 331 685

UniSuper Advice is operated by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799), ASFL 235907. Level 35, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.

For more information on the services offered by UniSuper Advice, please refer to the Financial Services Guide available at www.unisuper.com.au/advice.