Advocate July 2011

Advocate Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union

ISSN 1321–8476

Volume 18, Number 2, July 2011

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

Pushing the Boundaries

 NTEU conference challenges the sector on its response to climate change

PLUS: Bendigo & Kangan TAFEs strike Indigenous Higher Ed Review Saving the Monash Glass Studio No equal pay for equal work Egypt after the revolution

What’s

R U YO Y T I IVERS

?

Y R O T S UN

Annual Tax Guide inside!

ERA takes a turn for the better

 Tell us the good, bad and ugly about your uni at www.unistories.org.au

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 MORAYFIELD KEYSTAR HYUNDAI (07) 5498 5800 BEAUDESERT SCENIC HYUNDAI (07) 5541 4000 MT GRAVATT KEEMAatHYUNDAI (07) 3426 1500 Locate your nearest Hyundai Dealer BROWNS PLAINS ZUPPS HYUNDAI (07) 3802 4000 NUNDAH NORTHSIDE HYUNDAI (07) 3635 5300 CLEVELAND KEEMA HYUNDAI (07) 3479 9888hyundai.com.au ROTHWELL KEYSTAR HYUNDAI (07) 3817 7600 INDOOROOPILLY WESTPOINT HYUNDAI (07) 3878 0440 SOUTHPORT GOLD COAST HYUNDAI (07) 5583 8810 call 1300 853 047 KEEMA HYUNDAI (07) 3884 8300 IPSWICH LLEWELLYN HYUNDAI (07) 3282or 2922 SPRINGWOOD MOOROOKA MOOROOKA HYUNDAI (07) 3848 7811 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 2, JULY 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: UQ members pose with their union banner at the Brisbane ‘Say Yes to Climate Action’ rally on 5 June.

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: Michel Nagabbo SPECIAL FEATURES CLIMATE CHANGE

FROM THE OFFICERS

2

 16

Discoveries and degrees: what’s the bottom line?

3

Shades of the HEWRRs at the University of Auckland

21

Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

4

CORRESPONDENCE General vs Professional; Scotland is not England TAFE staff take a stand for value NTEU launches UniStories website Bargaining update Discoveries got dollars!

Intellectual inquiry legislation a landmark victory TEU issues warning on employment at University of Auckland Federal Budget benefits most – but not all – regional unis NTEU helps to secure important changes to uni regulator

INDIGENOUS NEWS  14 15

Forum 2011: Pathways to Action Government announces Indigenous Higher Education Review

22

38

23  24 25 ERA Watch Have your say about ERA!

 41

When employers gang up, we’re ready2go

27

28

29

48

Recent human rights actions by NTEU NTEU Women’s Conference: We Can Do More New NTEU staff Updating your membership information Contacting your Union

Your Annual NTEU Tax Guide is inside!

ERA rankings gone but not forgotten in the contest over fair academic workloads at La Trobe The rankings’ impact upon workloads will be felt for some time to come.

FINE ARTS  30

Monash Studio closure will shatter local glass arts NTEU’s campaign to safeguard the future of the Glass Studio at Monash.

GENERAL STAFF 32

The A to Z of general staff work NTEU’s National General Staff Working Party is working on a project to develop better ways to reward and recognise the work of general staff.

YOUR UNION 42 44 45 46

What do the end of journal rankings mean for staff conditions and workloads?

Victory in a battle that need not have been fought AUR editor Ian Dobson bids good riddance to the ERA journal rankings.

Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Sandra Grey, TEU

Have universities lost that ranking feeling?

The ERA journal rankings are dead. But where to now?

ERA Watch. is an initiative of the National Tertiary Education Union

Reflections on a convoluted pathway Knowledge is the Economy, Stupid, by Tammi Jonas

Education for Sustainability

RESEARCH  26

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

40

Gender, jobs and climate change Are we reinforcing the traditional gendered division of labour?

Unionists Tweet without Twepidation Scepticism is science’s core principle

Shaping Tomorrow’s World Providing informed and civil discussion about our future.

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

39

A difficult business Can unions respond to the challenges of climate change?

COLUMNS

Solar cooperatives for coal valley workers Eureka’s Future and Earthworker cooperatives in Victoria’s La Trobe Valley.

UPDATE  6 7

8

10 11 12 13

Climate change science and the politics of spin Professor Will Steffen gave a stirring presentation about the intersection of climate change science, policy and the media.

Research and the Art of Campaigning Matt McGowan, National Assistant Secretary

5

Pushing the Boundaries Report from NTEU’s Climate Change conference which pushed the boundaries of the Australian climate debate.

Jeannie Rea, National President

EQUITY  34

No equal pay for equal work A recent Fair Work Australia decision declared that women in the Social & Community Sector are paid less than men for the same work.

INTERNATIONAL  36

The Tahrir Square spirit lingers on campus Student Davina Levy reflects on the recent uprising against the Mubarak regime and whether the new freedoms have filtered into university life.

37

Snapshot: Protests against fee hikes in England

FROM THE OFFICERS

JEANNIE REA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Discoveries and degrees: what’s the bottom line?

E

arly in 2012, NTEU will bring together thinkers and actors from in and outside universities for a conference on the future of higher education, addressing the big questions for the sector. We plan to hold the conference just as the public focus will be on universities as they open their doors with the uncapping of commonwealth supported places. Universities will be under scrutiny as never before from students and their families, employers, the professions, government, the media and from the academy. The Union will be monitoring the staffing and resourcing and watching for breaches of collective agreements and university policies.

Public perceptions of universities Recently, NTEU commissioned research found that public perceptions of universities are, at one extreme, the traditional ivory towers where elite researchers make important discoveries for the public benefit, and at the other, the providers of further schooling to qualify for a good job. These findings are consistent with other research and commentary on public attitudes towards universities.

Most tellingly, the overwhelmingly consensus amongst respondents is that both of these activities of universities should be substantively directly funded by government.

While both these characterisations of universities are correct, they do indicate a rather hollow view of the complexity of universities. I suspect there is little public understanding that much of what we do in universities falls across a rather wider spectrum with high end research at one end and directly vocational education programs at another. University learning and teaching, informed by a culture of scholarship and research, seeks a wider purpose than just the direct job outcome. The graduate attributes of universities attest to the wider mission for university education in assisting people in developing the skills and conceptual understanding to be wiser citizens.

However, the ‘idea’ of the university as a place for broadening horizons, challenging preconceptions and introducing new experiences, seems to have drowned in a culture of measurement and mediocrity.

The reality is that student experience is tested against achievement of the generic graduates attributes. Meanwhile, staff are busy swearing allegiance to the mission statement while being measured by the amount of revenue they generate.

Student and staff experience Just as students loiter less on increasingly barren campuses, and staff rush between meetings and campuses, the very practices that enrich university life are increasingly impossible. A small illustration is that students rarely find staff in their offices or can join them for a coffee in the cafeteria. Staff rarely have time to even attend academic seminars.

For many students half their lecturers and tutors will be casuals, who often don’t even have an office. Casual academic staff do not feel part of the university, and are left out of the formal and casual meetings expected of co-workers. Ongoing academic and professional 2

staff try to maintain the rhetoric and practice of putting the students first, but with staff shortfalls and work intensification find that they cannot give students the attention they need.

Coupled with the tragic destruction of student unions by the former Coalition Government and the high price of their education, students are looking to the university to deliver the goods. Student criticism of teaching and support staff has increased on university complaint websites and is highly evident on social networking sites.

Student course evaluations were once criticised as lacking pedagogical integrity. Now they are little more than customer satisfaction surveys. Response rates are extremely low indicating cynicism amongst students about their efficacy.

Staff are given the opportunity, in many universities, to ‘voice it’ and provide feedback to their managers. But again, their distrust and alienation are demonstrated through non-cooperation, with many completing only under threat and pleading by unit managers, whose performance is judged by the completion rates!

Despite the apparent diminution in the university experience and the overcrowded class rooms with little face-to-face teaching time, students continue to flock to universities. The Department of Education recently released figures revealing a 12.7% increase in applications by low-SES students over the past two years. Many of these potential students will be the first in family to attend university, so their knowledge and expectations of university may be limited. They are there to get through as quickly as possible.

It often seems that the contract being taken most seriously is the assumption that if the university offers you a place, it is the university’s obligation to ensure that you leave with the award. The customer’s side of the contract is limited to paying up and, hopefully, turning up and submitting assessment.

Strains on research Over at the research end, a similar commercial culture means that researchers are constantly under pressure to do more with less.

Chief investigators have to keep finding ‘efficiencies’ as even funded projects continue not to be fully funded. Alongside the casual teaching workforce, there is the research contract workforce, who similarly are the invisible workhorses of the research world, along with the poorly recompensed RHD students. continued on p.4...

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

FROM THE OFFICERS

GRAHAME MCCULLOCH, GENERAL SECRETARY

Shades of the HEWRRs at the University of Auckland N

TEU is supporting our sister union in New Zealand – the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) – in an important industrial dispute at the University of Auckland. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, is demanding that key conditions related to research and study leave, disciplinary procedures and professional activities be removed from the current Collective Agreement, in exchange for a 4% salary increase and an additional week’s annual leave. This follows the University making a take it or leave it offer for both Union and non Union staff.

Under NZ industrial relations law employers are free to offer different tion to make such an offer. While any change to the study leave, employment conditions to union and non union workers and staff, research and disciplinary employment conditions being migrated and Professor McCutcheon has chosen the path of divide and rule. to the University’s policy register, would only occur after consultaWhile the structure and legislative basis of collective bargaining tion, it remains a fact that the University will be free to change these in NZ differs in important respects from Australia’s industrial relaemployment conditions notwithstanding an initial consultation. tions architecture, the University’s approach bears a striking simiOur NZ sister union and individual University staff would have no larity to the now defunct and discredited policies of the Howard recourse in this circumstance. This is precisely the problem which Government’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements was faced by Australian university staff under the HEWRRs/Work(HEWRRs – 2005-2008) and WorkChoices (2006-2009). These policies Choices regime. marginalised the role of trade unions in collective bargaining and The University has argued that making the same offer to both gave primacy to individual employUnion and non Union staff, does ment contracts, as well as moving not involve a two-tier salary and The effect is a form of indirect important employment conditions conditions system, but the underdiscrimination against University of from legally enforceable colleclying structure of the NZ industive agreements into unenforcetrial relations system is based Auckland union members who have not able University policy documents precisely on this possibility. been provided with a 4% salary increase which could be changed by unilatThe workforce is divided into and additional leave only because of their eral management decision. individual and collective agreedesire to have important core conditions These policies were not only ment staff with the potential to antithetical to the industrial and play one off against another. The remain within the ambit of the collective employment interests of academic effect is a form of indirect disagreement. staff but also undermined the princrimination against University of ciples of collegial decision making Auckland union members who which have always been an indispensable element of university life have not been provided with a 4% salary increase and additional and the academic profession. Dividing the academic workforce leave only because of their desire to have important core conditions according to individual or collective status and rendering important remain within the ambit of the collective agreement. employment conditions legally unenforceable seriously damaged Professor McCutcheon was under no legal obligation to ask staff the shared vision and commitment which had previously characteron individual employment agreements to accept the University’s ised Australian academic industrial relations. offer before a satisfactory preliminary understanding had been Consequently, the Australian Government decision to abandon negotiated with the NZ TEU on behalf of the Union members covthe failed Howard approach was welcomed by the overwhelming ered by the collective agreement. It was open to alternatively make majority of Australian vice-chancellors and university staff. an offer based on such a preliminary understanding with NZ TEU, and to provide individual employment agreement staff with the same conditions and/or with the possibility of opting out.

The University has chosen to divide the work force as a form of The University of Auckland approach is based on establishing a twodirect pressure on Union members to accept reduced employment tiered salary and employment conditions system, notwithstanding conditions with a take it or leave it offer which attacks collective Professor McCutcheon’s claims to the contrary. employment conditions through a new pay structure designed to While the University argues that the NZ Employment Court takes reward only those who choose to be non union staff. the view that there are no legal inhibitions on its offer, this is hardly University of Auckland Save Our Conditions c www.saveourconditions.org relevant to the concerns expressed by NTEU’s NZ colleagues. The more germane point is that the University is under no legal obligaSee also ‘TEU issues warning on employment at University of Auckland’, p.11

University of Auckland follows the Howard path

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

3

FROM THE OFFICERS

MATTHEW MCGOWAN, NATIONAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Research and the Art of Campaigning T

he impressive success of the ‘Discoveries need Dollars’ campaign in reversing an apparent earlier decision of government to cut National Health and Medical Research Council research funds (see report, p.8) reflects the near universal support of Australians to the research that has a track record of improving life expectancy and quality of life of thousands of people. Everyone has been touched by serious disease or disability either directly or indirectly.

The effectiveness of the campaign was also a function of the work of Professor Doug Hilton and his staff at the Howard Florey Research Institute. The campaign, while supported by NTEU, was driven by Professor Hilton and his team and taken up by many others around the country. This demonstrated the value of bringing together a range of organisations and individuals with a common interest.

The SaveVCA in Victoria to protect the integrity of the former Victorian College of the Arts (www.savevca.org) was another campaign that succeeded by bringing together people with a common concern with impressive success. While not as widely reported outside Victoria, it succeeded in restoring $5.1 million in Federal Government funding, and an additional $6 million from the incoming Liberal Government following a two year campaign in which NTEU played a central role.

While the Union was a key driver of the SaveVCA campaign, it was a broad group of people who came together with a common concern that allowed this campaign to have such a resounding success. The campaign was a combination of the skills and talents of all involved.

There are current campaigns that follow similar approaches, allowing for the unique nature each circumstance. The Union was approached by Ausglass, the peak body representing artists who focus on glass as a medium, to assist with a campaign against the proposed closure of the Monash Glass Studio (see report, p.30). The Studio has national and international significance and is based at Monash University.

Discussions are also underway to bring people together over the uncertainty created by the lack of funding commitments for the future of the Synchrotron, also based at Monash University.

The approach is of working collaboratively with organisations and individuals from outside the higher education sector who are able to

bring a credible voice of concern about the state of the sector from the perspective of their constituencies, and highlighting the effect on specific industry or body of knowledge.

In recent months, we have seen these concerns raised publicly in relation to the sciences, mathematics, creative and performing arts, and languages. These are discipline areas where funding pressure is seeing courses cancelled, job losses, and in some cases the complete removal of discipline areas from the curriculum at a range of institutions.

With increased demands from government to provide high quality education to achieve the goal of 40 per cent of Australians under the age of 35 holding degree qualifications, and with the continued softness in international income, it is not just the people who work in the sector who will be affected.

The sector has been forced to rely on income from international students to fund the core business of teaching and research. It is the corrosive effect of a dependence on an income stream that warps the decisions that are made on a day-to-day basis that affect the integrity of the sector. And it is the grim reality that, without additional investment by the government in the sector, the quality of higher education in Australia will continue to be put at risk.

As with the ‘Discoveries need Dollars’ campaign, everyone in our community is touched by the work of our universities. Teachers, doctors, architects, engineers, actors, artists, accountants, journalists, mathematicians, lawyers, agricultural scientists, marine biologists, librarians, and other professionals too many to mention are all educated in our universities. Everyone in society comes into contact with these people, or the work of these people every day of our lives.

We have a story to tell. It’s time for us to tell it.

...continued from p.2

National Education and Research Advisory Group

So the big questions for the sector are about our expectations of the role of universities. Is there a gap between a public expectation of efficient degree factories and the ways that university workers see their professions and the role of universities in society? What do we mean by the ‘student experience’? Will the high end research be carved off from undergraduate teaching?

The ERA is certainly structured to encourage universities to do just this. And who will pay? If you are interested in contributing ideas for the conference contact me via email: jrea@nteu.org.au.

4

I also invite members to respond to the invitation for Expressions of Interest in the new National Education and Research Advisory Group (NERAG). The purpose of NERAG is to enable interested members to provide expert advice and comment on education and research issues. NERAG will largely operate electronically with small reference groups formed to examine particular matters, such as the ERA, TEQSA, eLearning, tri-semesters, student evaluation, international education and base funding. Your Branch will be able to tell you more about NERAG and forward you the EOI form.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

A

Correspondence

Have something to say about issues in Australian higher education? Want to comment about something you’ve read in the Advocate? We’re happy to hear from you! Email advocate@nteu.org.au.

Please keep word count to a minimum. Max words = 400

General or Professional Staff?

Reading the latest Advocate (vol. 18, no.1) I noticed that the term ‘General Staff’ is still being used (e.g. in the report on bargaining outcomes).

At the Uni of Tasmania at least, the term Professional Staff has superseded that, after overwhelming support from non-academic staff during both the bargaining process and among all such staff in a referendum for the purpose as part of a staff feedback exercise called YourVoice. Our Enterprise Agreement is in fact called the Professional Staff Agreement, in case you weren’t aware.

Suggest therefore that the Advocate come up to speed and no longer use the lesser term General, at least in relation to UTAS. Cheers Dave Abbott, UTAS The appropriate term to apply to university staff who are not academics has been a contentious topic for some time. The term ‘general staff’ was adopted when it was recognised that identifying ‘non-academic’ staff by exclusion was inappropriate.

Dave is quite right in pointing out that in some universities ‘general’ staff are now known as ‘professional’ staff, and in some others such as my own, UWA, both terms are used. At UWA our Enterprise Agreement is the ‘Professional and General Staff Agreement’ (as an aside the alternative ordering of ‘general and professional staff’ had some support because it produced the nice acronym GAPS – which are, after all, what the general staff fill!).

There is no consensus across the country as to what the best term is, both have their problems. The relevant Award is the Higher Education Industry–General Staff–Award, so in continuing to use the term we are sticking by the terminology used by the umpire!

Gabe Gooding, National Vice-President (General Staff)

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

CORRESPONDENCE

Scotland is not England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_fees_in_ the_United_Kingdom The final twist without being too political, is that, should England ever agree to Scottish independence then they would be able to avail themselves of this benefit. I wonder if the loss of North Sea oil revenue would be enough compensation? (sorry that was overtly cynical and may have betrayed the hue of my standpoint) Finally what is the difference? The Conservative Government (call it something else if you like) has no legitimacy in Scotland as they have one Westminster MP and only twelve of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, all gained through the system of proportional representation. The Scottish people have not voted in more than one Conservative MP over the last five elections.

In Scotland we may forget Maggie one day but we will never forgive what she did.

I have heard tell of some VC’s around the country who occasionally quote what is happening in the UK as the inevitable route that will be followed by Australia, and indeed use it to strengthen their arguments for similar change, maybe we should hold up the Scottish example as something to which we should aspire. (A possible article for the next Advocate?)

Other than that small gripe, I think Advocate is excellent, keep up the good work. I love Australia, it is a great country, but I still love Scotland and I intend to become a dual citizen at the end of this year.

Gordon Lynn, UQ

As a member, activist and branch committee member at UQ who originally hails from Scotland, I was disappointed that on page 30 of this month’s Advocate (vol. 18, no.1) there were some significant inaccuracies/omissions.

The article by the University and College Union (UK) Rob Copeland continued to confuse the fees argument and prolonged a long held confusion between what England is and what the UK is. The title certainly would have been more accurate had it read’ Tuition fees in England’ which is not the same as tuition fees in the UK. There are no tuition fees in Scotland.

They were abolished ten years ago, a replacement flat rate £2,000 post graduation payback was then abolished in 2007. So, at the moment there are no fees for Scottish students in Scotland. If a Scottish student wishes to study in England then they pay the £6,000 (soon to be £9,000!) If English students wish to study in Scotland then they pay full fees as do Welsh students wishing to do the same.

There is a further twist to this tale, if any members of the EU wish to study in Scotland and are accepted (currently 12% are international) then they do not pay fees either, as Scotland has this power devolved and this is enforceable under EU laws. Since England and Wales are not separate then they are unable to avail themselves of that benefit. I actually think that mentioning this in his article may have been valuable to Rob’s argument and something to which we could all aspire.

It would also help to dispel the myth that the England is the same as the UK – it is not!

Whilst one can never fully vouch for the accuracy of Wikia cop pedia, the foly! lowing link does give a fairly good account of how get an ofannual to details this offer, subscription please see advertisement this transpired: For full

NTEU Member Discount Of fer

sAvE ovEr $150 Und

$1.8e0r

on

the inside back cover of this edition of Advocate

FOr ONly $89

5

UPDATE VICTORIA

TAFE staff take a stand for value B

endigo and Kangan NTEU members held 24 hour strikes this year – the first industrial action by TAFE PACCT staff for more than ten years! The cause of the industrial unrest is that PACCT staff salaries have been left trailing behind the salaries of similar staff who work in higher education or dual sector institutes.

The current pay rises on offer at TAFE institutes which have commenced bargaining, are very low and staff have decided it is time to send a message to the Victorian Government that they have had enough of being treated as second class Public Sector workers. PACCT staff are calling on the Institute management to lobby the Victorian Government on their behalf for a more equitable Salary Structure.

NTEU is bargaining at around six of the 14 TAFEs in Victoria, with the other TAFEs set to follow shortly. Both the Government and the Institutes have yet to make a decent offer and further strike ballots are likely.

Across Victorian TAFEs, administrative, technical and clerical staff are collectively bargaining for wage justice and fair conditions. This year marks an important milestone for TAFE bargaining because it comes after the State Government changed its wages policy following the global financial crisis. This wages policy limits public sector unions (like NTEU) to wage increases of 2.5 per cent. With CPI inflation at around 4 per cent, the new Liberal Government is proposing that TAFE staff take an effective pay cut.

6

Salaries for TAFE staff are between 10 to 15 per cent lower than their equivalents in cross-sectoral universities (institutions with both higher education and TAFE components), local government and the rest of the public service. The librarians, student counsellors, technicians, front-desk and administrative staff at TAFEs like Bendigo and Kangan do the same work as their peers at Swinburne or Victoria University, yet they get paid less. This is a deliberate wages strategy of the State Government.

Rebecca’s story Rebecca Davey is a library technician at Kangan. Despite working full time, Rebecca qualifies for the Low Income Tax Offset. She explained the real effect of the Government’s low wages policy on her and her family: ‘I don’t believe that I live extravagantly, but my living costs keep rising, and my pay is not keeping up. And when I say living costs, I mean food, petrol and transport costs, health insurance, gas, electricity, water, council rates. You know, just those boring, basic things.’

Concerned that her wages were being unfairly limited to less than the cost of living increases, Rebecca compared her electricity bills from 2010. She estimated that her bill would rise by around 20 per cent this year, despite being relatively modest.

‘I feel this puts the institute’s offer of a 2.5% pay rise even further into question,’ she said.

Rebecca wasn’t the only staff member at Kangan who felt this way.

24 hour strike On 2 May, NTEU members went on a 24 hour strike after their employer rejected their claim for a decent pay rise in line with cost of living increases. Over 80 NTEU members participated, with most administrative functions of Kangan shut down for the day.

The strike was supported by local members of parliament, Bronwyn Halfpenny and Frank McGuire, who said: ‘I want to make it clear that I support your claims for a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Sadly, I am concerned that the Baillieu Government does not support this concept.

Don’t forget the Baillieu Government also promised to reduce the cost of living as well.

This is another promise we will need to scrutinise.’

In March, NTEU members at Bendigo TAFE also took industrial action, arguing for wage justice. Over 40 members participated in the 24 hour strike. Bendigo TAFE offered 3 per cent for a short 12 month agreement. The Australian Education Union’s La Trobe University Bendigo sub-branch and Bendigo sub-branch supported their strike. A Alex White, Campaigns & Communications Officer, NTEU Victoria Division Left: Kangan Batman staff on strike day.

Above: NTEU Victorian Division Secretary, Colin Long, joins Bendigo TAFE staff on their strike day.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

UPDATE NATIONAL

Bargaining update

R

ound 5 Bargaining is almost complete, with new Agreements struck at Victoria University and Charles Darwin University. Agreement is close for Macquarie University academic staff, whilst bargaining continues at UNSW, University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Wollongong.

Charles Darwin University An Agreement has been finalised at Charles Darwin University which significantly improves academic and general staff pay and conditions. An annual pay increase of 4.41% has been achieved, as well as an average of a further 2.1% to academic staff through the amalgamation of higher education and VET staff classifications.

Other achievements include excellent union rights provisions and restoration of all conditions lost under the Howard Government. At the time of writing the Agreement was awaiting approval by the National Executive.

The Branch campaign has resulted in an excellent Agreement. At the time of writing the Agreement was awaiting approval by Fair Work Australia.

University of New South Wales The stalemate at the University of NSW over the regulation of fixed term contracts continues, with settlement still elusive. Negotiations set down for 16 and 17 June will be focussing on fixed term contract regulation, parental leave, management of annual leave, the nominal expiry date for a new Agreement and the selection of independent chairs for review committees.

Victoria University

University of Wollongong

An Agreement has been concluded at Victoria University which delivers 4% p.a., and importantly regulates workloads to the satisfaction of the Branch. The VU Branch has worked hard towards this Agreement, taking a series of strikes and other industrial action over the course of the bargaining.

Bargaining continues at the University of Wollongong, with further pressure being placed on management through the inclusion of advertisements in the Illawarra Mercury highlighting the unsatisfactory offer made by the University.

Macquarie University Agreement is very close at Macquarie, with a salary increase of 16% plus $1000-$1500 (17%-17.4% flat) now agreed.

University of the Sunshine Coast Bargaining at USC has been a long and difficult process, largely because management appeared to cling to the cuts in staff rights and conditions the Howard Government’s HEWRRs bestowed upon them in the last bargaining round. Management also sought new and invidious reductions in staff rights.

The Union’s clear priorities have been to achieve fair and equitable workload regulation, job security and transparent termination procedures. The tactic for USC management has been to delay an Agreement for as long as possible, hoping perhaps that the USC NTEU Branch would give up.

Notwithstanding, the Branch is now close to finalising an Agreement with improvements that will meet all the Union’s claims. A Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator

NATIONAL

Discoveries got dollars!

N

TEU congratulates the Discoveries Need Dollars team (pictured, right) for their successful campaign this year to stop medical research funding being slashed in the Federal Budget.

In a wide-ranging and ultimately effective campaign that made particularly good use of modern social media, the Discoveries Need Dollars team also managed to place the important issue of research funding on the mainstream agenda.

Discoveries Need Dollars c www.discoveriesneeddollars.org

8

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

UPDATE NATIONAL

Bargaining State of Play

B

elow is a state of play table displaying the remaining universities in bargaining.

For results tables for all universities c www.universitybargaining.org.au

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)

APPROVED FLINDERS UNISA

AWAITING APPROVAL CDU VU

UNSW Academic

Approved

Approved

Awaiting Approval

Awaiting Approval

25-Feb-11 30-Jun-13 20% 21.7% 4.34% 4.34%

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

17-Jun-11 31-Dec-13 26.5% Gen; 26% Aca 29.2% 4.91% 4.91%

28-Apr-11 30-Jun-12 16% 16.7% 4.2% 4.2%

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✖ ✔

✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING USC MQ Academic

W’GONG Aca

Continuing

Continuing

Continuing

Continuing

3yr from cert. date

30-Jun-13 17–17.4% 18.65% 4.7% 4.7%

30-Jun-13 20% 21.6% 4.4% 4.4%

May-14 21% 22.36% 4.1% 4.1%

✔ ✔? ✔? ✔?

✔ ✖ ✖

✖

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✖ ✔ ✖ ✖

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

✖ ✖ ✖

✔

✔

?

✔

?

✖

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✖

✔ ✖

✔? ✖ ✔ ✖

✖ ✖ ✔ n/a

20% 21.9% 4.2% 4%

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

• Protected action • Protected action ballot (Sep 09) ballot (Sep 09)

✔ ✔ ? ✔ ✔ ✔ ? ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ n/a n/a • Pay increase • Original 1 yr • Bargaining • Previous agreeincludes ‘07 Agreement, exp suspended ment covered catch-up in 28 Feb 10 from July 2010; academic and original 1 year impasse over general staff ‘09 Agreement, HECE provisions expired Dec 09

• Protected action ballot (May • Protected action • Protected action • Protected action • Protected action 09) ballot (Sep 09) ballot (Sep 09) ballot (Sep 09) ballot (Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• Strike (21 May 09)

• All bans enabled

• Bans on results (Dec 09)

• Bans on results (Nov 09)

• Protected action ballot (May 10)

• All bans enabled • Strike (18 Aug 10) • Rolling stoppages (Aug 10) • Work bans (Sep 10)

• Strike (16 Sep 09)

• All bans enabled • All bans enabled • Strike (16 Sep 09)

• All bans enabled

• 24 hour strike (28 June 10) • Bans on results • 4 hr stop work (29 June 10) (July 10) • 24 hour strike (8 Aug 10)

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

• Bans on results (11 Jun 10–9 Aug 10)

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

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

9

UPDATE NATIONAL

Intellectual inquiry legislation a landmark victory A

ll university staff should celebrate the fact the that the Government has introduced amendments to the Higher Education Support Act that for the first time explicitly acknowledges that one of the distinctive purposes of every Australian university is to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry. No one, however, will be celebrating more than Dr Carolyn Allport (former NTEU President) and Professor George Williams from UNSW who commenced the journey to achieve legislative recognition for the freedom of intellectual inquiry back in 2005.

While the concept of free intellectual inquiry has always been central to policies of the NTEU and its predecessors, the need for it to be formally protected by legislation gained some urgency when it was revealed in 2005 that the then Minister for Education, Dr Brendan Nelson, used his ministerial power to veto Australian Research Council (ARC) recommendations for discovery grants.

While everyone in the higher education sector agreed that Minister Nelson’s actions were a blatant breach of academic freedom and constituted a direct attack on the independence and autonomy of the ARC’s peer review process, there was little agreement on how best to deal with these unexpected and unwelcome intrusions.

Choosing the legislative path After examining international policies in countries such as Ireland, Germany and South Africa, Dr Allport and Professor Williams came to the conclusion that the best way to protect freedom of intellectual inquiry in Australia was through legislation.

There was much resistance amongst NTEU members and others in the sector, including a number of Vice-Chancellors, to follow this course of action. Opponents to pursuing the legislative route feared that attempts to define and codify academic freedom would ultimately limit its application rather than encourage university staff and students to engage in free intellectual inquiry without fear or favour.

However, the threat of senior university management to discipline staff for making controversial and critical comments strengthened the NTEU’s view that this was the only viable way forward. Two of the more prominent examples of direct intervention by senior university management into ques10

tions of academic freedom involved Dr Paul Mees from the University of Melbourne who was critical of a Victorian Government urban transport planning and Dr Andrew Gunn (an adjunct with University of Queensland) who criticised Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ marketing practices for certain pharmaceuticals.

Both these cases highlighted that freedom of intellectual inquiry was not only under threat from policy makers but could also be compromised by universities especially where they perceive that ‘controversial’ or unpopular comments might threaten commercial interest universities have with third parties.

Progress under Labor The election of the Rudd Labor Government in 2007, and in particular the appointment of

Senator Kim Carr as the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, opened the door for real progress to be made. Senator Carr demonstrated his preparedness to act when he changed the ARC funding rules to ensure that where a Minister overrode the decision of the ARC board (as Minister Nelson had done) the Minister would have to table the reasons for doing so in Parliament.

In order to prosecute NTEU’s case for legislative protection for freedom of intellectual inquiry under a Labor government there needed to be support for the concept in the ALP’s Policy Platform.

As a delegate to the 2009 ALP Conference, George Williams was able to successfully have the Platform amended to read: Labor believes - that academic freedom must be guaranteed and protected at all times against all forms of commercial and political pressure. (Para 11) In implementing the Education Revolution - Labor will legislate to provide strong and effective protection for academic freedom. (Para 64) Source: ALP National Platform 2009 Chapter 5: An Education Revolution for Australia’s Future.

With the ALP’s policy platform specifically committing a Labor government to legislate to provide strong and effective protection for academic freedom, the next step was to ensure that any amendments to the Higher Education Support Act would not only achieve NTEU’s objectives but would also be acceptable to the other major stakeholders in the sector.

After further consultation between NTEU and Universities Australia it was agreed that any attempts to define or codify academic freedom would lead to irreconcilable differences and a form of words was agreed to which made the protection and continued opposite...

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

UPDATE 4 INTERNATIONAL

TEU issues warning on employment at University of Auckland

O

ur sister union across the ditch, the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has written to advise NTEU members of a serious industrial dispute in the University of Auckland, which potential applicants for, and appointees to, positions in the University should consider carefully.

The University of Auckland Vice-Chancellor is seeking to remove from the academics’ collective agreement some major conditions, relating to research and study leave, disciplinary procedures and time spent in professional activities outside the university. He wishes to place the conditions in management policy documents, which could be changed without the agreement of the affected staff or the Union. He has failed repeatedly to explain the rationale for this move, but has referred ambiguously to administrative efficiencies and productivity.

Moreover, non-union staff have been offered a 4 per cent salary increase and an extra week’s holiday in return for the loss of these conditions. The offer was made to them on the basis that no response from the non-union member by a given date was to be construed as acceptance of the changed conditions.

Besides being poor employment practice, and angering many non-union staff who simply did not understand the process, the Vice-Chancellor has created a twotier salaries and conditions package for academics in the university. Union members do not receive the extra week’s holiday or the 4 per cent, but retain the disputed conditions. ...continued from previous page promotion of academic freedom or freedom of intellectual inquiry each university’s responsibility.

NTEU’s proposed amendments were then presented to Minister Carr and the then Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, both of whom agreed to consult with their respective Department’s with a view to introducing the appropriate amendments to higher education legislation at the earliest convenient time.

The commitment made by the Government was honoured when Peter Garrett, the Minister for School Education, Early ChildJULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Many non-union staff have lost the conditions, but have the extra 4 per cent and holiday entitlements. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation, brought about unnecessarily, for no explicit purpose, and to the detriment of good employment relations in the university.

Information for potential appointees Appointees to the university from overseas should be aware that: • This is a serious and protracted dispute about important conditions, in which University management is intransigent.

The dispute may well escalate in coming months.

• They may be offered an individual agreement on the new terms as part of their offer of employment from the

hood and Youth, introduced the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 into House of Representatives on Thursday 26 May 2011.

These amendments not only acknowledge in legislation that one of the distinctive purposes of every Australian university is to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry but also require each university entering into a Mission Based Compact with the Commonwealth to have ‘a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research’.

University. That agreement may include the 4 per cent and the week’s holiday offered to non-union staff by University management. Once in the University, joining the Union may consequently involve a loss of the 4 per cent and the week’s holiday. In other words, new academic staff may find themselves in the invidious position of having to take a cut in their anticipated salary in order to be a union member and have access to the disputed conditions.

The TEU strongly recommends that any academic staff thinking of relocating to the University of Auckland should contact the TEU before making a final commitment.

The contact person for further information is: Jane Adams, TEU organiser, ph 0274 387 254, email jane.adams@teu.ac.nz. A Sharn Riggs, TEU National Secretary University of Auckland Academics Campaign to Save Our Conditions c www.saveourconditions.org Both Carolyn and George have expressed their delight that this piece of very important piece of legislation has finally been introduced. All other university staff and students should also celebrate this as a landmark victory.

The changes will act to remind not only policy makers, but also senior university managers, of the fundamental importance of free intellectual inquiry in defining the unique role and responsibilities universities play in our modern economy. A Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator Image of bust of Andrei Sakharov courtesy D B King 11

UPDATE NATIONAL

Federal Budget benefits most – but not all – regional universities T

he Gillard Government’s first Budget delivered by Treasurer Wayne Swan benefitted most (but not all) regional universities and re-confirmed its commitment to indexation, but the proverbial elephant in the faculty room – the issue of base funding per student – remains as the major obstacle for the Government’s planned reform of higher education.

While the Budget announcement effectively doubling ($109.9 million) the funding for regional loadings and the prioritisation of $500 million in the Education Investment Fund (EIF) for regional universities was broadly welcomed by the sector, it should be noted that the EIF funding announcement does not constitute additional funding but essentially keeps the promise the Government made to independent Members of Parliament immediately after last year’s election.

Furthermore, although the change to the regional loading rules benefitted many, it did have the opposite effect for a minority. The hardest hit being the University of the Sunshine Coast with a $1 million decrease in funding, losing its regional loading due to the redefinition of ‘regional’ campus.

Despite widespread concerns in the sector that there would be indexation cuts (which could be seen as an exercise in managing expectations), the Government honoured its commitment to increasing indexation and to funding the growth in enrolments over the next four years.

However, this does not address the current and inadequate base funding per student, which is the real funding issue for higher education.

12

While this Budget kept on track in implementing the Government’s Transforming Higher Education policy and doubled regional loadings, the reality is that new students are coming into a system already under significant strain because of years of under-funding over the tenure of the previous government. In short, funding more student places means more inadequately supported student places.

As such, while the Budget delivered some good news, the Base Funding Review will be the challenge for Government. It is highly likely that the majority of submissions will call on Government to substantially on to increase base funding per student, given the strain currently on the system (and set to increase under the Government policy of improving access to higher education and increasing levels of social inclusion). A Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer NTEU’s briefing paper on the Federal Budget c www.nteu.org.au/article/2011-12-Federal-Budget-Briefing-11466 An overview of the Regional Loadings per institution c www.nteu.org.au/article/Regional-Loadings-11465 Image: Giles Martin

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

UPDATE NATIONAL

NTEU helps to secure important changes to university regulator I

t has been a rocky road for the Government in the creation of the new regulatory authority for higher education sector, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). But the eventual legislation has seen NTEU score major wins for the sector including protecting the self accrediting status of universities and requiring TEQSA to have regard for the interests of staff.

Reaction from the sector to the initial plan was highly critical of the sweeping powers of the proposed ‘regulator with teeth’, with many viewing the legislation as heavy handed, complex and oblivious to the diversity of the sector, both in quality and scope.

In particular, there was concern over the apparent removal of the self accrediting status of universities.

The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) was charged with the consultation over the TEQSA legislation. Taking into account the spirited response it received from many in the sector, the Department made a number of important changes to the exposure draft of the Legislation establishing TEQSA, which was released in February for comment.

These changes included: • Specific inclusion of the principles of minimising the regulatory burden on higher education providers.

• The regulation of standards and quality were to be risk based and proportionate.

• Provider’s history, scale and mission when assessing risk were to be taken into account.

NTEU concerns However, the view in the sector was that this was not enough. First and foremost, there were still significant concerns over the omission to explicitly preserve the self accrediting status of universities.

NTEU and others were also concerned with issues around procedural fairness in TEQSA’s policing of the sector, its independence from Ministerial influence, and the extensive investigative powers of its inspectors, including the powers of search and entry, JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

the ability to seize evidence and in certain circumstances the authority to compel an individual to provide evidence (even if it was self incriminating).

NTEU was also concerned with the lack of clarity or detailed specification in relation to TEQSA’s role in maintaining and promoting the quality of higher education (with only two references to ‘Quality’ in the legislation).

Finally, NTEU argued in our submission that the interests of staff should be recognised alongside the interests of students and the States and Territories on the TEQSA Advisory Panel. This was due to the fact that staff have not only the demonstrated expertise but would also be largely responsible for implementing any standards and as such it was incongruous that staff working in the sector would not have their voices heard in relation to development of these standards.

Government response In response the Government made a number of minor changes, including requiring TEQSA to consult with a provider when imposing conditions on its operations and status (originally TEQSA, if it deemed it necessary, was able to act first and consult later).

Concerns over the independence of the Regulator were also addressed via a new change that effectively prevented any of the three TEQSA Commissioners from also sitting on the Panel that also advised the Minister.

However, other criticisms were not addressed, and again, it was felt by the sector that this was not acceptable.

It seemed as though the sector and the Government were at an impasse in relation to any other changes to TEQSA. The Bill was

presented in its then current form, and after passing in the Lower House, was referred to the cross-party Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Senate Committee for Review.

Following a short but intensive round of submissions and hearings which included those made by NTEU, the Committee recommended support for TEQSA, subject to a number of important recommendations.

NTEU scores win for the sector In a major win for NTEU and others advocating for further changes, the Committee firstly backed calls made by NTEU and universities for the self accrediting status of universities to be explicitly protected in the Legislation.

This was extremely important in terms of preserving the role and identity of universities and the reputation of Australia’s higher education sector.

Secondly, and in another major win for the Union, the Committee endorsed NTEU’s call for TEQSA to be required to have regard for the interests of staff. The legislation previously only referred to students, states and territories.

The Committee also recommended that the sector be consulted on the development of the standards framework prior to the Minister setting the standards, another concern put forward by NTEU and others.

Finally, in reference to the threshold standards (which establish the minimum requirements for university status) the Committee recommended that the Minister’s ability to set unspecified ‘any other standards’ be removed, as it gave the Minister and TEQSA ‘unpredictable and unnecessary powers’.

The Bill establishing TEQSA has been passed, and the new Regulator is now, on paper at least, in existence. Time will tell how it will perform. There is still much to be resolved, including the important Provider Standards which will essentially provide the practical blueprint framing operations.

However, while a number of NTEU’s concerns over the powers and authority of TEQSA remain, the Regulator we are presented with now is a substantially different organisation to the one originally drafted.

With that in mind, NTEU hopes that TEQSA will perform its role of ensuring quality in Australia’s tertiary education system both fairly and effectively. A Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer 13

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Forum 2011: Pathway to Action I

ndigenous delegates from universities around the country participated in Indigenous Forum 2011 on 6–7 May at the NTEU National Office in Melbourne.

First held in 1999, Indigenous Forum is a core annual conference of the NTEU informing the Union of the current priorities of Indigenous members, as well as enabling delegates to exchange experiences, network and gain strength from one another auspiced through the Union.

The theme for Forum was ‘The Pathway to Action – Respecting Culture, Respecting Staff’, with a particular emphasis being given to cultural respect, racism, discrimination and lateral violence within the higher education sector. The Forum also discussed the recently announced Review of Indigenous Higher Education (The Review).

Delegates were welcomed to country by respected Boonerwrung Elder, Aunty Carolyn Briggs. Aunty Carolyn reminded delegates of the need to continue the important work in the areas of education, employment and social justice.

The National President, Jeannie Rea and the General Secretary, Grahame McCulloch spoke to the Forum theme and the work undertaken by the Union, particularly the member survey examining racial discrimina-

tion, cultural respect and lateral violence in the workplace and the framing of our collective response to the Indigenous Higher Education Review.

The Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) Chair, Jillian Miller and Deputy Chair, Terry Mason gave an overview of the work undertaken by the Union over the previous twelve month period and discussed the work to be completed in the lead up to the National Council meeting in October.

Delegates participated in a Yarn session; where they introduced themselves and discussed the issues of importance at their institution as well as sharing stories with the focus on seeking appropriate ways to address issues raised.

Forum warmly welcomed our international guests from the Maori caucus of the Tertiary Education Union in New Zealand.

Te Pou Tuarā (Māori Officer), Lee Cooper and Te tumu arataki (Māori vice-president), Cheri ‘Panda’ Waititi gave Forum delegates an overview of the current political climate and issues for Māori higher education staff in Aotearoa.

Above: Robert Miller (RMIT) and John Graham (GU)

Retention and racial prejudice The key note address was delivered by Professor Steve Larkin, Pro Vice Chancellor (Indigenous Leadership) at Charles Darwin University and Chair of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Committee (IHEAC). Professor Larkin discussed the topic of unexamined racial prejudice in the higher education sector and how this ‘insidious form of exclusion’ was working against the goals of university wide employment strategies to attract and retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic and general staff.

Findings from the NTEU Branch and member surveys were discussed in this context. Initial findings from the members’ survey came as no surprise to the delegates, and gave some concrete data that proved correct the anecdotal comments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff about experiences of racism within the sector. Findings from the Branch and members survey will be complied into a paper to be delivered at the NTEU National Council meeting in October.

The Review

Adam Frogley (National Indigenous Coordinator), Jillian Miller (IPC Chair), Steve Larkin (Pro VC for Indigenous Leadership, CDU) and Terry Mason (IPC Deputy Chair) at Indigenous Forum 14

Professor Larkin, in his capacity as a panel member on the Review of Indigenous Higher Education, gave delegates an overview of the Government’s Indigenous Higher Education Review (see article opposite) and took questions on the process, panel members and terms of reference.

The Review was discussed in further detail, with the IPC keen to gain members’ input to this important review. Delegates were asked to consider issues of importance for the NTEU submission to The Review, with the National Office formalising a response once NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

INDIGENOUS NEWS

Government announces Indigenous Higher Education Review

O

n 14 April, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr announced a review into Indigenous Higher Education.

The review, based on Recommendation 30 of the Bradley Review and directly related to the Council of Australian Government’s goal to close the gap, will have a particular focus on four areas of importance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student, staff and communities. These areas include: • Achieving parity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, researchers, academic and general staff.

• Identifying areas of best practice and opportunities for change, within universities and other higher education providers.

• Examining the effectiveness of existing Commonwealth Government funding programs.

• Recognising and valuing Indigenous knowledge across the higher education sector.

In detailing the need for the review of Indigenous higher education, the Government emphasised the urgent need to transform participation and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff.

At the launch of the review, Minister Evans stated ‘For too long, Indigenous Australians have been under-represented in our universities both as students and staff’.

The 2010 statistical data collection released

the call for formal submissions is made in June/July.

Kulin culture At the end of day one, Forum participants were treated to a little of the Kulin Nations culture with delegates invited to walk the Birrarung (Yarra River). The Koorie Heritage Trust conducted the walking tour of the Birrarung that details the impact of colonisation on the Kulin Nation people’s culture and land.

On the second day, delegates participated in a group workshop discussing strategies to overcome bullying and harassment in the workplace.

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) supports this statement.

Currently, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic and general staff comprise only 0.96% of the total university staff cohort and commencing Indigenous students (in the first half of 2010) comprised 1.11% of the total commencing student cohort.

Based on the current 2010 datasets, and on the proviso that no additional nonIndigenous staff members were employed and no additional non-Indigenous students were enrolled; there would need to be a minimum immediate increase of 1,628 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic and general staff employed, along with a minimum immediate increase of 16,538 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled to reach the acknowledged population parity figure of 2.5%.

Additional employment opportunities and student enrolments by themselves will not resolve the many and varied issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students. If the Australian Government and universities are to achieve a population parity figure, there will be a number of related initiatives instituted across the board.

These include, but are not limited to: • Appropriate funding programs and opportunities for Indigenous researchers.

• The development of appropriate and localised cultural competency training mandated across all levels of the university.

• Indigenous knowledge and input when developing curriculum and course content.

• Strengthened academic and pastoral support programs.

• Greater levels of financial assistance and support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Indigenous Higher Education Review and has already begun the conversation on this important review, with Forum delegates providing initial guidance on the Union’s official response.

NTEU congratulates Professor Steve Larkin and Professor Larissa Behrendt on their selection to the review panel. NTEU looks forward to working with the panel and the Australian Government to achieve the Bradley review recommendation and the wider COAG targets for Indigenous Australians. A

Implementing Agreements To finalise business at Forum 2011, discussion on mechanisms to work with your local Branch were canvassed, with members asked to consider how best to inform their Branches about local issues of importance.

A review of bargaining outcomes was also discussed, with delegates instructing the National Office, Divisions and Branches to monitor the implementation of Indigenous employment and related clauses in current Collective Agreements, with a view to take action and enforce breaches if they arise. A Adam Frogley, National Indigenous Coordinator Forum c www.nteu.org.au/indigenous/forum

Above: Felecia Watkin Lui (JCU), Barry Malezer (Batchelor) and Janine Gertz (JCU) at Forum.

All photos by Paul Clifton.

Photo gallery c www.flickr.com/photos/nteu 15

CLIMATE CHANGE

PUSHING THE NTEU Climate Change conference pushes the boundaries of the Australian debate 16

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

CLIMATE CHANGE

NTEU climate change conference 28–29 april 2011 www.pushingtheboundaries.org.au

E BOUNDARIES T

here is a community expectation that the people who work in our universities will not only be involved in the debate around climate change, but also develop the innovative solutions needed to address the causes and consequences of global warming. Indeed, this is a correct assumption; every day university staff and students are pushing the boundaries of science, engineering, philosophy, politics, economics, psychology and education and are working together across traditional disciplinary and professional areas to address one of the most critical and complex problems of our time.

As the Union representing and drawn from academics, researchers, university professionals and administrators, the NTEU is uniquely positioned to speak out and encourage informed debate and action in addressing climate change issues. Pushing The Boundaries, NTEU’s national climate change conference held on 28–29 April 2011, brought together NTEU members from universities around Australia, along with members of other trade unions and expert speakers, to discuss and plan action on climate change and environmental sustainability.

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

The conference aimed to ‘push the boundaries’ on the ways Australians are thinking, talking and acting on climate change and environmental sustainability, based on the premise that the debate in Australian is far too narrow and unambitious when considering the immensity of the climate change challenge before us.

As such, leading commentators, researchers, educators and activists from NTEU, and other unions and organisations, examined how NTEU and those working in our universities can challenge the increasingly narrow

framing of the critical issues around climate change.

War on science A recurring theme at the conference was the ongoing contrived nature of the ‘debate’ about the science of climate change. Key speakers at the conference expressed deep concern over the politicising of the issues, and how this could impact on the integrity of climate change science and research. continued overpage...

17

CLIMATE CHANGE

Professor Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society, Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation opened deliberations by setting out the evidence of climate change and then interrogated the ‘denial industry’ in a speech titled Climate Change, Science and Superstition (see report, p.37).

Dr Anna-Maria Arabia, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) focused on the politics of climate change and addressed the dangers of the apparent ‘war on science’ coming from outside scientific circles, which is undermining and denying the validity and integrity of science and of scientists.

Dr Michael Borgas, CSIRO Staff Association President, brought together the themes of science, individual (including intellectual) freedom and unions, as he explored the challenges of industrially and professionally representing publicly employed scientists in an antagonistic and increasingly politicised and corporatised funding environment.

These themes were picked up by Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director, ANU Climate Change Institute, and Climate Commissioner, who, in his closing address, took up the issues of science, policy and the media.

Renewable industry plan Union leaders are familiar with being undermined, misrepresented and demonised by

some politicians and sections of the media.

But the immediate challenge, as explained by keynote speaker ACTU President Ged Kearney, is how to persuade the Government to adopt an effective strategy to decrease emissions that also incorporates a ‘just transition’ for ordinary people, when at the same time the debate is being highjacked by the Opposition, big companies and the denial industry.

According to Kearney, the trade union movement is that ‘needs to push beyond the scare campaigns, lies and manipulation. We need to push beyond the dumbing down of the climate change issue to a game of gotcha by our political leaders’.

CFMEU National President Tony Maher focused upon the failure of the Government to recognise the need for a comprehensive industry plan to transform the economy. He asked; ‘Why can’t we have a renewable plan or an energy plan? Why is it that consumers will underwrite the renewable energy target to the tune of $20 billion over a decade without any thought about where those jobs are created? There are no local content requirements, no technology parks, no training obligations, and no plan at all. And we wonder why the public are not enthusiastic about change.’

Greens MHR for Melbourne, Adam Bandt continued the theme, addressing the issue of public policy to provide solutions to climate change. Bandt outlined the Greens’ long held concerns on climate change and the

need to transform the economy and support sustainable industrial policy development.

NTEU Victorian Division Secretary, Dr Colin Long directly addressed the elephant in the room, tackling union differences over action on climate in his speech, ‘A difficult union: trade unions and climate change’. At the time of the conference, AWU National Secretary Paul Howes had made his ludicrous claim that there must not be one job lost due to a carbon tax, thus dividing the carefully crafted common voice of unions supporting a carbon tax with sufficient safeguards. NTEU is actively involved on the ACTU Executive and in the ACTU Climate Action Group, seeking to influence policy, strategy and tactics.

Beyond carbon pricing While the current political debate is focused almost entirely on using carbon pricing as a mechanism to control emissions, Dr Stuart Rosewarne, Department of Political Economy, University of Sydney warned that we must be thinking beyond a carbon price, arguing the need to move away from market regulation to direct action as the means of confronting the source of global warming.

Rosewarne focused upon political action, while other speakers also addressed the practical action.

Long time political and union activist, Earthworker founder Dave Kerin brought resonance to the discussion on practical measures in describing an example of a sus-

Left: Professor Verity Burgmann, University of Melbourne; Centre: NTEU Vice-President (Academic) Greg McCarthy chairs a session with (L-R) Helen Masterman-Smith (CSU), Tony Maher (CFMEU), Gabrielle Kuiper (LEAN) and Adam Bandt MP; Right: Keynote speaker, Ged Kearney, ACTU President.

18

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

CLIMATE CHANGE

Left: Anna-Maria Arabia (FASTS CEO), Tony Borgas (CSIRO Staff Association), Derek Corrigan (ANU), Michael Evans (NTEU National Organiser) and Professor Ian Lowe (Australian Conservation Foundation President); Right: Professor John Thwaites, Monash University Sustainability Institute, makes a point during his presentation. tainable manufacturing proposal. Eureka’s Future is a solar hot water systems cooperative to be based in the La Trobe valley, the site of the worst polluting coal fired power stations.

During the workshops, Arthur Rorris, Secretary of the NSW South Coast Labour Council spoke about creating ‘green’ jobs in the Illawarra mining and steel production region. He applauded the collaboration with Wollongong University in applied research, and noted that it was unfortunate that so much successful Australian research is commercialised overseas because of a lack of forethought and investment within Australia by government and industry. Mark Ogge from Beyond Zero Emissions made the case for the transition to 100 per cent renewable energy within decades.

Beyond our shores While much of the discussion had centred on the effect of climate change within the Australia context, a wider perspective was brought by journalist and Pacific Island researcher, Nic Maclellan who focussed our attention on the rapid reality of climate change beyond our shores and the effects of global warming on countries close to Australia in the Pacific. He spoke of the failure of successive Australian governments to address the core concerns of developing countries in our region and emphasised JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Australia’s responsibility to lower emissions reaches beyond our borders. He also outlined collaborative research between Australian and regional researchers.

Former Victorian Deputy Premier, current head of the Monash University Sustainability Institute and Chair of ClimateWorks Australia, John Thwaites, also highlighted the successful processes and outcomes of university work with government, business and community in the ‘co-production of knowledge’.

Sustainable universities The involvement of universities in finding climate change solutions was further developed

by Professor Carol Adams, PVC (Sustainability) at La Trobe University. Professor Adams, who held this position for a several years, provided valuable insights into the development and implementation of sustainable practices within universities. She emphasised the importance of support from the top, from both governance and management structures and people; but also the need for effective engagement through all staff.

Professor Adams argued that unions should be holding managements to account through targets and other mechanisms that can be monitored. She also emphasised the role for the Union in educating members about the reality of climate change and the need for attitudinal and behavioural change.

Using La Trobe as an example, Professor

Adams explained that the challenges lay in implementing an effective communication plan, in ensuring engagement across the university and in implementing the Education for Sustainability across all courses.

Educating for Sustainability Members engaged in Educating for Sustainability (EFS) at their universities met across a series of conference workshops to talk about their current activities and compare their own practices and the approaches within their universities. It was agreed that EFS has a long way to go in Australian universities, with individuals often trying to introduce and sustain EFS without collaboration and cooperation within and across universities, or the wider education sector.

This is despite environmental education being long established in Australia and coordinated through a number of government and non-government organisations, such as the Australian Association for Environmental Education. However, it was felt by conference attendees that the development of a union co-ordinated EFS network would assist in effectiveness of the EFD more broadly.

Changing thought and action Persuading people of the realities of climate change and the need for change in personal continued overpage...

19

CLIMATE CHANGE

Left: Professor Will Steffen, Director ANU Climate Change Institute; Centre: Dr David King (UQ) during a Day 2 session; Right: Ellen Sandell, Australian Youth Climate Coalition National Director. and political behaviour occupied many of the speakers and conference workshops.

Many voiced their deep dismay about the appalling role of much of the mass media in feeding what they felt to be distortions and even blatant fabrications to create controversy for a better story. There was consensus around the need for widespread and consistent campaigning to educate for action for change.

In separate sessions, cognitive scientists Dr David King, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, and Professor Lewandowsky, University of Western Australia, both drew our attention to the processes of how people think and behave and change. They addressed the problem of the initial reaction to bad news often being scepticism and denial. Dr King explained that attitudes, values and belief systems are central to changing behaviour and that they influence the way that people interpret information. Deep change is needed in attitudes or else we all remain victims to the political spin and media invention.

Leading researcher on labour and social movements, Professor Verity Burgmann, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne spoke of the history and politics of social movements. She argued that in order to make profound change to deeply held views and prejudices there has to be a wide range of political actions and activists able to connect with different people. She advocated ‘the importance of being extreme’. The effectiveness of

20

social movements is in diversity, but also in extremity. Without the radicals, there would be little or no shift in deeply held values and belief systems.

Ellen Sandell, National Director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) outlined their program, but most importantly reminded us that the voice of young people is central to campaigning about the future of the earth and society. Working with students and youth is critical to successful agitation and action on climate change. NTEU is planning to work with AYCC and others on an education for sustainability project.

Ongoing actions The objectives of the conference were to inform, educate and facilitate debate and action amongst NTEU membership; to provide a platform for informed discussion drawing upon the professional expertise of our membership; and to influence public debate.

The anticipated outcomes included increasing the capability for NTEU to improve our visibility and influence internally and externally; more effectively participate in, and make changes for, environmental sustainability in our workplaces, the broader trade union movement and our communities; and implement NTEU policy and further develop practice.

Feedback from speakers and participants during and after the conference confirmed that the conference was most worthwhile. More importantly, participants have returned to their universities, Branches and Divisions keen to build upon the momentum established by the conference.

The dedicated conference website at www.pushingtheboundaries.org.au contains all the conference details including the full agenda and the speakers’ presentations for download. This is now the official NTEU Climate Change Action site and is being used for ongoing communication and action.

NTEU has comprehensive policy on action on climate change and on creating environmental sustainability in our workplaces.

Inspired and emboldened by our conference, our task is now to implement these policies. A Jeannie Rea, National President c www.pushingtheboundaries.org.au Left: Conference workshop sign up sheets.

All photos Paul Clifton. See more conference images at www.pushingtheboundaries.org.au/proceedings/photos

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change science and the politics of spin N

TEU was very fortunate to have one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, Professor Will Steffen, give the final address at the Pushing the Boundaries conference. Will is Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, an Independent Expert Advisor to the Multi–Party Climate Change Committee and a member of the Government’s Climate Commission.

Professor Steffen has made media headlines at least twice since the NTEU Conference, for very different reasons. In late May the Climate Commission released its landmark report, ‘The Critical Decade’. Then in early June, Professor Steffen was one of several climate scientists at ANU to receive anonymous death threats because of the work they have been doing.

Professor Steffen gave a stirring presentation about the intersection of climate change science, policy and the media. Using the available scientific evidence, he demonstrated that the science is clear - warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and rising sea levels. It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of

the observed increase Global and Continental Temperature Change, IPCC AR4, 2007 in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century. the issue as a battle of unproven science He was particularly scathing in his critibetween two equal, competing sides; when cisms of the ‘science’ of the climate change the reality is, if it were a soccer match, the sceptics, accusing them of using falsified score is about 99-1. and missing data; misinterpreting statistical Professor Steffen ended his presentation data; using web blogs and other non-peer by commenting that ‘there is a big diverreviewed sources as ‘evidence’; failing to gence between what is known with a high understand climate as a system and being degree of confidence in the reputable scienunable to create an alternative, internally tific community and what is being reported coherent explanatory framework. in the media.

As for the role of the media, Professor Stef‘Creating false ‘debates’ in the media denifen said that one of the biggest problems is grates our best climate scientists (who are the application of the so-called ‘balancing world class) and our research institutions. norm’, where the media seeks to present Many climate scientists are now refusing to arguments from both sides. The problem deal with the media in disgust at their treatwith this approach, he said, is that it portrays ment.’ A Michael Evans, National Organiser

Solar cooperatives for coal valley workers N

TEU is supporting the Eureka’s Future and Earthworker venture of establishing cooperatives in Victoria’s La Trobe Valley, and eventually other parts of the country, to manufacture solar hot water systems that can then be distributed through unions.

Unfortunately, governments at state and federal levels have been reluctant to provide the start-up funding for the project, despite rhetoric around support for transition in affected communities. As a result, the Earthworker Cooperative is being established to generate support and capital.

The cooperative, along the lines of those operating successfully for many years overseas, will seek membership from anyone willing

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

and able to join, for a small cost of $20. It is intended that the cooperative will grow to a membership of at least 100,000, providing not only capital, but a market and political support base.

There are many potential benefits to the scheme: workers get cheap solar powered hot water systems, with ongoing household budget savings; employers and unions get some financial benefit through Renewable Energy Certificates; workers displaced by the closure of coal-fired power get new job opportunities; Australia gets the benefit of a sustainable manufacturing industry; and the revenue stays with the workers and the local community.

The infrastructure for the cooperative is being established at the moment. NTEU will provide further information to members about how to join and support it as soon as we can. NTEU is taking a leading role in climate change policy and action among Australian unions.We are proud to have among our membership some of the world’s leading climate scientists, as well as activists and thinkers.

NTEU is committed to a just transition approach, ensuring that it is not workers who bear the brunt of action against climate change.

For information, email Dave Kerin: dkerin.earthworker@gmail.com Earthworker c www.earthworker.org

21

CLIMATE CHANGE

A difficult business Trade unions and climate change I

n the week after Paul Howes, National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, made his ‘not one job lost to a carbon tax’ intervention, ACTU President, Ged Kearney, held a media conference to announce its principles and policy on climate change. The ACTU’s policy is not flawless, but Kearney was at least making a credible argument about the need for industry policy and a focus on the creation of new jobs to replace those that will inevitably go as the economy is restructured. Unfortunately, but predictably, almost all the media’s questions at the end of Kearney’s speech referred to Howes’ populist view.

The key issues identified by Kearney – the need for real industry policy to guide the economic transition and the necessity for unions to have a serious voice to represent the interests of workers in that transition – was lost on a media pack interested only in ‘he-says-shesays’ conflict.

Howes is fairly typical of the productivist approach so strong in Australian trade unionism. This emphasises the role of unions in ‘civilising’ capitalism. In recent decades, however, even this mild emphasis on a civilising mission has dissipated as many unions have come to see their task as supporting improvements in the efficiency of capitalism and the growth of the economy, in the hope that a larger number of crumbs, rather than a bigger share of the pie, will fall to labour. In the face of the growing environmental crisis, unions need to question whether they should be playing such a role.

Economic growth is fundamental to capitalism. While this has always been the case, it is remarkable that as the problems of unlimited compound growth start to appear, chiefly in the form of the environmental crisis, the rhetoric of growth has become more strident and unquestioned by mainstream politicians, economists and most union leaders.

The world economy grew at around 3 per cent in 2010. At that rate of growth, it would double in size in around 24 years. Yet virtually all mainstream policy makers and commentators maintain that dealing with the threat of climate change poses little or no threat to the longterm growth of the economy.

Decoupling has shaped our psychological and intellectual capacity to envisage problems and their solution. We understand that climate change is caused by human action, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Yet because we have decoupled ourselves from the natural world, we find it incredibly difficult to act to do anything about it.

We know burning coal is disastrous for the global climate, but one of the priorities for disaster recovery in Queensland is to re-open the coal mines closed by flooding.

The mythology of decoupling How is this remarkable achievement to be realised? How are we to continue to grow the world economy and prevent dangerous climate change? The great hope is ‘decoupling’, the severing of the link that has been evident since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution, between economic growth and CO2 emissions. Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet makes this point succinctly: The more that we are able to decouple economic growth from growth in carbon pollution, the more we will be able to strike this balanced approach between developed and developing economies, the more successful we will be in managing the politics, and the more effective we will be in tackling climate change.

22

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

CLIMATE CHANGE ‘Decoupling’ has become of such vital importance for two reasons.

First, within the western techno-scientific paradigm it is the logical response. The other reason is, quite simply, because it lets us off the hook. It removes the imperative to confront our condition in all its complexity. Economic reform and technological innovation, things we know about and understand, will fix it. We need not confront the challenge of growth itself, or to think of an alternative.

We have to acknowledge that the trade union movement is thoroughly complicit in a system based on endless expansion, environmental recklessness and gross inequality. How can we continue to claim that we are progressive?

A new approach If unions are to become leaders in the shift to a no- or slow-growth economy, we need a theoretical and ideological underpinning for a new approach. The false dichotomy of jobs versus the environment must be challenged. Unions have a duty to advocate for jobs, but our understanding of the nature of work is already grossly outdated. The slogan ‘no jobs on a dead planet’ needs to be taken seriously. More than this, though, unions need to broaden their conceptions of work and to break the productivist nexus between paid employment, consumption and identity.

While unions must engage with the transformation of work, they also have a right and responsibility to provide a voice for workers in the transformation of the economy. Even current responses to climate change, including the establishment of market-based carbon prices, which are woefully inadequate to the task of averting dangerous climate change, will have substantial ramifications for the economy. This is why some economic sectors, such as mining, are so resistant to any change. Responding adequately to the threat of climate change will entail a fundamental restructuring of the economy, and we know that economic restructuring without the voice of workers through unions leads to ruthless job losses and heightened exploitation. Unions must see their role as not just protecting workers during restructuring, but in shaping the very nature of the restructuring. Unions must challenge the ideology of consumption and growth.

These are not radically alien concepts. They can be directly related to much of the work we already do, such as campaigning for shorter working hours; emphasising work/life balance; supporting retraining; resisting productivity improvements that merely seek to reduce labour costs; advocating for increased contribution of labour in the overall production process; and for international solidarity and justice. Unions should be advocating for greater workplace democracy and worker control; shifting bargaining claims from an emphasis on monetary wage outcomes to broader social wage claims; public sector investment in sustainability; green industry policy; redistribution of incomes from capital to labour through taxation; raising questions about the social value of labour as well as its economic value; and publicly challenging the ideology of growth. We should be supporting worker cooperatives in renewables and other sustainable industries; and we should be educating and organising members around the issues of the environmental crisis. A Dr Colin Long, NTEU Victoria Division Secretary.

Dr Long was previously Director of the Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific at Deakin University. He presented a paper on this topic at the AIRAANZ conference in February. This article is edited from his Pushing the Boundaries conference presentation.

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Shaping Tomorrow’s World

Informed and civil debate on our future S

haping Tomorrow’s World is a website initiated by an interdisciplinary group of academics at the University of Western Australia (UWA), calling for an informed and civil discussion about our future.

The principal movers, Stephan Lewandowsky, Professorial Fellow in the School of Psychology, and Steven Smith, Winthrop Professor of Plant Energy Biology, say their goal is to provide a platform for re-examining some of the assumptions we make about our technological, social and economic systems.

‘Our planet is finite,’ writes Professor Lewandowsky. ‘We have 510,072,000 square kilometres of surface area to sustain all human activity from nearly seven billion people and to support all life.’

Our planet is under threat from the billions of people who populate it. We are confronted with climate change, peak oil, potential food insecurity and other major challenges which, if left unresolved, will threaten the well-being of future generations and the natural world.

The website, Shaping Tomorrow’s World, is dedicated to discussing these challenges and their potential solutions, based on scientific evidence and scholarly analysis.

Lewandowsky, who was a presenter at the recent NTEU climate change Conference, said it was time to put an end to the ‘ridiculous’ debate on whether climate change was real. ‘The problems we are facing will not be solved by science or technology alone, but by society,’ he said. ‘We need a change in mind-set and values to enable us to turn this crisis around.’

Shaping Tomorrow’s World posts expert information, opinion, questions and comments to generate informed and constructive debate. The site offers local, national and global views with links to affiliated websites and high-profile blogs.

The group encourages anyone with expertise on a relevant topic to propose a contribution by emailing editors@shapingtomorrowsworld.org. c www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org

23

CLIMATE CHANGE Image from the ACTU’s ‘Climate Change is Union Business’ booklet

Gender, jobs & climate change Are we reinforcing the traditional gendered division of labour?

W

e need to take greater care that the current debate on the impact of carbon abatement measures on jobs in carbon intensive industries does not reinforce traditional ideas about the gendered division of labour in Australia. When AWU Secretary, Paul Howes talks of ‘real jobs’, it is obvious that he means mining and heavy manufacturing work, overwhelmingly done by men. He dismisses jobs in administration, retail, tourism, hospitals and generally service sector jobs as apparently ‘unreal’. While the reality is that most Australians now work in service sector industries, the one outstanding characteristic of these jobs is that they are associated with women.

The recent Fair Work Australia decision on the Equal Pay case (see report, p.32) taken by the Australian Services Union (ASU) recognised that whole swathes of these service industry jobs in the private and community sector are underpaid and undervalued because they are jobs predominantly done by and considered as ‘women’s’ jobs’.

24

To put it simply, when we argue about jobs and action on global warming, the jobs we are talking about are ‘men’s’ jobs’–apparently real jobs which take brawn and getting dirty. Look at the depiction of the concerned workers in the ACTU’s ‘Climate Change is Union Business’ booklet; pictures of real men who want to keep having real jobs, presumably not sissy, girlie jobs.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

CLIMATE CHANGE The argument for the new, environmentally sustainable jobs keeps emphasising skilled manufacturing and engineering jobs, which will replace the current carbon intensive industrial and mining jobs. There seems to be much emphasis that whilst these clean jobs may be contrasted with the dirty polluting jobs, there is no need to worry that they will not require brawn and dirty hands. We have all bought into this dichotomy by emphasising the manufacturing and construction opportunities so as not to alienate those men, who don’t want to ‘end up’ in service jobs.

But doesn’t this need some moderation? Aren’t we falling into the very traditional, and still so real, gendered division of labour that the decades of feminist agitation has sought to unravel?

The environmental movement has always had a tendency to conservation, and not just natural conservation, but also social conservatism, especially around gender roles and expectations. The reification of Mother Earth is an essentialist concept that metaphorically has women ‘barefoot and pregnant’ scrubbing their 21st century urban homes with solutions of bicarb and trudging around trying to buy ‘green’.

I do not intend to diminish the efforts of predominantly women who actively work to improve the sustainability of their and their families’ lifestyles. Indeed, it is women and girls that can be relied upon to feel guilty about their personal contribution to global warming and to try and make changes in their own lives. The public relations experts have readily identified young women as the most sensitive demographic to peddle ‘green’ choices.

Meanwhile, men still run the companies, the governments and the environment organisations. But when there is campaigning to be done, women can be relied upon to do the work. Are women still being expected to clean up the mess made by men?

Recent US academic research found that women tend to be more knowledgeable about the causes and consequences of climate change, yet doubt their knowledge, while men will form opinions based on little knowledge.

Creating a clean energy, low polluting economy and society does mean creating a whole raft of new jobs, but they don’t have to be divided between well regarded and remunerated real jobs for the men – and support roles for the women.

The current opportunities for economic change should also be providing opportunities that at last make real inroads into the gendered division of labour in Australia. Whilst we have had many brave women entering traditionally male bastions, Australia’s occupational division of labour has barely changed over the last 30 years.

Women found it hard to be pioneers in the old industries and often were frankly not interested. Men generally resented and actively resisted their intrusion. Perhaps we now have the opportunity for women and men to work alongside in creating the new industrial and service jobs for the future.

Those of us working in education and training have a real responsibility to ensure that the curriculum and pedagogy of new and revised courses are attractive and responsive to women and men, young and old, and from all cultural backgrounds. A Jeannie Rea, National President This article arose out of a workshop at the NTEU climate change conference on gender.

While discussing the ongoing male domination of the scientific research and the political discourse and also the differential impacts of climate change for women and men due to gendered social and economic roles, participants zeroed in upon the issue of ‘real jobs seem to be men’s jobs’ and decided that this needed to be articulated.

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Education for Sustainability T

he UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) is nearly over. While educating for environmental sustainability has become a key focus across European and American schools and universities, and even in parts of the Asian and Pacific region, in Australia we have only taken the first steps, particularly in universities.

Education for Sustainability (EFS) is a major theme for educators, government and industry, and was an important topic at the Pushing The Boundaries conference with a series of workshops where participants shared their experiences. According to UNESCO: ...[EFS] has come to be seen as a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities. Building capacity for such futures-oriented thinking is a key task of education.

EFS is not just about skills and knowledge. It is about expanding the ways we think and learn. For Australians, this includes recognising and taking up the challenges of Australian Indigenous ways of seeing and acting on these questions.

There are many exciting initiatives in Australian universities incorporating EFS, but there are still too many people working in isolation and duplicating activity – or doing nothing. Attempts to make course changes that are EFS inclusive are often met with resistance and hostility, and with arguments about a crowded curriculum or relevance to the job market.

However, pressure is now coming from the professions and accrediting agencies calling for university curricula that can meet the challenges of the reality of a greening of the economy and society. The generic skills expected of new graduates now include sophisticated understandings of environmental sustainable philosophies. Universities need to get serious about educating for environmental sustainability or be left behind.

Researchers and educators are arguing that we must make substantive changes to our curricula to ensure that current and future generations can create, and do, new jobs. There is no dispute that new jobs will continue to emerge as industry responds to the demand for less polluting production, distribution and disposal. These jobs will be in all industries, and most existing jobs will have to change to accommodate new demands. A

25

RESEARCH

ERA takes a turn for the better

Have universities lost that rank feeling?

O

n 30 May 2011, Senator Kim Carr put an end to the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) journal rankings. The response was huge: spontaneous celebrations unfurled across the blogosphere, academic e-lists and bulletin boards. In one evening the NTEU website experienced over 1500 hits.

Most in the sector would acknowledge how ubiquitous the journal rankings had become as a symbol of toxic university managerialism, with academics and researchers from all across the country being asked (or told) to publish in ‘A’ and ‘A*’ journals.

It was so widespread that the Minister referred to it directly in his official statement, declaring that there ‘...is clear and consistent evidence that the rankings were being deployed inappropriately within some quarters of the sector... One common example was the setting of targets for publication in A and A* journals by institutional research managers.’

Advocacy leads to change At the time of Carr’s announcement, NTEU President, Jeannie Rea, was speaking to members about ERA in Adelaide, choreographing a Branch Motion that condemned not only the journal rankings, but major aspects of the broader ERA exercise. Such meetings had already occurred in Sydney and Melbourne. Further meetings were held in Brisbane and Townsville with others scheduled in the forthcoming weeks.

The university meetings were part of a campaign launched by the NTEU National Executive following the January release of the Australian Research Council (ARC) National Report on the ERA 2010 Assessment. This campaign had originated in concerns expressed by elected representatives on the Research Policy Committee from the initial Labor Government announcement of the ERA to replace the Coalition’s discredited Research Quality Framework (RQF).

Meanwhile, the Union had formally and informally lobbied the Minister’s office contesting the Minister’s assurances that the ERA enjoyed widespread sectoral confidence. Consistently, we were told that the sector had not demonstrated any substantive concerns, so we rallied evidence of concern across the sector.

The ARC’s determination that the rankings had become untenable was the Minister’s final trigger, but the advocacy of staff representative and professional bodies, had set the scene.

26

What now for ERA? Now that the journal rankings are gone, there is much more to contemplate, advocate, and organise around. The journal rankings were a particularly noxious reflection of the way ERA could be misused.

Their demise was important, and it will ameliorate some of the perversions that had become implicit in the broader assessment system. But other examples of punitive managerialism, such as voluntary separations based upon the standard of research output, such as the reclassification of researchers to teaching-focused and general staff positions, are outcomes of the broader research policy environment. They are responses to other ways in which universities are adapting to anticipate the allocation of performance-based research funding.

The journal rankings will be replaced with a journal quality profile. The journal quality profile is just one component of a ‘dashboard’ of indicators that each of the evaluation committees (RECs) use in arriving at that final nebulous 1-5 rank. Furthermore, the Department will still likely discuss in 2011 how a ‘performance moderator’ derived from the ERA can inform the distribution of over $195m through the Sustainable Research for Australia (SRE) program from 2013.

We might like to ask ourselves post-journal rankings, what is in place to stop this happening again? Are there penalties being imposed upon universities for the misuse of ERA? What official reporting do we even have about the scope or impact of harmful outcomes caused by the journal rankings? Government should take responsibility for the changes in Australian research culture, be they intended or unintended consequences of the policy environment. If not, the manipulation of the ERA research assessment will likely continue.

NTEU will continue to advocate and campaign for change in the ERA and the research culture it represents and perpetuates. The following resolution, as amended by the University of South Australia continued opposite...

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

RESEARCH

ERA Watch Have your say about ERA!

Go to www.erawatch.org.au NTEU’s new ERA Watch website keeps you up-to-date Stay informed about ERA through the NTEU campaign website, www.erawatch.org.au.

Information and commentary on further developments on the ERA will be posted as they happen. You’ll also find a range of ways to get more involved, including sending a letter to the Minister and completing our online polls.

...continued from previous page NTEU Branch meeting after 30 May, outlines NTEU’s continued concerns. It has been supported by subsequent campus meetings: While we recognise and applaud Senator Carr’s (30 May 2011) announcement of changes to the ERA, including the abolition of the Journal A* to C rankings, this meeting of university staff: • Does not have confidence that ERA will improve the quality of research being undertaken at Australian universities without further modification; • Is concerned that the ERA will continue to be inappropriately used in performance management, redundancies, promotions, appointments and grant applications; • Is concerned that the current ERA has the propensity to restrict research capacity by denying academic staff, including early career academics, and general staff opportunities to engage in research; • Is concerned that the Field of Research Categorisations still do not recognise Indigenous Research as Field of Research, and that the weight to be attached to multidisciplinary research has not been given adequate consideration.

We call upon the Federal Government to continue to address identified flaws of the ERA before the commencement of the 2012 exercise, noting that this can only be done following meaningful dialogue with staff and their representatives. A Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer ERA Watch c www.erawatch.org.au

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

What do the end of journal rankings mean for staff conditions and workloads?

T

he end of the ERA journal rankings may have a noticeable impact upon the way some university staff work.

This would include greater autonomy for researchers to choose the kinds of journals they wish to publish in.

Just as important is the significance of ensuring that newer staff and HDR students understand that the shift away from the ERA journal rankings may trigger subtle shifts in the culture of research. University staff should seek clarity from supervisors about their work area’s amended research plans.

Other kinds of punitive institutional approaches, including those attributed to the ERA, will still occur and may have adverse impacts upon the professional interests of members. Where there may be a breach of the university’s Collective Agreement, members are advised to contact local Branch or Division industrial staff.

27

RESEARCH

Victory in a battle that need not have been fought Dr Ian Dobson Editor, Australian Universities’ Review

S

enator Kim Carr announced the scrapping of the controversial journal ranking scheme that was part of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) programme in a ministerial statement on 30 May 2011. In an attempt at facesaving, the statement was headed ‘Improvements to ERA’.

The Minister’s office and the Australian Research Council (ARC) had been inundated with comments and complaints, but for much of the time, protests fell on deaf ears. But now the ARC is cutting its losses and has withdrawn journal ranking. This is an excellent result for our whole sector.

The scheme seemed to have few supporters outside the Minister’s office and the ARC. A mini-industry of writers pointing out the patently obvious flaws in the system developed, including Monash’s Cooper and Poletti (2011), whose paper on this subject was published in the last issue of Australian Universities’ Review (v53/1). AUR has already accepted three papers related to ERA journal ranking for the next issue (v53/2), and even though the battle has been won, they will still appear.

The events leading to the ministerial capitulation is a story that needs to be remembered in Australian higher education. This was a battle, and it had to be won. Other journals and media also published papers that reflected on the inadequacies of ERA journal ranking.

The question has to be asked: how could a scheme so clearly flawed have got so far? This is particularly a mystery because critics were pointing out the obvious shortcomings from the outset. The ERA journal ranking process sought to quantify quality, a difficult task at the best of times. Bind this up with a process which was not transparent, and was therefore open to abuse via self-interest, and bad results seemed impossible to avoid. How could anyone imagine that it would be possible to assess the quality of a scholarly paper by looking at the journal it was published in? Well, the ARC and the Minister seem to have thought that it could.

A common theme in commentary on ERA journal ranking was its ‘unintended consequences’. One of these was the contrary effect it was going to have on publishing research on issues of domestic importance in Australia. As noted by others, the journals that publish Australian policy debate tend to be ranked ‘B’ or ‘C’ in the ARC’s alphabetically-challenged rating of ‘A*’ (top 5 per cent of journals), ‘A’ (next 15 per cent), ‘B’ (next 30 per cent) and ‘C’ (the remaining 50 per cent). Where were these researchers supposed to air their important work?

28

People and Place, a journal edited by Bob Birrell and Kathy Betts and published by Monash University was perhaps the first victim of this ‘new ERA’. People and Place had been rated ‘B’ in the first manifestation of ERA journal rankings, but it was demoted to ‘C’ according to procedures that none of us were allowed to know. Monash and its Arts faculty were quick to withdraw their support once they had worked out that papers published in ‘C’ rated journals would actually reduce Monash’s overall research score. What a pity that economic rationalism rather than scholarly impact is driving the research policy at Australia’s largest university!

One might have expected to see statements to the media about the harmful effect of ERA journal ranking from all universities and peak bodies. The obvious holes in the ranking scheme, its capacity for abuse and its lack of transparency seem to have been ignored completely. Universities seemed to accept ERA journal ranking, and none wanted to be seen to be rocking the boat. But, as the Minister said in his statement: There is clear and consistent evidence that the rankings were being deployed inappropriately within some quarters of the sector, in ways that could produce harmful outcomes, and based on a poor understanding of the actual role of the rankings. One common example was the setting of targets for publication in ‘A’ and ‘A*’ journals by institutional research managers.

Many universities must now feel ashamed or embarrassed by their capitulation to the ARC’s unscientific scheme.

Although several authors wrote about the negative effects of ERA journal ranking, including press coverage, perhaps we could have expected more. Even if the ARC and the Minister’s office kept telling us that their ill-conceived process had wide support, it didn’t! I was unable to find a single academic who thought that the ARC’s journal ranking process was a good way to assess research quality. Perhaps the reason why we heard little from individual university staff is because many had been effectively silenced by the climate of fear and suspicion that exists at many universities. As academic employment is precarious for many staff, it was only to be expected that selfcensorship would prevent public commentary.

The Minister’s announcement about the dumping of journal ranking is a victory for common sense, but this is not the first time something like this has happened, nor will it be the last. Can anyone remember the Research Training Scheme? We can’t blame that one on the ARC, but the brains behind the RTS invented a system that actually took funding from the sector’s best-performing research university, and reallocated it to lesser performing institutions. It even spawned a legal challenge that was subsequently dropped.

I’m not aware of anyone that thinks we should stop striving to be better at what we do, but we have a right to expect much better tools for assessing quality than ERA journal ranking (RIP). A Dr Ian R Dobson holds an adjunct position in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash (at least in the short term!)

Australian Universities’ Review c www.aur.org.au NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

RESEARCH

ERA rankings gone but not forgotten in the contest over fair academic workloads at La Trobe E

xcellence in Research for Australia (ERA) journal rankings may be gone but the impact upon academic workloads and careers will still be felt for some time to come. At La Trobe University, ERA criteria slowly, though differentially, infiltrated numerous systems at the level of individual academic units and university-wide. In some academic units, staff were required to cite their ranked journal outputs when making applications for the outside studies program and promotion, and even when requesting funding to attend conferences.

The draft performance appraisal system initially included a model of high performance that set unreasonable goals around production of highly ranked ERA journal publications, fixed levels of grant income and target student feedback scores.

ings from being dragged down by publications in lower ranked journals and to ensure that there were enough staff to carry the teaching load.

Impact on workload

NTEU La Trobe Branch immediately distributed a discussion paper to all union members and to participants in half a dozen key research committees. The paper stimulated debate in the research committees and contributed to a grassroots rejection of the Research College concept. We convened a video-linked meeting across four campuses, where robustly debated motions were carried that rejected the divisive Research College proposal and also condemned the unintended consequences of the ERA upon academic endeavour.

NTEU’s Policy & Research Unit helped us to gain national media attention with two articles published in The Australian’s Higher Education Supplement. Representatives from the unit met with Minister, Senator Kim Carr’s advisers and provided information from our Branch campaign, including feedback that individual union members sent about their experience of the impact of ERA upon their academic work.

We were very pleased when the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) announced that the Research College proposal would be withdrawn. A new research framework has been released which still has problems but which should allow individual academic units to collegially design discipline-based research expectations. The framework also includes provision for formal consultation with the NTEU about research expectations.

ERA criteria also impacted upon a new university-wide academic Workload Management System (WMS). NTEU La Trobe Branch representatives had successfully fought off an attempt to divide the academic workforce into four categories based upon their teaching/research focus, which would have been tied to a fixed time allocation for each element of their work. ERA provided a new managerial tool that would enable some staff to be locked into high teaching workloads.

Without discussion or agreement, ERA criteria and grant income measures were appended to the WMS that would guide managers to make a retrospective assessment of research activity, in order to allocate or deny research time.

The crisis came to a head in late March 2011 when La Trobe University released a new research framework which proposed to allocate around a third of academic staff to an exclusive Research College based upon their capacity to publish in journals that were highly ranked by ERA. Research time for this group would have been maximised, while the rest of the academic community would be prevented from undertaking anything more than a limited amount of ‘scholarship’.

The prime motivations for this initiative seem to have been to prevent ERA stand-

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Rally to action

Lingering effects We were, of course, absolutely delighted when a few weeks later Minister Carr scrapped the ERA journal rankings because they were being ‘deployed inappropriately’ and were promoting ‘undesirable behaviour in the management of research’ (Ministerial Statement, 30 May 2011).

Proactive steps will still need to be taken

by Branches to reverse the impact that ERA journal rankings have already had on policies at many institutions.

The grim fact remains that individual academic workloads are contested terrain because some managers see research time as a scarce resource that is best allocated to those who are already research productive.

This takes no account of the development needs of early career academics or those who have been overloaded with teaching and administration for many years.

The sector is simultaneously pulling in two directions with pressure on staff to teach more, especially in 2012 with the removal of capped student places and the introduction of contestable funding, while at the same time staff are expected to produce world class research.

The contradiction is palpable and the threat to diverse research interests and academic freedom is self-evident. NTEU needs to continue to negotiate workload clauses in collective agreements that support and empower staff to combine teaching and research while lobbying nationally for more money to be allocated to the sector. A Serena O’Meley, NTEU La Trobe Branch Industrial Organiser

29

FINE ARTS

Monash studio closure will shatter local glass arts Ben Pollard, Journalism student, Monash University

Above and right: Glass work by Ebony Addinsall.

Below: Monash alumni, Crystal Stubbs, at work.

Photo: Ron Greer

30

N

TEU has launched a joint campaign with the Australian Association of Glass Artists (Ausglass) to stop the proposed closure of the Monash University glass studio. The Save Glass at Monash initiative (www.saveglassatmonash.org.au) is in response to a decision by the Dean of the Faculty of Art & Design Professor Shane Murray to phase out glass course offerings from 2012.

The Monash University glass studio has been a Victorian fine arts institution for 31 years now. Perched atop the seven floors of the B Building at Monash’s Caulfield campus, it is one of the more unique settings in tertiary education.

Students cut glass, heat it, and mould it with extraordinary panoramic views of Melbourne’s eastern skyline right outside their window. The light dances off the exquisite glass formations, from vividly coloured vases to dinosaur models, and even replica human hearts – within their own glass box, of course.

For postgraduate glass student Jennifer King, the studio provides the perfect place for ‘bringing science and art together’.

‘Right from the beginnings 30 years ago, people have gone on to do big things,’ she said. ‘A few big names in Australian glass have certainly come through these doors.’

Yet, Monash University is in the process of shutting down Victoria’s only tertiary glass studio. Australian Association of Glass Artists (Ausglass) President and chair of the Save Glass at Monash campaign, Anne Clifton said the impact of the closure would be devastating.

‘Glass education at Monash University has been integral to the development of art glass within Australia over the last 35 years,’ she said. ‘This closure would represent a major blow to the glass arts in Australia, and be a significant loss for the art form internationally.’

‘We call upon the University to reverse the decision and engage in a community consultation about the future of the glass arts at Monash,’ said Ms Clifton. Save Glass at Monash is lobbying several key government and university figures for the survival of the program. Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu, Federal Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth Peter Garrett and Monash University Vice-Chancellor Professor Ed Byrne are among those to have been sent letters of appeal.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

Hot topic

FINE ARTS

NTEU National Assistant Secretary Matthew rg.au... lassatmonash.o McGowan said the decision was just one in a g ve sa m o fr ts Some commen long line of fine arts closures. d collected all iated, admired an ec pr ap ort ly gh hi ‘You have to question the University’s comto cease to supp stralian Glass is ighted meassure a ts or Contemporary Au ng sh pi lo ry ve ve de a mitment to fine art,’ he said. ‘Over the past five vesting in It would be ctoria and stop in set over the world.

Vi as l in ta es pi iti ca l cil ra fa g ltu years, we have seen Monash withdraw from trainin ct the cu glass studios and ners that constru d skilled practicio an ceramics, tapestry, metals and jewellery. A once ed nt le ta of pool Pilar Rojas lture has value. thriving fine art community at Monash Univerof the country. Cu sity is now under threat.’ lease do todays world -p quality needed in This threat has created a sense of unease –a ht lig es us at ia th Glass is one med ancient media. among students. Ms King said it seems as though Pauline Mann r training in this he ot an t ye se clo not Monash ‘doesn’t really value’ what they do as artowed own, showed sh ists, and the frustration in the glass studio is palfield was then kn o. As ul ag Ca s at ar h ye y as irt on te, as M pable. course over th s as gl e th y of Caulfield Institu d rit te ar cla sed by the ht when they st ‘In terms of morale, we continue to come in and I was very impres , se w? vision and foresig ur no co n w io ne vis e re is that cturers in th do our work every day with this cloud over our ministration. Whe obbery emerged ad one of the first le ge lle co e th ctual sn strated by heads because we haven’t been told exactly what’s creeping intelle purpose demon s course e a University, a m ca lt, no more glas be su re ge e lle Th co s. se happening,’ she said. ur As the co d se ba ace for ‘craft’ Despite the Faculty reaching the decision in July which saw no pl Richard Morrell . ia or ct Vi r fo 2010, Ms King said glass students still hadn’t been t and the fosformally told the closure is going ahead. from skilled craf ay aw e ov m to orld of generic cir ‘They haven’t actually said anything to us in writmake decisions manufactured w ile ed er If we continue to at st uc a ed in r up de cted un ing… We’ve been told verbally, but I want it in writwe will end pport itself if dire e tering there of, partment can su rant. Therefore th de s no as ig gl e e ar ing; I want to see what’s going on and I want to see Th re s. su clo r fo e s th cumstance , on as on re rs m the pe ent so financial what their plan of action is,’ she said. culture away fro r is ou th e clever managem g, ov in m be to of irituality is a deciosn Current students will be allowed to finish their studession and the sp in our community decision to close pr ex e tiv ea cr with e human ies, but no new undergraduate places have been allounsustainability hand crafted, th to a situation of us ad le ve lie be s. cated since the decision was reached last year. will, I s ourselve Ruth Allen ty to truly expres due to the inabili Ms King said this could be potentially fatal for the contempoVictorian glass community. ofound effect on pr a ch su d ha s ha materiality, to ‘I think glass art will survive in some way, but I’m conemic institution work focusing on to es to m Glass in the acad co it n devastating loss cerned that we’re not going to get some fresh blood into particularly whe urce would be a so re s rary visual arts, as gl ity rs other unive the industry,’ she said. ‘It’s taken us so long to get to this close down yet an Brooke Zeligman point where we have all these resources here in Victoria, ts. ar n Australia and to decommission a studio of this size, I just don’t see not only in deco further progress to s lp an he th how it’s going to be possible to make another one.’ t er ar s th as ra rtment education in gl Closing this depa University level In a letter to Ausglass in April this year, Dean of the Facl design as well. ria st du in in t bu . rative glass, ulty of Art & Design Professor Shane Murray pinpointed a Robyn Elbaz t-sighted, indeed ing it is very shor nd te ex lack of student demand and the high costs of running the of. Given the statestudio as reasons for ceasing the course. h Glass’ last year as sa on M es ss be po d ul at co th d that this ortive staff Ms King said the decision showed that Monash wasn’t on that I think its really sa pment and the amazingly supp ve lie be t n’ ca I etime. , equi the same page as its students. ‘I think they see fine art as the-art facilities built up over a lif e- that has been dg le ow kn t? of ha going in a different direction,’ she said. w s wealth . And for Catherine Evan g to let all this go Ms King said a lack of quality student consultation had Monash is willin contributed to a ‘sense of intimidation’ from the University. ts skills propreserve fine ar d an e ot om pr . They help to ‘I feel a little threatened… I feel like they’ve been really ly has the role to h our community ric en s e University sure ill Th mesk ch Su sneaky,’ she said. ‘They are looking at our space more than onoculture of sa glass studio. d commercial m an moted within its ile er st g, rin why we should be here.’ y. owing, bo counteract the gr onalds in our Western world toda Kevin King cD But Ms King said the hard decision to speak out against the M d an C KF ness like proposal was made easier by her love of glass art. to the opportunity eative students cr ‘I’m really passionate about what I do, and as I’m completing t ou ve Gi is! . ey love ahead with th te to do what th my degree and becoming more confident in my work I feel that Please dont’ go anon em travel intersta th e ak m t n’ do learn here it’s important to allow future generations of Victorians to be a graduating from part of this too,’ she said. ‘I’ve gotten so much out of this degree, trained at RMIT ho w t NZ in t tis se when it did bu I just can’t imagine that it would go and that other people working glass ar r this facility to clo fo r e fo I am a full-time e am sh am a sh as al w re wouldn’t have this opportunity the same way I have.’ A in 2002. It e would be a or m no h as on their glass course ve M s Monash’. To ha Save Glass At Monash c saveglassatmonash.org.au ‘there was alway ming artists.

Di Tocker co up d an ic, bl pu Melbourne, the MARCH 2011 www.nteu.org.au

31

GENERAL STAFF

From Administrators to Zoologists The A to Z of general staff work T

he Union’s National General Staff Working Party is working on a project to develop better ways to reward and recognise the work of general staff. We all know the difficulties of the current system, the ‘capping out’ at the top of your level, the lack of career opportunities, and the lack of recognition of the importance of general staff work to the sector; but what we haven’t known until now is where general staff work, what levels we are employed at, and how the profile of general staff employment has changed over time.

Gabe Gooding, National Vice-President (General Staff)

Derek Corrigan, National Executive

As a part of the Working Party’s analysis of the state of the sector now, we have been looking at Federal Government data on general staff employment over the past 14 years of available data (1996-2009). The results have in some ways been surprising and in others have confirmed our instinctive feel for the nature of general staff employment. Over the past 14 years data there has been a strong shift away from the lower levels of employment so that now Level 5 is the most common level.

Figure 1: Year by Year Classification Change as % of Year Total F then M

16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

F-0

F - 01

F-0 M-0

32

F - 02

F - 03

F - 01 M - 01

F - 04

F - 05

F - 02 M - 02

F - 06

F - 07

F - 03 M - 03

F - 08

F - 09

F - 04 M - 04

F - 10

F - 10+

F - 05 M - 05

M-0

M - 01

F - 06 M - 06

M - 02

M - 03

F - 07 M - 07

M - 04

M - 05

F - 08 M - 08

M - 06

M - 07

F - 09 M - 09

M - 08

M - 09

F - 10 M - 10

M - 10 M - 10+

F - 10+ M - 10+

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

GENERAL STAFF

This growth at L5 has been largely among women. The reasons for the decline in lower level employment probably include contracting out of basic functions such as cleaning, transfer of some level of administrative activity to academic staff largely driven by technological change, and an expectation of increased qualifications driving a change in the composition of the workforce. Figure 1 demonstrates the shift.

The data has also allowed us to look on a national and institutional level at exactly where general staff are employed. The findings on this are interesting and vary considerably between institutions.

Nationally the vast majority of general staff are characterised as working in Academic organisational units and Administration, followed by Libraries as the other major employment area. Several areas demonstrate strong feminisation of the workforce with women outnumbering men in several of the main areas of employment (but not at Level 10+). Men continue to dominate in Computing, Buildings, plants and grounds.

The data also tells us about the age profile of general staff and perhaps not unexpectedly, the general staff population is not suffering

the same age shift that we have witnessed among academic staff.

This is probably due to the much shorter qualification time for general staff.

Of course what we don’t get from this data is a feel for the work that general staff are doing. We know that we are accountants, administrators, architects and archivists; bookkeepers, bookbinders and botanists; carpenters, cleaners and chemists; and so on through every letter of the alphabet to zoologists. Developing a set of measures that will suit all of this diverse work will be difficult but is a task that the Union is determined to deliver on.

All general staff will have received an invitation from the Union to participate in a survey about classification structures and processes at your institution. We thank those who have participated in the survey and who recommended to colleagues that they also take part.

This data will be an important tool for the Working Party. It’s only when we get a full picture of the sector with qualitative as well as quantitative data that we can begin to build better solutions. A Images: Paul Clifton, Lisa Roberts

Figure 2: Total Numbers per Employment Unit

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000

10

10+

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

0

01

10

10+

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

0

0

M

F

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

33

EQUITY

Fair Work Australia hands down landmark decision

No equal pay for equal work Gia Underwood Branch Industrial Organiser Victorian Division

I

n May, the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (FWA) released its decision on the first case to be heard under the Fair Work Act’s equal remuneration provisions. They found that in the Social & Community Sector (SACS) industry men and women workers do no receive equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value by comparison with workers in state and local government employment. Gender was also a factor in the gap between pay in the SACS industry and pay in comparable state and local government employment.

Last year a joint application was made by five unions (with the Australian Services Union being the lead) for an equal remuneration order to lift the pay of around 150,000 Social & Community sector workers.

Most of these workers are low paid and dependent on Award or nearAward wages. The Applicants’ argued that the SACS industry is female dominated, the work is undervalued and that the undervaluation is gender related.

The key provision in the Act used was: FWA may make any order (an equal remuneration order) it considers appropriate to ensure that, for employees to whom the order will apply, there will be equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value.

It is the Act’s addition of the words ‘comparable value’ that has expanded the ability to test for equal remuneration between men and women workers. It has been more than forty years since equal pay between men and women workers was recognised as a legal industrial right and the gender pay gap has shrunk considerably since then. However, it still persists.

One of the most contested areas in the hearings was around what made an appropriate comparator group. In the past, the applicable group of women had their wages compared to a group of men doing the same or similar work. This was one of the major hurdles as it was not always possible to find easily comparable groups. Here, the Applicants’ made a clear case that when compared to their equivalent occupations in the state and local government sector, social & community workers were paid significantly less. They argued that these public sector workers, although also mostly female, benefited from being part of much larger negotiating blocs whose ‘industrial 34

muscle’ lifted the wages of both female dominated occupations and male dominated occupations. They also argued that the SACS workforce has characteristics that, when viewed as a whole, indicates that its undervaluation is gender related. These ‘indicia of undervaluation’ include female characterisation of the work, undervaluation and/or lack of recognition of their skills, occupational segregation, high proportion of part-time workers, relatively new industry, small workplaces and low union density.

One area of agreement from the main parties to the case was that the funding to this largely not-for-profit sector is kept low by State and Federal Governments and that this contributes to the low pay.

The evidence and submissions used to support these contentions came from SACS workers themselves, union officials from around NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

EQUITY

the country, precedents set in NSW and Queensland and expert evidence provided by NTEU members Associate Professor Siobhan Austen, Professor Anne Junor, Professor Gabrielle Meagher and Dr Meg Smith.

Professor Austen provided evidence on the negative impact of low wages on the workers in the SACS sector and the economy, and the benefits that would flow if those wages were increased. Under cross examination Professor Austen neutralised employer groups’ contentions that increased wages would automatically result in job cuts and that the direct clients of the specific SACS services would be the ones to bear the cost of any increase, when in fact it would be the Governments’ responsibility, being the ‘consumers’ of the services provided. Reports written in response to evidence from Professor Cobb-Clark who was a witness for the Australian Industry Group, and the Commonwealth Government’s submission were also provided.

Dr Smith provided an account of the development of gender pay equity provisions in Australian Law. In 1969 the Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Commission adopted for the first time equal pay principles. These were developed and eventually, in 1993, federal industrial legislation was amended to include an entitlement to equal remuneration. The actual application of this legislation proved restrictive and with very limited success for claimants. It was retained, largely unamended, by the WorkChoices legislation.

Professor Meagher described the structure, characteristics, nature of the work, work value and pay equity issues in the SACS sector. By using qualifications linked to earnings as a measure of pay equity and comparing care and non-care occupations within the SACS sector it is demonstrated that care workers, of either sex, earn less than non-care workers except at the lowest level of qualifications attained. These are workers who exercise a range of complex skills which are described as ‘soft’ skills. The increased reliance on the largely not-for-profit by governments to deliver community services and the insufficient and JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

insecure funding and annual tendering processes add a burden to the organisations’ operations and act as a disincentive for them to collaborate with potential competitors for the same funding.

A fascinating history of the 20 year struggle of the SACS sector to gain recognition as an industry and obtain Award coverage (in 1991) was provided. Opposition to this came from Labor and Coalition State and Federal Governments, employer groups, some unions, individual employers and even from some of the workers themselves.

Professor Junor provided evidence about the development of the Spotlight Skills Recognition Tool. To demonstrate its use, it was applied to five worker witnesses. The Tool is an aid to identify, name and classify skills that are required to carry out work effectively and that help to explain productivity or effective performance but are hard to describe and easy to overlook. Under cross-examination, Professor Junor explained that it is not an alternative job or work evaluation system, but it is a job analysis process designed to identify skills that aren’t otherwise described. One way to view it is to consider classification structures represented on a vertical axis with the Spotlight skill levels being on a horizontal axis measuring the deepening of capacity and requirements at any particular classification level.

The Full Bench in its decision agreed that the Applicants had established that much of the SACS industry is ‘caring’ work and has female characterisation, that this characterisation can disguise the level of skill and experience required and that in this context the undervaluation is gender-based. In order to remedy this, they have asked the parties to attempt to identify the extent to which gender has inhibited wages growth in the SACS industry and to provide concrete estimates. There will be further hearings on this in August 2011. A The decision may be accessed on c www.fwa.gov.au .

Photos: Equal Work Equal Pay rallies held on 8 June 2011 in Sydney (opposite, © ASU NSW) and Melbourne (above © ACTU, www.flickr.com/photos/rightsatwork) 35

INTERNATIONAL

Egypt after the revolution The Tahrir Square spirit lingers on campus Davina Levy is a student from Hong Kong, currently in Cairo for the third year of her Cambridge University degree in Middle Eastern studies innovation.

I

have been living in Cairo, arriving a few months prior to the revolution that began in September last year, and saw then how oppression permeated every aspect of life. Most people are familiar with the features of an unjust and dictatorial regime: police brutality, vote-rigging, media censorship and rampant corruption. However, the reality is much more sinister.

In Cairo the oppression deeply struck off the initial election lists infiltrated society, and I observed at Helwan University and 28 how profoundly it affected the students were arrested in their lives of every individual, becomuniversity dorms following the ing an integral part of life that controversy.

Egyptians learned to live with.

In 2008, two students from the Although many of my friends Resistance Group in the same in Cairo’s universities are active university filed a legal complaint and animated, they were acutely against police officers for physical aware of their lack of freedom assault, believing that the attacks both inside the university and were because of a conference outside it in society, and how the held by the group which criticised two are intrinsically linked. the National Democratic Party I recall a depressing conversa(NDP). tion with a fresh graduate, who On the 21 April, I visited Cairo said: ‘Real change can’t be made University to meet friends. I had in universities until [former presiread that there were protests and dent Hosni] Mubarak and his A man holds a sign saying ‘Leave Mubarak and save your citizen’s blood shed’ in Tahrir Square, strikes on the campus following whole family disappears. Hope? the revolution, but I was amazed 30 January 2011. Photo courtesy of Monasosh, ma3t.blogspot.com Not right now.’ to see a large group gathered The fall of Mubarak turned out to be only accommodate a diverse body of student around the faculty of mass communication. the beginning of a succession of nationwide political groups and movements. It is thereI heard the familiar words: ‘Leave, leave! strikes and protests. After the revolution, fore unsurprising that any political activity Strike until the fall of the regime!’. These lawyers, workers, teachers and journalists which jeopardises the credibility of a dictatowords were chanted in Tahrir Square, and began launching their own battles to voice rial regime leads to a harsh clamp-down on they are still being chanted in Yemen, Syria their grievances against the system and to universities. and Libya. Why were the very same words call for change. They are unanimous: their In Cairo University, the huge increase of being chanted at the university, two months goal is the complete uprooting of the old participants in student elections held at the after the ousting of Mubarak? regime in order to protect the spirit of the end of March demonstrated the overwhelmSamy Abdel Aziz, the dean of the faculty revolution. Universities are no exception. ing demand for radical change. Before the and a prominent ex-member of the NDP, The nature of student political activity in revolution, only students with a ‘good repucriticised the uprising during its initial stages universities often reflects the degree of polittation’ were allowed to run. According to and compared Mubarak’s ‘inspirational leadical freedom a country enjoys. The university, Nadia Abou Shady, a student in the faculty ership’ to that of Churchill and Gandhi. His a hotbed for developing minds to expand of political science, this vague statement was attempt to influence the media with antiand champion ideas, is the ideal brewing actually a check on the student’s political revolution views angered students, to the ground for political dissidence. affiliation. extent that they staged massive sit-ins and A government tolerant of critique usuIn 2006, the names of 520 male and female protests for one demand: his resignation. ally goes side-by-side with universities that nominees of the Muslim Brotherhood were However, two months later, he remained 36

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

INTERNATIONAL the faculty, disbanding students with cattle prods and stunguns, and injuring protesting students and professors.

This occurred immediately after a law was passed that banned demonstrations, since they ‘hindered work process’.

These protests did Egyptian university staff demand the downfall of the regime in Tahrir Square, 30 January 2011. not appear out of a Photo courtesy of Monasosh, ma3t.blogspot.com vacuum. Although the demands are the firmly in his position. Various attempts were immediate resignation of university figmade to appease students, including promures, I have seen that there is a deep yearnises of reforms, but to no avail. A third-year ing for a fundamental change in education student in the faculty, who I know only as in Egypt.

Enas, commented: ‘He is in fact an amazing Hoda Zeydan, an Arabic teacher and a professor. But we cannot tolerate anybody masters graduate from the Cairo University, who supported the old-regime. You have believes the education system needs its own read about how badly students were treated revolution: ‘Each education minister coneven after the revolution? This is proof that tends to remove what his predecessor has all elements of the old regime must go.’ implemented. For this reason the education She was referring to an incident on 26 process remains unstable without real develMarch, when the military police stormed into opment.’

SNAPSHOT

Education suffered in particular during the Mubarak regime. ‘When the people can’t think, they can’t stand up for themselves.

Mubarak wanted his people to be as stupid as possible so that he and his regime were unopposed,’ she continued.

Concrete plans and strategies to reform education will come later, but to the students protesting, this cannot be achieved without the complete uprooting of the old system.

A slogan in front of the faculty of mass communication read: ‘The students of the faculty demand the trial of all the symbols of corruption in Egypt and the resignation of the chairman of the university and the dean of the faculty.’

Ultimately, these protests are not just about the university. It is about Egypt and the protection of the revolution that shook the whole country. The Tahrir Square spirit lingers on campuses, and students are determined to hold on to it. A This article first appeared in University World News, 22 May 2011. Reprinted with permission.

UWN c www.universityworldnews.com

LONDON, UK, 13 JUNE 2011

School of Oriental and African Studies lecturer Dr Geoffrey King confronts a security guard during a protest at a talk by Science and Universities Minister, David Willetts. Staff and students were protesting cuts to higher education.

Photo: © Dougal Wallace, www.flickr.com/photos/occluded

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

37

NATIONAL COUNCIL NEWS FROM THE NET

PAT WRIGHT

Unionists Tweet without Twepidation T

he legal position of unionists using electronic messaging or social networking technologies to criticise aspects of their employment is becoming clearer through some recent legal cases.

In Australia, the Federal Court decision in Barclay v The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education [2011] FCAFC 14 has set the Employment Law world abuzz. A quick Google search shows that nearly all major law firms have issued alerts to their employer clients and putative clients.

Mr Barclay was an employee of BRIT and President of its AEU SubBranch. He was approached by AEU members concerned at being pressured by management to falsify evidence of the institution’s excellence for a forthcoming audit, and broadcast an email assuring members that they had a right to resist any such pressure and asking them to inform the AEU should any such pressure occur.

The BRIT management considered that Barclay’s email message was potentially damaging to the good name of his employing institution and suspended him on full pay, barred his email account, banned him from the campus and issued him with a letter to show cause why he should not be subject to disciplinary action.

Barclay and the AEU sought relief from the ‘show cause’ demand in the Federal Court, on the grounds that this adverse action would be unlawful under the General Protections of Chapter 3 of the new Fair Work Act. The General Protections protect workplace rights, protect freedom of association and provide protection from workplace discrimination. Further, the Act requires that the onus of proof in claims of adverse action is on the employer, who must prove that the action was taken not in breach of one of the General Protections but solely for other reasons.

Since Barlay’s broadcast email was headlined AEU and signed AEU SubBranch President, he maintained that it was union business, protected by the freedom of association provisions of the Act, and not an act of disloyalty in breach of the Employees’ Code of Conduct.

In a Federal Court hearing before a single judge, the BRIT management said that the adverse action was taken because Barclay had not raised the serious allegations with senior management before broadcasting ‘aspersions and innuendo upon his colleagues’ in breach of the Code of Conduct (for employees) and he was suspended because of a concern that he might cause further damage to the reputation of BRIT and its staff. It was accepted that the CEO had acted solely for these reasons and not for any prohibited reason (such as unionbashing) and Barclay’s claim was dismissed.

Barclay and the AEU appealed to a Full Bench of the Federal Court and, in a majority decision of two out of three judges, won a reversal of the previous ruling - which is what has set the alarm-bells ringing in employer circles. A penalty against BRIT for breaching the General Protections is yet to be determined.

The crucial difference between the majority decision and the dissenting opinion seems to hinge on what are the ‘real reasons’ for the 38

employer taking the adverse action - and the subjective consciousness of management’s decision-maker, while highly relevant, is not enough to be determinative. According to the majority decision, the reasons for taking adverse action can be conscious or unconscious, and an objective analysis of the implications of the employers conduct – how it might reasonably be seen, rather than just the state of mind of the decision-maker – is needed... at least until the General Protections of the new Fair Work Act are re-interpreted by a differently-constituted Full Bench of the Federal Court or the High Court.

In the US, the National Labor Relations Board last year issued a complaint against an employer for sacking an employee because she criticised her supervisor on Facebook. The Board claimed that she had been unlawfully dismissed because she was only exercising her federal labor law rights by discussing the terms and conditions of her employment with her co-workers on Facebook. The complaint was issued, alarming employers about their vulnerability in dealing with disgruntled employees, and leaving several issues unresolved.

Recently, a related case involved the dismissal of a reporter for the Arizona Daily Star for posting sarcastic comments about his editors on the Twitter account the Star had encouraged him to establish. The reporter claimed that his dismissal violated his rights under Section 7 of the National Labour Relations Act, which includes the right to form, join or assist a union, and other rights analogous to the General Protections of our Fair Work Act. The Board’s Division of Advice rejected the employee’s claim because his inappropriate tweets, although arising from his work, were unrelated to the terms and conditions of his employment or concerted union activity, both of which are protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The legislative protections in Australia and the US for unionists using email, Facebook or Twitter, then, would appear strongest when the messages are clearly and explicitly union-related.

In the ACT, a new way of protecting employees (including unionists) from adverse actions by their employer has been introduced with the Workplace Privacy Act (WPA) 2011, which came into effect on 10 March 2011 for all employers who have employees working in the ACT, but could pre-echo similar legislation in other jurisdictions.

The WPA applies to any ‘worker’, including independent contractors and volunteers, and prohibits certain types of workplace surveillance, such as in change rooms and sick bays. The kinds of workplace surveillance covered include camera, computer or tracking, which seems to include email traffic and postings to social networking sites.

Under the WPA, employers are required to consult with workers in good faith about proposed workplace surveillance and this means that the worker has a genuine opportunity to influence the conduct continued opposite...

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

LOWERING THE BOOM

NATIONAL COUNCIL

IAN LOWE

Scepticism is science’s core principle W

hen I spoke at Pushing the Boundaries, the NTEU conference on climate change in April, I summarised the way scientific understanding has developed since 1985, when climate experts first warned the public of the problem. It was already clear then that the climate was changing. We had known since the 1960s that human activity was increasing the levels of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the air. Atmospheric physics pointed strongly to a link, but cautious scientists were reluctant to draw the conclusion.

The sternest test of a theory is whether its predictions are verified by observations. Climate experts told us 25 years ago what would happen if their science was valid. By the 2020s, they said, we would have higher average temperatures, rising sea levels, changing rainfall patterns with less rain in south-west WA and more rain in the tropics, more frequent and severe extremes such as heatwaves, droughts, bushfires and floods, as well as the possible spread of vector-borne diseases. All these changes are happening already, in many cases faster than the science was predicting. The same is true of global trends, with the Arctic ice-cap shrinking more rapidly than the worst 1990 projections.

By now, I told the conference, there is no legitimate scientific criticism of the theory that human activity is changing the global climate.

It is no longer a future threat but a ‘clear and present danger’. While there is no legitimate criticism, some people are still in deep denial, usually because the scale of the problem demands change that threatens either their commercial interests or their ideology. They are raising illegitimate objections, which I described as ‘scientific bastardry’.

The Australian reported my comments and accused me of saying that scepticism is scientific bastardry. I fired off a letter pointing out that scepticism is not just an honourable tradition within science but is core principle, demanding evidence and logical argument rather than accepting authority or ideology. Another correspondent, noting that one retired scientist is still not convinced, concluded ‘the science is not settled’. At one level, he was right; science is never settled, it is always a work in progress. One valid observation can destroy a widely-accepted theory.

At another level, he was totally wrong. While there are different defensible views about the scale of climate change we are causing, ...continued from previous page of the surveillance. This is the first such law in Australia that includes an obligation to consult with employees.

Under the WPA, it is an offence for an employer to use a surveillance record (such as an email archive) to take adverse action against a worker (or unionist) unless the notice of surveillance given to the worker stated that the employer may use the surveillance to take adverse action against the worker. A Pat Wright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of Adelaide. email: pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au Caveat comrades at UCan and ANU: Details of cases, but not interpretation, derived through www.lexology.com JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

the present trajectory involves unacceptable risks. Summarising the situation, the Australian Academy of Science said that having a 50:50 chance of keeping the increase in average global temperature below two degrees requires global emissions of greenhouse gases to peak this decade, then drop rapidly. On that basis, the 2007 Bali conference agreed that countries like Australia need to reduce our rate of polluting the atmosphere by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020.

So it is very depressing to find the Opposition’s cynical populism spooking the government into proposing inadequate reductions, with even those modest goals attacked by the mining industry and the Murdoch press, asserting that our economic future depends on subsidising the big polluters. There are two levels of dishonesty in that claim. As Dr Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has pointed out, there is no legitimate basis in economics for talking about a nation´s competitiveness. Our economy is not homogeneous. There is talk of a two-speed economy because the policy settings which help the mining industry are bad for larger sectors like manufacturing and services, especially tourism and education. The more outrageous dishonesty is the claim that our ability to export minerals will be harmed if we charge polluters and China doesn’t. It is nonsense because China doesn’t export iron ore and coal, so we aren’t competing with them to sell our low-value commodities.

It is time we recognised that miners are just that, minor elements of a modern economy. The mining industry is about 5 per cent of our economy. More people work in the fast food industry than in mining! Education is suffering from the continued public subsidies of mining, absorbing billions of dollars of public money each year.

Educators should be holding the government to account, demanding more responsible policies that invest in our economic future, rather than trying to prop up the old polluting industries. We need to put a serious price on pollution, high enough to change investment behaviour. At the same time, it would be naïve to assume that the world will change if we get the price signals right. Nearly ten years after the National Framework for Energy Efficiency found that pollution could be reduced 30 per cent by measures that pay for themselves within four years, little progress has been made. So we need a range of complementary measures, most obviously renewable energy targets, efficiency improvements and investment in active transport to reduce car dependence.

We must find the courage to be a concerted and persuasive voice for change. The stakes are extremely high. A Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith Univ.

39

NATIONAL COUNCIL KNOWLEDGE IS THE ECONOMY, STUPID

TAMMI JONAS

Reflections on a convoluted pathway B

ecause I’m currently on an extended road trip across America, I hope you’ll indulge me this issue as I reflect on higher education in the US and Australia. I myself am a product of both systems, having attended primary school in southern California, secondary in Oregon, and gained my BA from UCSD before migrating to Australia, from where I have a Postgrad BEd, a Postgrad Dip in Cultural Studies and am in the third year of my PhD. My undergrad years in San Diego were pretty stereotypical in many ways – the dorm experience was debaucherous and made me lifelong friends, the liberal arts education introduced me to everything from chemistry and advanced calculus to sci-fi literature and psychology, and I experienced my first major political awakening during the first Gulf War in 1991.

My experience of lectures was what I suspect is a typical spectrum from amazing to woeful. One Lit professor I had, Hillel Schwartz, learned every single name of his 150+ students, had individual meetings with each of us twice during the quarter, and had us write our own exam questions, which he then edited. At the other end, I had Professor Oesterreicher for Chem 6A, and spent half a quarter trying to work out what unit a ‘veegl’ was in relation to a particular graph – turned out it was his accented way of saying ‘wiggle’. As much as I hated Chemistry, I’ll always be grateful that I had to study such diverse disciplines as my understanding of the world around me has been far richer for it.

When I came to Australia, I commenced a P/g Bachelor of Education at Deakin University. Although it had only been a year and a half since I completed my BA, I worried I’d been out of the system too long and was now ‘so old’ at 24, but I was also very excited about doing further study at an advanced level. I needn’t have worried – halfway through the degree, I organised our entire cohort to lodge a letter of complaint at what we perceived to be poor standards of teaching and assessment. The level was too low for postgrads, we argued, and we shouldn’t have been in classes with undergrads (which we were for our core subjects). Our action caused a flurry of concern, angered a lot of staff (and won us the undying affection of the ones we thought were doing a great job), and the course was actually discontinued a couple years later – I’ll never know whether what we did was part of the reason. Some will say we weren’t really postgrads at all, which is an argument made for keeping P/g Dips & Certs in classes with undergrads, but try telling that to someone who has completed their first degree and returned for their second.

I subsequently taught secondary English for a few years at MLC, published a couple of papers in journals, had children, did some concurrent study at UCSC in hopes of getting into a PhD program there, and was accepted just as we decided to return to Australia.

Upon return, I sought advice on applying for a PhD at Melbourne University and was told my academic and career experience looked great, but that I would need to do a Masters first. I applied, and was offered a place in the P/g Dip in Cultural Studies instead as I didn’t have a ‘major research project’ under my belt. I was also offered a 40

place in the Masters in Critical Theory at Monash. I won’t bore you with details of the ‘supervised individual project’ I’d done in the previous degree that led to two publications and a conference paper, but suffice to say, I’m not sure I got the right outcome, though I don’t regret the convoluted pathway on which I ended up.

When I unexpectedly became pregnant with my third child in the middle of the P/g Dip, the first coordinator I asked for advice said, ‘oh, no, you can’t take leave in the middle of your thesis!’ at which I promptly burst into tears. Bad advice aside, of course I took leave, finished the degree with first class honours, and then commenced the PhD. I chose my supervisor because he is a gentle mental giant for whom I have inordinate respect as a scholar, and because he coauthored one book vaguely related to my topic.

My initial application for a scholarship was unsuccessful, but I tried again the second year (after being part time and then taking a year’s leave). I was again denied, even though I then had two refereed pieces (an article and a book chapter) and multiple conference presentations. I discovered upon enquiring further that Melbourne didn’t count my publications as the article wasn’t ‘in a highly ranked journal with an international board of editors’ and ‘book chapters aren’t commonly refereed’, plus my Deakin degree was having all its letter grades scored at the lowest numerical point in the scale as Deakin didn’t provide the numbers. I appealed the decision and was awarded a scholarship. Perhaps I would have had one from the beginning had I appealed then, but I didn’t know the system yet.

My point in sharing these stories (and there are more, as readers of Advocate will be all too aware), is to highlight students’ expectations and experiences, which all too often suffer from major dissonance. Students are too-frequently forgotten as we struggle with successive Governments whose interest in higher education is utilitarian at best, outright hostile at worst, and university administrations that are beyond ‘creeping managerialism’ and into full-flight corporatism in some cases.

Students come to higher education to learn. All too often what we are taught is a) how to navigate a morass of poor information, b) how to suffer through unstimulating lectures pitched too low, c) how to maintain our self esteem in the face of lack of respect for the experiences we bring to our degrees, and d) how to balance work, study and family under very real financial and emotional life pressures. Personally, I’m prepared to keep learning that last one, as it’s representative of ‘real life’ for us and all the other sectors, but the first three could be addressed by a) timely provision of accurate continued opposite...

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

LETTER FROM NEW ZEALAND/AOTEAROA

NATIONAL COUNCIL

SANDRA GREY, TEU

When employers gang up, we’re ready2go W

e have an unusual situation at six of our polytechnics (TAFEs) at present. We used to have a multi-employer collective agreement covering all six of the polytechnics but employers were using it to gang up and pressure union members to accept cuts in working conditions. Union members and their employers had been in a protracted series of negotiations, disputes and strikes - the eventual outcome of which was that most union members have had no real pay rise for three years apart from a $700 lump sum payment, their collective agreement has been expired for more than a year, so they have all been moved onto individual agreements, and the employers are still trying to take away core working conditions.

Worst of all, because of the way our legislation works, the employers can appoint any new staff who join these polytechnics onto an inferior individual agreement with many core working conditions stripped out of it. They have no choice because there is no collective agreement to choose as an alternative.

Last year, and again earlier this year, our members at those six branches voted that they wanted to negotiate site-based collective agreements at each of their worksites rather than persist with trying to renegotiate the multi-employer collective agreement.

The six employers challenged this though, first before a full bench of the Employment Court and now, after losing that case, they have gone to the Court of Appeal. We expect the Court of Appeal’s decision on 13 June. In the meantime, one of six the employers, Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki, broke away from the other five and settled a collective agreement with its TEU members in about five hours. That agreement includes a 4.5 per cent pay rise and no loss of conditions.

If the other five employers are a gang, the gang bosses are the chief executives a Unitec, in Auckland, and Wintec, in Hamilton. Those two institutions more than any other in the country give the very firm impression that they want to break the union on their campuses rather than negotiate a workable collective agreement.

Unitec’s annual report, which came out recently, shows that the total amount it paid its academic staff last year fell $160,000 from the previous year. The falling overall pay for academic staff is the result of an institution that will not negotiate properly with its staff but was wasting public money on legal challenges against its own staff. It is ...continued from previous page information, b) proper investment in quality education, and c) for all academics to take note of the human beings in your classrooms, in all our complexity, and value what we bring to the table. That will take a coordinated effort from universities, government and all the people who inhabit our public institutions – that is, us. A Tammi Jonas is a former President of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA).

Tammi blogs at www.tammijonas.com, and twitters @tammois JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

simply unacceptable that Unitec would let the overall rate of pay for its academics slide downwards because of its own unwillingness to negotiate a Unitec collective agreement with its academic staff.

However, in the same period salaries and short-term employee benefits for key management personnel increased by nearly 3.5 per cent, and the new slimmed down Unitec council accepted average pay increases of more than 100 per cent.

Incredibly, the report counts the fall in academic salaries as an achieved target and notes the increase in general (allied) staff salaries represents an un-achieved target. It also reports that the student: staff ratio has climbed to 17.1:1 and that the academic staff turnover rate was 12.5 per cent, or one in 8 staff in 2010.

The 15 councillors in 2009 received a total of $99,000 (an average of $6,600 each). Some of those councillors were local staff, students and members of the community. The eight councillors in 2010, who were appointed by either the government or themselves, received $116,000 (an average of $14,500 each). The pattern is much the same for Wintec’s councillors. They have chosen to accept substantial pay rises for themselves, while supporting a negotiating strategy that sees their own academic staff stripped of employment rights and denied reasonable pay rises.

TEU has launched a campaign in the five remaining polytechnics, Unitec and Wintec, as well as Northtec, in Whangarei, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, and Whitireia in Porirua. Members at those five branches have called the campaign ‘Ready2Go’. They are saying; “We are sick of all the delays. We want a collective agreement at each of the five polytechnics. We have voted overwhelmingly in favour of this but our employers are trying to ignore the collective wishes of staff, and has been using public money to fight a legal appeal to try to avoid negotiating directly with us. We are ready – we have a team of professional, democratic, local people just like you.

We know what we want – a fair pay rise and no loss of working conditions. We are getting moving on this for the good of our students, and for the good of education.

‘We are ready to go...’ A Sandra Grey is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa TEU  www.teu.ac.nz Send a message of support to the ready2go campaigners  http://teu.ac.nz/?p=14551 41

YOUR UNION

Recent human rights actions by NTEU N

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

Colombia Action request: Amnesty International To:

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

President Juan Manuel Santos Calderon

Action: Letter re death threats made by paramilitary groups to members of unions representing municipal workers (SINTRAENTEDDIMCCOL), national union of food industry workers (SINTALTRAINAL) and the association for the integral social development (ECATE).

Action request: Justice for Colombia

Honduras

To:

Action request: Education International

Colombian Embassy, London

Action: Letter calling on the authorities to ensure the safety of Rodolfo Vecino, National Legal Officer, USO (oil workers union) and his former colleague and member of the Democratic Pole Party, Rafael Cabarcas. Both men have a number of death threats from paramilitary group Los Paisas de Cartagena.

To:

Action request: Justice for Colombia

Zimbabwe

To:

Colombian Embassy, London

Action: Letter calling for release of detained political prisoner Aracely Cañaveral Vélez, trade union leader in ASOTRACOMERCIANT (miscellaneous workers).

Charged with rebellion and conspiracy to commit serious crime.

President Porfirio Lobo Sosa HONDURAS

Action: Letter re brutal repression of teacher unionists.

COLOMBIA

Action request: NTEU ACT Division To:

Zimbabwean authorities

Action: Re arrest of 52 activists (students, academics and unionists) at Labor Law Centre for meeting regarding recent events in the Middle East and North Africa.

Egypt

Bahrain

Action request: NTEU Victorian Division

Action request: Scholars at Risk

To:

Action: Letter re reports that Dr Abdul Jalil Al-Singace (Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bahrain) has been re-arrested and imprisoned.

Prime Minister, Dr Essam Sharaf

Action: Letter calling for the reversal of the cabinet decision (23 March 2011) to criminalise protests and strike action.

Sudan Action request: NEAR To:

His Excellency Lt. Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir

Action: Letter re violence and abuse, including sexual violence, committed by national security officials against political prisoners.

42

Action request: Education International To:

His Majesty Shaik Hamad bin ‘Issa Al Khalifa

Action: Letter re arrest of General Secretary, Vice President and several board members of Bahraini Teachers Association.

Action request: NEAR To:

King of Bahrain and Minister for Education

Action: Letter re crackdown on students and academic staff at the University of Bahrain.

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

YOUR UNION

Belarus

Turkey

Iran

Action request: NEAR

Action request: Education International

Action request: NEAR

To:

To:

To:

President Alyaksandr Lukashenka

Action: Letter re dentention of law student Aliaksandr Atroshchankau, arrested on 19 December 2010 during peaceful protest.

Declared prisoner of conscience

by Amnesty International.

Prime Minister

Action: Letter re delay of trial of 31 unionists (members of teacher union Egitim Sen and public employees confederation KESK).

Charged in November 2009 for belonging to illegal Kurdish organisation.

His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei

Action: Letter re dismissal of lecturer Seyed Hossein Javdani from Payame Noor University following publication of political articles he wrote on various websites.

China Action request: Scholars at Risk To:

BELARUS TURKEY IRAN BAHRAIN UAE OMAN

EGYPT SUDAN

Minister for Foreign Affairs

Action: Letter re detention of artist Ai WeiWei and other artists and intellectuals over recent months. Prisoners of conscience.

YEMEN

CHINA

Philippines PHILIPPINES

CAMBODIA

Action request: Philippines Australia Union Link (PAUL) To:

President Benigno S. Aquino

Action: Letter condemning spate of political killings (union leaders and farmers) over March/April 2011.

ZIMBABWE

Cambodia Action request: Cambodian Teachers Union (CITA)

UAE

To:

Action request: Scholars at Risk To:

Prime Minister H.H. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Action: Letter re in communicado detention of Dr Nasser bin Ghaith, lecturer of economics at the Abu Dhabi branch of Sorbonne University.

He was detained on 10 April following recent statements he made criticising government authorities for their failure to introduce political reforms.

Minister for Education, Youth and Sports

Action: Letter regarding relocation of three teachers following complaints made by them of corruption in Kroul Kol High School.

Response received on 9 May, 2011 from Minister of Education, Youth & Sport – citing “improper management, teaching and learning” at the school as the reason for the relocation of the teachers. The letter claims that the Ministry “has been complying with the education reform policy to improve quality and efficiency of education.” The letter also indicates the School Principal, Vice-Principal and a number of other teachers were also disciplined.

Oman Yemen

Action request: Amnesty International

Action request: Education International

To:

To:

Action: Letter re incommunicado detention of Dr Abdul Gufar al-Shezawi (lecturer Sohar Teachers College) and his nephew Ahmed al-Shezawi. Prisoners of conscience – arrested for peaceful protest.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh

Action: Letter re escalating police violence against protesting teachers, students and unionists.

JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

Minister for the Interior

43

YOUR UNION

2011 Women’s Conference: ‘We Can Do More’ T

he annual NTEU National Women’s Conference will be held on the weekend of 13–14 August in Melbourne, on the theme of ‘We can do more’.

The conference is taking a local to national to global approach to looking at ways to enhance women’s educational and professional opportunities and experiences locally in the Union, in the workplace, and in the world. The focus will be clearly inclusive of Indigenous women; and will also invite the active participation of young women and students.

This theme has its origins in the first international women’s conference of Education International held in Bangkok last January.

The conference of over 700 delegates from education unions around the world asked ‘Can we do more?’

As the conference considered the ongoing poverty, violence, discrimination and

prejudice facing women and girls, a keynote speaker from the United States declared ‘Those who can (do more) must’.

In Australia we have made tremendous gains in eliminating sexism and discrimination against women and girls at all levels of education, yet gender based prejudice and disadvantage remains. For women working in higher education, a gendered disciplinary, occupational and domestic division of labour continues limiting the opportunities of women to fulfil learning, teaching, and research and career aspirations.

The conference will consider auditing effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination and equal opportunity policies and

practices, particularly in relation to racism and sexism. The gendered consequences of trends and practices including casualisation; ‘teaching focussed’ positions; the ERA; and the feminisation of lower level general and academic work will be investigated drawing upon delegates experiences.

The feminisation of education, and of unions locally and internationally will also be interrogated.

Women members interested in participating should contact their local Branch immediately for more information. A NTEU Women c www.nteu.org.au/women

Register early & SAVE! As a valued reader of Australian Universities Review you are entitled to 10% off the standard price! Call us on 1300 316 882 & quote the code CC*AUR to redeem your discounted price!

44

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

YOUR UNION

New staff in NTEU offices T

o better help you to get to know your local Union staff, we are pleased to present these brief profiles of recently arrived Branch and Division staff.

Simone Morrissey Branch Organiser Macquarie Branch Simone Morrissey comes to the NTEU from the Australian Services Union where she organised social and community services workers in their campaign for equal pay for the better part of two years. Prior to there, Simone was the Project Director of PowerShift 09, Australia’s largest youth conference on climate change initiated by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition.

Simone is a keen activist for social change and since finishing her degree from La Trobe University and moving to Sydney, has been part of the F Collective, as well as other feminist, union, and environment groups.

Trouble making being the serious business it is, in her time off Simone likes nothing more than to curl up with a cup of tea, and what ever knitting project she has going (usually with some kind of baked good in the near vicinity).

Simone is very excited to be working with a new group of activists at Macquarie and getting to know the real ins and outs of the higher education sector.

Kiraz Janicke Branch Organiser UNSW Branch Prior her appointment as Branch Organiser, Kiraz spent three years working as an independent journalist and researcher in Latin

America where she focused predominantly on politics, labour struggles and social movements. Her work has been published by ZNet, MR Zine, Political Affairs Magazine, the London Progressive Journal, Center for Research on Globalization, among others.

She has been involved in a diverse range of social justice and environmental campaigns, including campaigns to stop old growth logging and uranium mining in Western Australia, refugee rights, as well as building community support for trade union campaigns such as the Your Rights at Work campaign, the campaign against the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Equal Pay Campaign.

Kiraz has a BA (Political Science and History) and her major area of interest is in building international solidarity amongst workers.

Katie O’Brien Branch Organiser UWS Branch Katie is joining Kaylene Field as the second Branch Organiser at the University of Western Sydney. Katie is now 3 months into her role at UWS and is enjoying getting to know members and is looking forward to working with the Branch to grow the Union at UWS. Katie worked previously at the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, on their Helpdesk, assisting members from a range of industries with their industrial enquiries.

Katie comes from a strong union family and became a member of a union for the first time at age 15 working in the retail sector.

In the final year of a Social Science at UWS

vol. 52,

Publish ed by

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

www.aur.org.au JULY 2011 www.nteu.org.au

no. 2,

NTEU

ISSN

2010

0818–8 068

AUR

Austra lian U nivers ities’Re view

degree, Katie is no stranger to the university.

Outside of work she enjoys Les Mills group exercise classes, reading and spending time with family and friends.

Alex Leszczynski Division Industrial Officer WA Division Alex Leszczynski is the new Industrial Officer at University of Western Australia. Alex has a Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Laws degree from Macquarie University in Sydney, and has spent the last 10 years working for unions, most recently in the national office of the Finance Sector Union in Melbourne.

Alex is looking forward to meeting UWA members in the coming months and hope that he can assist them in dealing with their workplace issues.

Alex says his parents always placed a great emphasis doing well at school ‘so that we could attend University. They did this as they believed that a University education was the gateway not only to a better life, but also to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us. I thus feel honoured to represent all University staff.’

Other Appointments University of Sydney Branch Organiser, Adam Knobel, has recently been appointed to the new Division-based position of Campaigns & Communications Officer.

In the National Office, Industrial Coordinator Sarah Roberts is off on 12 months maternity leave. Acting in her position will be Peter Summers. A

Want to receive the Australian Universities’ Review?

AUR is published by NTEU twice a year. NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis – so you need to let us know!

If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive AUR, please send us an email at aur@nteu.org.au Subscription rates for non-members available at www.aur.org.au

45

YOUR UNION

Smart l s a u s a C

New edition of Smart Casuals is customised to your workplace T

he Union’s popular handbook for casual academic staff, Smart Casuals, has been revitalised for its 4th edition. This time, we are producing a separate customised version for each Branch, reflecting the slighlty different pay and conditions resulting from different universities’ Enterprise Agreements.

L SSIONA AND SE SITY CASUAL R R E IV FO N K U O ANDBO CURTIN NTEU H MIC STAFF AT ACADE

rg.au icasual.o www.un

/curtin u.org.au www.nte

From 1 August, casual academic members can download their local version (when available) from the UniCasual website at www.unicasual.org.au/smartcasual.

The handbook contains background information on the Union’s stance on casual employment and what we’re doing about it; helpful analysis of the rights of casual staff; and lots of practical advice from your letter of appointment, to how to get paid on time, to your university’s pay rates and a handy checklist of your rights and responsibilities.

Smart Casuals is essential reading for anyone trying to survive as a casual academic in the Australian university system.

Smart Casuals c www.unicasual.org.au/smartcasuals Please note: Not all Branch customised version will be available immediately on 1 August.

Contact your local Branch office for information or keep an eye on www.unicasual.org.au.

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

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

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

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

Has your family name changed?

Have your workplace details changed?

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

Are you moving to a different institution? ÎÎ TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP FROM ONE INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER IS NOT AUTOMATIC.

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

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

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

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

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

46

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

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 If KNOWN

YOUR EMPLOYMENT gROUP

 ACADEMIC sTAff

 gENERAL/PROfEssIONAL sTAff

 TEACHING & RESEARCH

 RESEARCH ONLY

 RESEARCH ONLY

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

SIGNATURE

DATE

OTHER:

YOUR EMPLOYMENT CATEgORY AND TERM

 fULL TIME

 PART TIME

 CONTINUINg/  fIxED TERM PERMANENT

CONTRACT

HoUrS PEr WK

DATE oF ExPIrY

 sEssIONAL ACADEMIC  gENERAL/PROfEssIONAL sTAff CAsUAL

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 office use only: Membership no. of the rules, is available from your Branch.

If YOU ARE CAsUAL/sEssIONAL, COMPLETE PAYMENT OPTION 4 ONLY

If YOU ARE fULL TIME OR PART TIME, PLEAsE COMPLETE EITHER PAYMENT OPTION 1, 2 OR 3

Membership fees = 1% of gross annual salary

OPTION 1: PAYROLL DEDUCTION AUTHORITY

office use only: % of salary deducted

I INSErT YoUr NAME

| STAff PAYROLL NO.

IF KNoWN

Of YoUr ADDrESS HEREBY AUTHORISE INSTITUTIoN

|DATE

SIGNATURE

OPTION 2: CREDIT CARD

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

ExPIRY

OPTION 3: DIRECT DEBIT

 QUARTERLY  HALf-YEARLY  ANNUALLY

|DATE

Salary range

6 months

12 months

$10,000 & under: $10,001–$20,000:

 $27.50  $38.50  $55

 $55  $77  $110

Over $20,000:

 PLEAsE ACCEPT MY CHEqUE/MONEY ORDER OR CREDIT CARD:  MAsTERCARD  vIsA

I hereby 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 and in accordance with the terms described in the Direct Debit request (DDr) Service Agreement

fINANCIAL INSTITUTION

|ACCOUNT NO.

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

REGULARITY Of PAYMENT:

BRANCH NAME & ADDRESS

 MONTHLY  QUARTERLY  HALf-YEARLY  ANNUALLY

ACCOUNT NAME

5% DIsCOUNT fOR ANNUAL DIRECT DEBIT

|DATE

CARD NUMBER — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

ExPIRY

|$

SIGNATURE

Processed on the 15th of the month or following working day

I INSErT YoUr NAME

SIGNATURE

Choose your salary range.

Select 6 month or 1 year membership.

Tick the appropriate box.

Pay by cheque, money order or credit card.

NAME ON CARD

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.

|  MASTERCARD  VISA |PAYMENT:  MONTHLY

SIGNATURE

BSB

I hereby authorise the Institution 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.

OPTION 4: CAsUAL/sEssIONAL ONLY 1.

2.

3.

4.

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

NAME ON CARD CARD NO.

|MAIL/ BLDG CODE MONTH NExT | INCREMENT DUE

DATE

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

‡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

MAIL TO:

NTEU National Office PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 T (03) 9254 1910 F (03) 9254 1915 E national@nteu.org.au

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

National Office

office phone fax email website

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

NT Division

WA Division

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

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

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

Queensland Division

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

SA Division

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

NSW Division

Level 1, 55 Holt St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 (02) 8066 6600 (02) 8066 6677 nsw@nteu.org.au www.nteu.org.au/nsw

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

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

Industrial Unit Industrial Unit Coordinator (Acting).. . . . . . . . . . Peter Summers Senior Industrial Officer (Strategy & Policy). . . . Ken McAlpine Industrial Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle Rangott Industrial Support Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippa Noakes

Tasmanian Division

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

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

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 Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

48

Executive Members Lyn Bloom WA Div 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

Andrew Bonnell UQ John Fitzsimmons CQU Kelvin Michael Tas Div Colin Long Vic Div Terry Mason UWS Neil Mudford ACT Div Michael Thomson Sydney

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

NTEU ADVOCATE vol. 18, no. 2

NTEU Member Discount Of fer

sAvE ovEr $150 Unde

$1.80r a cop y!

get an annual subscription to

FOr ONly $89 Thousands of busy Australians trust The Week’s balanced coverage of current affairs to provide all they need to know about ever ything that matters. Now you can too.

Call NOW to claim your discount!

1300 843 933

andFriends quote L1122WK1 of the ABC needs YOUR

support whether want to Friends of the -ABC needs you YOUR be an or simply Friends of the ABC needsparticipant YOUR support - active whether you want to Friends of thewant ABC express your support fortoindependent public be- an active participant or needs simply YOUR support whether you yourparticipant support foror independent public beexpress an active simplyyou broadcasting by becoming a member. support - whether want to broadcasting becoming a public member. express your support forby independent be anbecoming active participant or simply broadcasting by The member. stronga organisation which was crucial in The strong organisation which crucial in and express your support forof independent public the defence the ABCwas in past years defence ofwhich the ABC incrucial past years and The strong the organisation works to keep was the a ABC onintrack needs more broadcasting by becoming member. works to keep the ABCyears on track needs more the defence of the ABC and in past and members funds so thatthe it has the so that it has works to members keep the and ABC funds on track needs more resources & influence to continue to campaign. resources & so influence to continue towas campaign.

The strong organisation which crucial in members and funds that it has the resources & influence continue the defence oftothe ABCtoincampaign. past years

Challenge us to find you a better deal.

Union Shopper is all about ensuring members receive great value for money on whatever you are looking to buy.

at no cost to you, we help save time and money, without the hassles and headache.

and works to keep the ABC on track needs more The mainstream media has a huge influence on our The mainstream media has a huge influence on our members and funds so that itand has the cultureculture and on and every major social political issue on every major social and political issue The mainstream media a huge influence on our through thehas images itimages depicts, information it resources influence continue to campaign. through theto it the depicts, the information it culture and&on every major social and political issue provides or fails to provide, the opinions it expresses,

provides orthe fails to provide, the opinions it expresses, through the images depicts, information it governments and theitextent to which it scrutinises and the the extent to which it scrutinises governments provides or fails provide, andto other powerful opinions bodies. it expresses,

and other powerful bodies. and the extent to which ita scrutinises governments The mainstream media has huge influence on our culture and on every Independent public broadcasting under threat and other bodies. major social and powerful political issue - through the isimages it depicts, the inforIndependent broadcasting is under threat  from governmentspublic seeking to control information mation The itIndependent provides or fails to provide, the opinions it public broadcasting is under threat from governments seeking to expresses, control and cut expenditure mainstream media has a huge influence oninformation ourand the rivertomypeople.com from governments seeking control information extent to which it scrutinises governments andactivities other powerful bodies.  from the increasing commercial the ABC and cuttoexpenditure

culturecut and on every major social and political issue expenditure must engage in to supplement inadequate funding

rivertomypeople.com and

rivertomypeople.com

reason reason reason the the theABC ABC ABC needs needs needs Friends reason Friends Friends 

rivertomypeople.com

Big Savings for Union Members



from governments seeking to control information

number of powerful owners. driven largely by commercial interests, the largely scrambleby largely

by ABC commercial interests, the landscape scramble Australiadriven without the means amedia media driven and cut expenditure ratings, and the for ratings, and the for political agendas of apolitical small agendas of a small Onlyincreasing the ABC can operate by commercial commercial interests, the scramble for unshackled ratings, and the political agendas  from the commercial the ABC number of powerful media owners. number of powerful media activities owners. imperatives and free fromowners. vested interests - for the of a small number of powerful must engage in tomedia supplement inadequate funding of the entire community.

Only the ABCgood can operate unshackled commercial Only the ABC can by operate unshackled by commercial

Only theimperatives ABC canthe operate unshackled by commercial imperatives and from expanding empire and free from vestedMurdoch interests - for the imperatives and free from vested interests - for the Don't leave it too late to act. of theinterests entire community. free fromgood vested -upon for the good entire it to whose capacity tothe sway voters enables good of entire community.

Thousands thousands ofof the community.

Friends of the ABC members is Don'tinfluence leave it too elected late to act.governments and which wants to

the ABC needs Friends

Don't leave the it too late act. the best protection ABC cantohave.

Thousands thousands of be ridupon of public thatthousands Don't leave it too late toThousands act.broadcasters Thousands upon upon thousands ofprovide free Friends of the ABC members is of Friends ofcontent. the ABC members the best protection the Friends of is the ABC members is the best protection the ABC can have. the best protection the ABC can have.

ABC can have.

Australia without the ABC means a media landscape

Friends of the ABC (Vic) Inc. GPO Box 4065, Melbourne 3001 largely by9682 commercial interests, the scramble Phone (03) driven 9682 0073 Fax (03) 0074 fabcvic@vicnet.net.au www.fabc.org.au

for ratings, and the political agendas of a small

of the ABC (Vic) Inc. GPO Box 4065, Melbourne 3001 Init. FriendsLast Name Payment by : Single member $30 number of 0074 powerful media owners. of(03) the 9682 ABC (Vic) Inc.circle GPO Box 4065, Melbourne 3001 Phone (03) 9682Friends 0073 Fax fabcvic@vicnet.net.au www.fabc.org.au please Concession/Low income $20 Phone (03) 9682 0073 Fax (03) 9682 0074 fabcvic@vicnet.net.au www.fabc.org Cash First Name AddressInit.

Last Name Payment by : Single member $30 Households/Organisations $50 Only the ABC can operate unshackled by commercial Cheque please circle First Name Init.

Last Name imperatives Payment by : Single member $30 Concession/Low income $20 - for the and free from vested interests Donation Money Order Cash please circle P/code Address MasterCard income $20 TOTAL Concession/Low Households/Organisations $50 good Cheque of the entire community.

Visa Cash Address Phone (a/h) (b/h) Credit Card no.$50 Households/Organisations Donation Money Order Cheque P/code Don't MasterCard leave it too late to act.

TOTAL Donation Money Order upon thousands of Visa P/code Thousands Phone (a/h) Email (b/h) MasterCard TOTALCredit Card no.

Tax Invoice FABC (Vic) Inc A0034181A ABN 83 262 013 759 NTEU2011 Signature . . . . . . . . .is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expiry Date / Friends of the ABC members First Name

Contact Union Shopper today

from the increasing commercial activities the ABC

Independent public broadcasting is under threat  from the increasing commercial activities the ABC through the images it engage depicts, the information it funding  from the expanding Murdoch empire must in to supplement inadequate must engage in to supplement inadequate funding whose capacity toexpanding sway voters enables itempire toexpresses, ■■ fromprovides governments seeking to information cut expenditure or fails provide, the opinions itand  to from thecontrol Murdoch influence elected governments and which wants to  from the expanding Murdoch empire ■■ fromand the the increasing commercial activities the ABC must engage in to whose capacity to sway voters enables it to tosway it enables scrutinises governments be rid ofwhich public broadcasters free whose extent capacity to voters it that to provide influence governments and which wants to supplement inadequate fundingelected content. elected governments and which wants to andinfluence other powerful bodies. be rid of public broadcasters that provide free ■■ from thebeexpanding Murdoch empire whose capacity to sway voters rid of public broadcasters that provide free Australia without thegovernments ABC means a media content. content. enables it to influence elected andlandscape which wants to be Independent public is under threat driven largely broadcasting by commercial interests, the scramble rid ofAustralia public without broadcasters that provide freemeans content.

Australia without the ABC a media landscape for ratings, and the political agendas of a small the ABC means a media landscape

Phone (a/h)

Email

(b/h)

Visa

the best protection the ABC can have.

Credit Card

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 – 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 with 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), AFSL 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. 0611