Advocate, July 2013 by NTEU

Advocate vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295

Uni cuts are dumb cuts! Vote smart, vote for higher education ɓɓAnalysing the cuts ɓɓNTEU election strategy ɓɓMajor party policy scorecard ɓɓTrish Crossin tribute ɓɓTAFE privatisation increases

ɓɓIndustrial action hotting up ɓɓTackling insecure employment ɓɓBluestocking Week 2013 ɓɓBuilding ‘Big Society’ in Australia ɓɓNational Teaching Conference

ɓɓQuestioning civility in Australia ɓɓNT Intervention – 6 years on ɓɓDefending academic freedom ɓɓIndigenous Canadian connection ɓɓ...and much more.

Member Benefits

Save everyday with your NTEU member benefits The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has recently partnered with Member Advantage, a leading provider of member benefit programs. You and your family can now enjoy savings on a range of quality lifestyle and entertainment services. Here are just a few of the ways you can save on everyday expenses and big purchases:

Popular Services

Your Benefit

Gift cards

5% off pre-purchased Wish, Coles, JB Hi-Fi, Kmart, ABC Shop gift cards and many more

Movie tickets

Save on pre-purchased tickets at all major cinemas

Dining

Two for one deals and percentage discounts off your bill at hundreds of restaurants

Accommodation

Save up to 15% at thousands of hotels around the world

Magazine subscriptions

8% off already reduced subscription prices on over 2,500 titles

Online Shopping

Save 5% off online purchases from DealsDirect.com.au

Electronics & IT

Save hundreds off desktop computers and laptops from Dell, Lenovo and HP

Package tours

10% discount on over 1,000 tours worldwide

Car hire

Corporate rates and reduced excess on insurance in Australia and New Zealand

Lifestyle experiences and gifts

Discounts on Adrenalin and RedBalloon lifestyle experiences.

For more information: 1300 853 352 | memberadvantage.com.au/nteu

Contents 3

Advocate ISSN 1321-8476 Published by National Tertiary Education Union ABN 38 579 396 344 Publisher Grahame McCulloch Editor Jeannie Rea Production Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback, advertising and other enquiries: advocate@nteu.org.au All text and images © NTEU 2013 unless otherwise stated.

Australia deals the gender card Editorial, Jeannie Rea

p. 18

NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC 3205 1st floor, 120 Clarendon St, Sth Melbourne VIC phone (03) 9254 1910 fax (03) 9254 1915 email national@nteu.org.au Division Offices www.nteu.org.au/divisions Branch Offices www.nteu.org.au/branches

p. 22

UPDATE

Advocate is available online as a PDF at www.nteu.org.au/advocate and an e-book at www.issuu.com/nteu NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email rather than mailed printed copy). Details at www.nteu.org.au/softfdelivery

Cover image: Victorian Dumb Cuts rally at the State Library, 14 May 2013. Photo by Toby Cotton.

Award modernisation

ARC queried at Senate Estimates after release of NTEU ERA Report

NTEU defeats sub-standard Agreement at Swinburne College

Bargaining update & State of Play

TAFE down the privatisation road

Action hotting up

9 National stoppage planned over stalled Agreement negotiations 10 Deal to make 80 Monash IT staff redundant ‘stinks’ 11 Federal Court reinstates professor sacked in sham redundancy

Withholding results

18 Big investment in campaign for a smart vote NTEU will spend up to $1 million to defend higher education in this year’s Federal election.

13 Bluestocking Week: Holding the line

National Women’s Conference

INDIGENOUS NEWS 14 Whole-of-University Approach survey

Indigenous Forum 2013

15 Why some people are arguing that Recognition is Ridiculous

20 The cruellest cuts of all We analyse the budget cuts to higher education.

22 Campaign album Images from the Dumb Cuts campaign.

24 Vote smart. Vote for higher ed. Matthew McGowan outlines the Union’s plans for our Federal election campaign.

25 Comparing the parties’ policies Rating the main parties on a range of issues.

UNICASUAL NEWS 16 Tackling insecure employment 17 Brainstorm! What advice would you give your supervisors and colleagues?

Sydney Casuals Network gets flexible

COLUMNS 46 eLectioneering News from the Net, by Pat Wright 47 Budget fails science and research Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, Advocate is printed on Behaviour – a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, and ECF Certified Chlorine Free.

FEATURES

48 Racism in academic hiring Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn 49 A living wage Letter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, Lesley Francey, TEU

28 Hidden nasties Maurice Blackburn Lawyers highlight the unwelcome surprises in the Coalition’s IR plans.

Farewelling Tony Windsor

29 Voting for education & research CAPA’s election stance is focussed on postgrads.

30 Strained but not spooked NTEU’s National Teaching Conference: a stimulating meeting of experts on higher education learning and teaching.

32 The future of universities James Arvanitakis on what makes a good teacher, the role of universities, and Greek lamb.

p. 30

34 The NT Intervention – 6 years on Barbara Shaw tells how she and her family have survived under the NT Intervention.

36 Questioning civility in Australia Why does incivility continue to be a feature of Australian political life?

37 Don’t leave it to the managers Academic governance seems to have abandoned its original mission.

38 Building ‘Big Society’ in Australia Unions sound the alarm at the impact of cutting public services in seeking ‘Big Society’.

40 Canadian connection CAUT’s Aboriginal Member-at-Large Dan McDonald’s first visit to NTEU Indigenous Forum.

41 CARA turns 80 Assisting refugee academics since 1933.

42 Garment workers pay the ultimate price Over 1000 workers were killed when the Rana Plaza garment factory collapsed on 24 April.

43 Protecting global education & educators Organisations fighting for academic freedom.

44 Gezi Park protests resonate in Turkish academe Turkey’s unrest was over more than just trees.

p. 38

YOUR UNION 50 NTEU at 20: an unlikely union 51 Vale Paul Mees 52 Members running in the election 53 Tribute to Senator Trish Crossin 54 NSW delegates & activists e-news

Branch & delegate development

55 New staff in NTEU Offices

Updating your member information

Membership form NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1

Images from the Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts campaign. See more on p.22. Photos: Paul Clifton, Lachlan Hurse, Helena Spyrou, Kate Gale.

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

National President Vice-Presidents General Secretary National Asst Secretary

Industrial Unit Coordinator Linda Gale National Industrial Officers Wayne Cupido, Susan Kenna, Elizabeth McGrath

National Executive: Andrew Bonnell Gabe Gooding John Kenny Virginia Mansel Lees Jan Sinclair-Jones Michael Thomson

Jeannie Rea Kelvin Michael (Academic) Lynda Davies (General) Grahame McCulloch Matthew McGowan

Linda Cecere Stephen Darwin Ryan Hsu Genevieve Kelly Margaret Lee Colin Long Kevin Rouse John Sinclair Melissa Slee Lolita Wikander

Indigenous Member (IPC Chair) Terry Mason

Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officers Indigenous Coordinator Indigenous Organiser National Organiser Media Officer National Publications Coordinator Education & Training Officers National Membership Officer

page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Paul Kniest Jen Tsen Kwok, Terri MacDonald Adam Frogley Celeste Liddle Michael Evans Carmel Shute Paul Clifton Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou Melinda Valsorda

Executive Manager Peter Summers ICT Network Engineer Tam Vuong Database Programmer/Data Analyst Ray Hoo Payroll Officer Jo Riley Executive Officer (General Secretary) Anastasia Kotaidis Executive Officer (Administration) Tracey Coster Admin Officer (Membership & Campaigns) Julie Ann Veal Administrative Officer (Resources) Renee Veal Receptionist & Administrative Support Leanne Foote General Admin Support Officer Miin Yeo Finance Manager Glenn Osmand Senior Finance Officer Gracia Ho Finance Officers Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze, Lee Powell, Sonia Uthuppu, Daphne Zhang National Growth Organisers Gaurav Nanda, Rifai Abdul, Priya Nathan

Editorial Jeannie Rea, National President

Australia deals the gender card In her last speech as Prime Minister on 26 June 2013, Julia Gillard said ‘There has been a lot of analysis about the so called gender wars, me playing the gender card because heavens know no one noticed I was a woman until I raised it. But against that background, I do want to say about all of these issues, the reaction to being the first female Prime Minister does not explain everything about my prime ministership, nor does it explain nothing about my prime ministership.’ I woke up feeling rather sad on the morning of 27 June and as I made my way through the day, I found that women at work, on the train and in the shops, and on social media shared these feelings. Whatever we thought of Julia Gillard’s political performance as Prime Minister, I realised that we were mourning no longer having a woman Prime Minister. For three years, young girls grew up seeing a woman running the country. And a woman who is committed feminist. It is only as time passes that will we quite understand how meaningful and important this was.

we not have gender equity and men still win the game because they are men. Am I being too harsh on men? I do not think so. Was Julia Gillard treated too harshly politically and personally because she is a woman? I think so. This does not mean that she should be protected or absolved from criticism. It means that critique should not dwell on her gender, but should understand it did matter. Julia Gillard’s policy and political decisions that were contrary to her self proclaimed labour feminism are particularly disappointing, and galling to other labour feminists.

because she had no choice but to act in an environment where her sex and gender were always on the line. Two weeks before the Labor caucus decided to dump her and restore Rudd, we had experienced a woeful week of disrespect for the Prime Minister where not only had her body been the direct canvas for political and media opponents, Her internationally but the Socceroos acclaimed ‘misogyny speech’ coach had to make hit a nerve because what she a gratuitous sexist spoke of experiencing as the comment and anleader of the country was the other sex and sexism scandal in the ADF same sort of everyday casual was revealed. and pointed sexism with

which the rest of us women are familiar. And we expected that as Prime Minister she also deserved respect.

In her final speech, Julia Gillard went on to say, ‘What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier for the next woman and woman after that and the woman after that, and I’m proud of that’. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait too long for the next woman, but we may as the level of discomfort with a woman Prime Minister was extraordinary. Her internationally acclaimed ‘misogyny speech’ hit a nerve because what she spoke of experiencing as the leader of the country was the same sort of everyday casual and pointed sexism with which the rest of us women are familiar. And we expected that as Prime Minister she also deserved respect. It is very difficult to reflect upon and judge Gillard’s prime ministerial performance,

Australia was attracting international attention as a particularly backward society with poor attitudes to women. This is shameful when Australia has also been, at times, a world leader in advancing the status of women in public life. Breaking into the public sphere was the focus of Australian nineteenth century feminists – including the Bluestockings crashing through into our universities. Our foremothers also understood that women have to be out of the house and into the House. The first woman to run for a national parliament was an Australian. Earlier this year, the National Union of Students proclaimed that ‘our bluestockings are on the line’. This year’s NTEU Bluestocking Week slogan is ‘holding the line’ (see report, p.13). Jeannie Rea, National President jrea@nteu.org.au General Secretary Grahame McCulloch is on leave.

Within a few days, it seemed that we were back to business as usual. Men were again doing most of the talking in the media; there seemed to be a feeling of collective relief. No longer would the men have to worry about having the ‘gender card played’ against them. Because ‘playing the gender card’ in Australian colloquial usage is apparently about women pulling men up on sexist behaviour. The gender card is actually the one dealt against women as

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3

Update Award modernisation The Fair Work Commission’s two yearly review of the modern awards is nearly complete. The Commission must make sure the modern awards (as a whole) are operating without anomalies and are providing an effective safety net for workers.

Research Institutes case NTEU has just completed one major case in accordance with the review – our work to have staff in research institutes covered by the two higher education Awards. NTEU has said that: • The work performed by staff in research institutes is substantially the same as that performed by staff working in research in universities. • Research institutes supervise students, hold academic titles conferred by universities, conduct peer reviewed research, and are affiliated with universities. • Most of the Enterprise Agreements and previous Awards covering research institutes use the classification descriptors in the Academic Staff Award and/or the General Staff Award. These Awards and Agreements were made by consent. The last day of hearing for the NTEU case was 25 June. Senior Deputy President Smith of the Fair Work Commission will issue a decision in due course.

Employers fail to cut pay from Private Providers The only other outstanding matter under the review is a confused and failed attempt by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET), to cut pay for academic teachers working under the Educational Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award. The application affects staff in VET, higher education and English language teachers in private colleges. The key matter in the ACPET application involved cutting the preparation time under the Award from 3 hours to 1 hour for academic teachers – effectively cutting pay by two-thirds. The 3:1 hour ratio was based on sound argument and accepted when the Award was made in 2010; the employer groups provided no evidence as to why this should change. Though we are yet to get a decision, the Commissioner hearing the case has indicated it will not be successful.

ARC queried at Senate Estimates after release of NTEU ERA Report During a Senate Estimates hearing on 3 June 2013, both the Australian Greens and the Coalition directed questions to the Australian Research Council (ARC) about the impact of the ERA on university staff. This followed reports in both The Australian and New Matilda that highlighted game-playing by universities during the ERA assessment process, and the unfair and punitive use of ERA results in framing performance measures that punish ‘underperforming’ and early career staff. During the hearing, the ARC put on the public record that addressing the misuse of the ERA results was not their responsibility. Professor Aiden Byrne, ARC Chief Executive Officer stated, ‘If a particular university chooses not to do research in a particular area, I do not think it should be our role to tell them that they must do research in a particular area.’

Impact of ER A Research Assessment o n University Behaviour an d their Staff

Jen Tsen Kwok NTEU Nationa l Policy and Re search Unit April 2013

Full report avai Published by

lable online at

NTEU

www.erawatch .org.au ISBN 978-0-98 06500-6-8

Professor Byrne added, ‘We cannot control how the sector uses it. Once we put it out, we cannot control whether someone uses our assessment exercise in a rankings exercise.’ Of greater concern in terms of the misuse of the ERA results is the ARC’s position that universities ‘restructuring’ their research profile is a positive, even though the ERA results do not match the organisational structure of universities themselves. As Byrne stated, ‘Of course, institutions are using it in a positive way to decide what they are going do in terms of their research profile. They see that they are strong in one area or weak in another area so they take particular steps.’ The Labor Government also failed to assume responsibility on this matter. The NTEU sent a letter to relevant Ministers in May, calling for an independent review on the impact of ERA and the adaptive behaviour of universities on academic freedom and the character of Australia research. Correspondence from the then Minister for Research and Science, Don Farrell (20 June 2013) stated that the ARC ‘is seeking feedback from the sector in relation (to) a number of matters that relate to issues raised in the NTEU report’. There is nothing that publicly indicates this is the case. The Union released the Impact of ERA Research Assessment on University Behaviour and their Staff report in late April 2013. The report was the result of an exploratory, multi-method study conducted in 2012 with the support of the NTEU Victorian and ACT Divisions. It included a national survey of senior research administrators, focus groups, in-depth interviews, and a workshop in Melbourne with Early Career Researchers (ECR). The report is available on the ERA Watch website. Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer More information about the report is available on the ERA Watch website: www.erawatch.org.au A discussion paper about the assessment of research impact has been recently released. Submissions are due 16 August 2013.

Susan Kenna, Industrial Officer page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Update NTEU defeats substandard Agreement at Swinburne College An underhand attempt by Swinburne University to slash staff working conditions at its subsidiary, Swinburne College Pty Ltd, failed in the Fair Work Commission last month. Colin Long, the NTEU Victorian Division Secretary said that he hoped that the decision would serve as a warning to other universities not to pursue nonunion deals. ‘Bastard Boys has been playing on the ABC again recently. But has this dramatic recreation of the 1998 waterfront dispute been seen as a training video by Swinburne University management?’ Long asked. The waterfront dispute involved Patrick Stevedores using various nefarious means – including creating shell companies and training a replacement workforce in Dubai – to try to de-unionise the Australian waterfront and reduce terms and conditions.

Swinburne College, an arm of Swinburne University, provides Foundation Studies, Pathways, and English Language Intensive Courses for international students. Until January 2013, all Swinburne College staff worked under either the NTEU Swinburne Agreement or the Australian Education Union’s TAFE Agreement for Teachers. Earlier this year, Swinburne used its shell company, Swinburne College Pty Ltd, to employ four new staff members. ‘A completely new Agreement was ‘negotiated’ with these staff in short order – it took only 28 days, perhaps a record for a Collective Agreement in the Australian university sector! It appears Swinburne’s intention was to register this Agreement with the Fair Work Commission and then transfer most, if not all, Swinburne College staff to the shell company and new Agreement. ‘The problem was that this new Agreement included greatly reduced terms and conditions for staff. Sound familiar? Certainly Chris Corrigan and Peter Reith would be nodding with approval at this point.’ When the NTEU discovered what Swinburne was up to, it quickly headed to the Commission to object to the ‘Agreement’ ‘ being approved. ‘Then, on the night before the Commission hearing, Swinburne withdrew its application which had been signed by the Vice-Chancellor. It seems like it wasn’t prepared to be subjected to the public scrutiny that proceeding to a contested approval process would entail.’ The Commission subsequently ordered Swinburne to pay the Union’s legal costs of $33,655. ‘It’s a great win for the NTEU. We hope other universities will draw the obvious

conclusion. We will fight any and every attempt to use secret, non-union Agreements to subvert wages and conditions.’ Kamal Farouque, employment law principal at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which represented the NTEU at the Commission, said it was unprecedented for an employer to pay costs in this situation, and it only occurs when the Commission finds that the application made was made vexatiously or had no reasonable chance of success. ‘Swinburne was on shaky legal ground in seeking to have this sub-standard Agreement approved,’ Farouque said. ‘This scheme was devised to make an Agreement with four unrepresented staff to avoid bargaining with about 100 other employees and the Union. ‘This kind of chicanery is something I would expect to see in a dodgy small business operator trying to bypass the protections in the Fair Work Act, not a self-proclaimed internationally renowned higher education establishment like Swinburne.’ Josh Cullinan, NTEU Industrial Officer, said that the first that members knew of the secret Agreement was when it was lodged in the Commission. ‘We weren’t going to stand idly by and let wages be slashed and workloads massively increased,’ Cullinan said. ‘Whilst we forced the University to bin this attack on members, the man responsible has been promoted. Something’s rotten at Swinburne and we are determined to stop the rot. We call on the Vice-Chancellor to give a full explanation of how this has happened.’ Carmel Shute, NTEU Media Officer

NTEU Tax Guide 2013 is available now! Prepared for NTEU members by Teacher Tax.

E 20 AX GUID T U E T N

Download your copy at www.nteu.org.au/tax or your local Branch office.

/tax u.org.au www.nte

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5

Update Bargaining update

Many university managements have gone further, and are pushing outrageous cuts to procedural fairness, and want an open door on using short-term and casual appointments.

University managements are dragging their feet at bargaining tables around the country.

Members are taking industrial action at the following sites: Sydney, New England, Swinburne, RMIT, La Trobe, Victoria, Melbourne, Monash, Ballarat, Deakin, UTas and Howard Florey.

A few new Agreements have been finalised, but most employers are unwilling to address the reasonable NTEU claims for improved job security, manageable workloads, career path opportunities, increased levels of Indigenous employment and fair wages.

NTEU Special National Council, meeting in Canberra in June, resolved on ‘a vigorous industrial campaign’ to secure new Agreements on acceptable terms, including 24 hour stoppages at all protected action sites on 20 August (see report, p.9).

Industrial action is already underway at several Branches. Members at most Victorian campuses and JCU are currently banning the transmission of mid-year results. Sydney members have taken several full-day strikes, and a number of other Branches have imposed shorter stop-works and a variety of work bans (see report, p.8). With more Branches conducting protected action ballots, the level of action in support of new Collective Agreements is expected to intensify as second semester gets underway. www.universitybargaining.org.au

Round 6 Bargaining – State of Play July 2013 Status

Curtin

CQU

ECU

Approval Date by Nat’l Executive

27/11/12

18/06/13

Expiry Date

30/06/16

16%

16.99%

17.14%

16.99%

4.29%

4.25%

4.29%

4.25%

✔

n/a

✔

Enforceable classifications

✔

Staff development fund

✔

Mobility scheme

✔

✘

Internal advertising of positions

✔

✘

Employment strategy / targets

✔

Monitoring Committee

✔

SGC increases

✔

Removal of age-based limits

✔

Salary Increase (flat) Increase compounded Annual Expiry to expiry wage growth Payrise to payrise Casuals Scholarly Teaching Fellows Academic Workloads Hours-based cap on teaching General Staff Claims

Indigenous Employment

Superannuation

Notes and special features

Indigenous employment target and Monitoring Committee contained in MOU.

Indigenous employment target contained in MOU.

Industrial action

KEY: Claim achieved ✔ Claim rejected or stalled ✖ Claim under serious negotiation ? Claim largely settled with some detail in dispute ✔? page 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Update TAFE goes down the privatisation road Recent figures on Victorian TAFE enrolments confirm the NTEU’s worst fears. Following the $290m cuts to TAFE last year, student numbers are down and, for the first time ever, private providers are the single largest providers of Vocational and Education Training (VET) in Victoria. Dr Colin Long, NTEU Victorian Division Secretary, says that other states are also following Victoria down the privatisation road. ‘It’s not surprising that the Victorian Government released the figures on the last day of Parliament before the winter break to avoid having to answer questions’, Dr Long said. ‘Government-funded places in TAFE in Victoria have dived by 21,000 or 7%, with student numbers overall down by 9%. Apprenticeship enrolments have declined by 7%, traineeships by 23%. ‘As the NTEU also predicted, the TAFE cuts have hit disadvantaged students the hardest with an 18% cut in students aged 15-19, an 18% drop in early school leavers, and an 11% drop in students from non-English speaking backgrounds. The most dramatic declines are in regional areas,’ Dr Long said. ‘Courses such as agriculture, hospitality, business studies and tourism – where there is a demonstrable skills shortage – have been chopped. There’s also been a 17% drop in students starting higher level courses such as diplomas. ‘Premier Napthine has the hide to say that the Victorian Government is ‘proud’ of its reforms to TAFE. Obviously, he hasn’t even bothered to speak to people in his own electorate where South West TAFE has sacked over 50 staff and culled 30 courses. The Warrnambool community stands to lose $28m over four years from the TAFE cuts.’ It has also been revealed half of the $200m for TAFE ‘structural reforms’, announced when Napthine assumed the premiership,

is in fact reallocated funding. The financial position of TAFE colleges has declined, according to the Auditor-General’s report released in May. Some TAFEs teeter on the edge of sustainability.

now retaining the National Institute of Circus Arts but whether it plans to sell the campus itself is unknown.’

Swinburne University’s TAFE campus at Lilydale, on the eastern edge of Melbourne, closed on 1 July.

In Queensland, the Newman Government is closing and selling 13 of its 82 TAFEs. As from 1 July, TAFE facilities were being transferred to a new entity which will provide access for public training facilities for private providers, as well as public TAFE institutes.

‘It appears that Yarra Ranges Council has been in secret negotiations with Swinburne and local Liberal politicians to shut the campus and possibly buy at least part of it. ‘In an astounding admission, the Yarra Ranges Council management executive had even started to seek planning permission from the Minister for Planning to rezone the Swinburne University site away from education. Long said that the NTEU and the local community were campaigning to have the site rezoned for educational purposes. ‘Meanwhile, the fate of Swinburne’s Prahran campus, the home of its creative arts programs in TAFE and the university, remains unclear. Swinburne now says it’s

Queensland copies Victoria

Queensland will also phase in contestability of funding from 1 July, with an initial ‘contestable funding pool’ established through $21 million from National Partnership Agreement funds (new Commonwealth money) and a matching $21 million State VET Revenue General (existing state money) contribution. It plans to introduce full contestability on 1 July 2014. In NSW, where TAFE is reeling under the loss of $80m and 800 jobs, the Government is threatening further cuts to help fund its share of the Gonski reforms.

Image: Carmel Shute

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7

Update Action hotting up Nationally, industrial action in support of bargaining claims is hotting up. Let them eat cake The University of Sydney Branch, which so far has taken five days’ strike action, is geared up for a 48-hour strike from 7–8 August and, if necessary, a community rally at the official university Open Day on Saturday 31 August. Branch President Michael Thomson said that Sydney University management had offered a 2.9% p.a. rise for three years over a four-year span. ‘This equates to 2.1% over four years. Management admits that the cost of living index is 2.8% p.a. in Sydney so effectively it is offering us a wage cut. The offer is even more paltry when you consider the massive salaries of senior management and the University’s sizeable bank balance,’ he said. ‘You have to laugh sometimes, though! In recent negotiations, the Provost asserted with Alice-in-Wonderland logic that the University’s $137 million surplus reported by the NSW Auditor General was in reality a $46 million deficit. It doesn’t seem to have put the dampener on the Vice-Chancellor’s and Deputy Vice-Chancellors’ salaries, however.’ On 1 July, members rallied outside the Senate declaring ‘Let them Eat Cake’. Protesters brought along a cake and their own Marie Antoinette to add to the drama (see photo, above right).

Results bans A number of Branches have imposed bans on the transmission of student results

– Swinburne, RMIT, Deakin, La Trobe, Victoria, Monash, Ballarat, Adelaide, James Cook and Tasmania. The bans have attracted some flak from students, especially at RMIT where bans were originally limited to off-shore students in Singapore but now apply across the board. The Union lifted the majority of bans in early July. Meanwhile, at the University of Tasmania management is threatening to stand down staff for participating in work bans such as not responding to emails. This is on a par with Qantas locking out pilots for wearing red carnations during its 2011 pay dispute! Short stoppages have also been held at Swinburne, Deakin, Melbourne, Tasmania and New England. A variety of bans from not undertaking staff appraisals to travelling between campuses are in force.

Marblegate? Accelerating senior staff salaries have been a sore issue at JCU where Vice-Chancellor (and also Chair of Universities Australia), Professor Sandra Harding, received a 27% salary increase in 2012, with her salary rising to $777,000. ‘Though Professor Harding’s salary is yet to approach the $1 million mark like VCs at the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne, staff are naturally affronted when she offers a 2.6% pay rise from 1 June and a further 0.4% if ‘certain conditions’, such as cuts to penalty rates for the lowest paid staff in the university, are met,’ JCU Branch President, Dr Jan Wegner, said. ‘An offer of 2.6% is not enough. Nor is 3%. Everyone in North Queensland knows that means a pay cut in real terms,’ Dr Wegner said. ‘JCU management says it simply can’t find any more money for salaries but it’s pretty clear where the money is going – new projects and new buildings, new signage, even a new set of marble pillars at the entrances to the Townsville and Cairns campuses at the cost of $330,000.

page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

‘JCU can find money for those things or the 11% salary increase for senior executives at the University last year. Why are people in management receiving bonuses if JCU is in such dire financial straits that it can’t give other staff a decent raise?’

‘Believing’ at the University of Melbourne At a stop work rally in late May at the University of Melbourne, hundreds of staff held placards which sent up the University’s latest fundraising campaign, ‘Believe’. Some of the signs included ‘I believe a great University values its staff’ and ‘I believe that I’ve lost faith in the University to negotiate fairly’. Afterwards, the placards were planted in the lawn directly opposite the Raymond Priestley building (see photo, below), which houses a number of senior management staff, to stand as a silent reminder of what’s at stake.

Millionaire bosses at Deakin On 1 July, the NTEU Branch at Deakin University rejected a wage offer of 3% a year over 4 years.

Update ‘Staff are not about to get excited just because the Vice-Chancellor has opened her purse and rattled a few coins,’ said Dr Colin Long, NTEU Victorian Division Secretary. An analysis of Deakin’s annual reports by the NTEU reveals a university with extremely strong income, profits and operating cash flows, and high holdings of cash and investments. ‘The University recorded a 2012 surplus of $108.9 million,’ Dr Long said. ‘The University’s holdings of cash and investments were at a record level of $337.7 million at the end of 2012. The Deakin Vice-Chancellor pockets $750,000, a quarter of a million dollars more than the salary of the Australian Prime Minister. The top ten earners at Deakin reward themselves with salaries totalling $4.1 million. ‘These are the people who think a 3% salary offer to the average Deakin worker is generous because it is 0.1% higher than public sector increases.’ Dr Long said, ‘The average Deakin worker is angry that the hard work they put in every day is somehow lost in the minds of the millionaire bosses’.

Going slow in Morwell Some Branches have come up with creative means of getting their messages across. Members at Monash University’s Churchill campus were so fed up with management walking away from negotiations they staged a ‘Go Slow to Work’ convoy to protest. Disgruntled staff gathered at a shopping centre car park in Morwell on 27 June before driving off in the fog at a slow pace in suitably adorned cars out to Churchill campus. NTEU delegate, Marion Slawson, said that negotiations started back in August, but despite more than 20 meetings, management had not moved on the key items in the NTEU’s log of claims. ‘We’re only doing 38 kmh, but we were still moving significantly faster than management in EBA negotiations!’, Slawson said. ‘With Monash having decided to ‘give’ the Churchill campus to the University of Ballarat, finalising an Enterprise Agreement now is even more critical for NTEU members at Churchill, as whatever Agreement that is in place on 1 January 2014 will cover our conditions of employment when we transfer.’ Another delegate, Anne Lorraine, said that Monash management had also attacked two Gippsland-specific conditions prior to negotiations stalling – rostered days off and free parking. ‘Monash is attempting to get rid of the rostered day off arrangements for general staff. It is a family-friendly provision that costs the University nothing, because we

National stoppage planned over stalled Collective Agreement negotiations Nationwide stoppages being planned for Tuesday 20 August will press the case for faster progress in enterprise bargaining across the country. Stoppages involving Branches able to take protected industrial action, will coincide with community protests calling for increases in higher education funding. Given the sacrifices our members are making to maintain high standards in the sector, management needs to be sent a strong signal. The time has come to tell management that we expect better of them,. The Union is also pressing for improvements on Indigenous targets, workload regulation and reduced casual employment. Delegate after delegate at the recent NTEU National Council in Canberra expressed their frustration at the absence of serious pay offers from most employers. In those cases where employers have made offers, they are often below inflation and take no account of the ongoing productivity gains in the sector. Our members deserve better. Just released Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations data shows that wage rises in public

work additional hours each day to make up for the rostered day off,’ she said. ‘It also means Monash is able to offer extended hours for some services to students. Our supervisor members reported last year that rostered days off minimised unplanned absences. Management is being pigheaded on this issue and has already withdrawn rostered days off for many staff.’ Lorraine said that Monash also wants to abolish free parking for staff, to bring the Churchill campus in line with other

sector Agreements increased by 3.9% a year in the public sector in the March quarter, up from 3.3% the previous quarter, with wage rises of 3.7% a year in private sector Enterprise Agreements, up from 3.4% in the previous quarter. This shows our claims are more than reasonable. The Government’s decision to cut grants by 3.25% in the middle of the Union’s current bargaining round and on the eve of the Federal election has not assisted the negotiation process. Despite early indications of a possible reversal of the cuts by the new Minister, no change has yet been announced. If there is a shift in government policy, we would expect to see a swift change in management attitudes at the bargaining table. If managements fail to respond appropriately, staff will have every right to hold them to account. Matt McGowan, National Assistant Secretary

Monash campuses. ‘On the face of it, this might appear reasonable but other campuses have access to much more frequent public transport services and there is no shortage of parking space here at Churchill. We’re also concerned that staff having to pay for parking will soon be followed by students having to pay. With the massive cuts to student support, students can ill afford another financial impost.’ Carmel Shute, NTEU Media Officer

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9

Update Deal to make 80 Monash IT staff redundant ‘stinks’ Monash University is pressing ahead with its plans to cut around 80 positions in eSolutions, its information communications and technology department, which currently employs 800 staff. The latest cuts follow on from ones made late last year, and are the advance guard of even more cuts under a bizarrely entitled program called ‘Professional Strengthening’. NTEU Branch Industrial Organiser, Liz Schroeder, said that Monash had added a $10,000 sweetener to the standard voluntary departure package. ‘However, even with that sweetener, the whole thing stinks’, she said. ‘Monash management failed to properly consult the Union prior to the official announcement on 23 April. Its proposal is full of holes and, most importantly, the redundancies aren’t genuine. Monash is already advertising for IT positions which bear an uncanny resemblance to the ones they’re trying to abolish. Also, it’s an amazing act of sophistry, it says the voluntary departure packages don’t constitute redundancies!’ Schroeder said that getting rid of so many staff will diminish the vital IT services that 70,000 staff and students depend on. ‘These are the people who look after the email and internet system, AV mainte-

nance in lecture theatres and the electronic lodgement of assignments. Management’s ‘consultation paper’ is littered with errors and misconceptions, claiming for example, that workloads have dropped in a number of areas and that work has concluded in others while members advise that this is definitely not the case.’ Schroeder said that in one area where staff cuts are proposed, management claims that the outsourcing of work has meant the staff who performed that work are no longer required. ‘In fact members tell us they’re busier than ever – working well in excess of paid hours to ensure the image and reputation of the University are protected from the errors made by the company engaged to take over the work because of their supposed expertise,’ she said. ‘Management claims that staff consultation has been significant but feedback from members confirms that management only ever considers responses that are consistent with their own views. Members also resent being asked to provide information, which they have done so in good faith, only to find the information provided has been used selectively in determining which jobs will be targeted.’ In one area, Schroeder said, members understood the information was being provided to rectify an under-classification of positions that had been evident for the past two years but now find that, under the proposal, their jobs are slated to go. ‘Understandably, they question management’s integrity! The proposed structure for this particular area has six supervisors to manage only eight staff. We’re left wondering whether the staff are particularly naughty or the supervisors extraordinarily inept. In an area where staff are already overworked, this ‘too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ structure does not auger well. This area’s proposed organisational chart, which shows which ICT positions would service what areas, manages to leave out an entire faculty!’

page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Amongst management’s claims is that a performance appraisal process called ‘I Contribute’ has improved efficiency and thus fewer staff are needed. ‘As the process has only been implemented since the beginning of this year, it’s hard to envisage it having saved any staff at this point at all. And its value as a tool for Monash University staff seems to be in question, since almost all the staff who received an ‘I Contribute’ Award at the inaugural awards presentation seem now to have either already left the University or be amongst those targeted for a voluntary separation package,’ Schroeder said. ‘While members have acknowledged that there has been an increase in flexibility with staff being able to be deployed to different projects as the need arises, the overall impact on workload is relatively minor and certainly nothing of the magnitude claimed in the management’s proposal. The overwhelming view of members is that there is little justification for reducing staff numbers because there is no reduction in workload in almost every area where staff cuts are proposed. ‘The proposed cuts are thus sham redundancies and the Union may well end up taking the matter to the Fair Work Commission. Public money should not be squandered on making people redundant. Taxpayers have a perfectly reasonable expectation that money provided to universities will be used for quality education, not payouts to staff whose work still needs to be done.’ Monash stands to lose an estimated $48 million through the Federal Government funding cut but stresses that the budget shortfall has not prompted the cuts. Rather it claims the cuts are justified as a result of the centralisation of services. The NTEU has conveyed its views to Monash management and awaits a response. A third tranche of cuts is mooted for later this year. www.nteu.org.au/monash

Update Federal Court reinstates professor sacked in sham redundancy In May, the Federal Court ordered the reinstatement of Professor Judith Bessant at RMIT University in Melbourne – a judgement that the NTEU welcomed as a warning to all employers not to use sham redundancies to get rid of staff where the real reasons would be prohibited by the Fair Work Act. RMIT claimed to the Federal Court that Professor Bessant, a professor of youth studies and sociology, was redundant on financial grounds. But on 16 May Justice Peter Gray found that her sacking in April last year was motivated by the fact that the professor had made complaints and lodged grievances about her workplace rights, including complaints of bullying. NTEU Victorian Division Secretary, Dr Colin Long, said that the judgement provided a telling insight into the management culture of Australian universities. ‘Although this case involved RMIT, the approach taken by the University to getting rid of someone who is prepared to speak out will be all too familiar to university staff across Australia,’ he said. ‘The use of sham redundancies is unfair to thousands of academic and general staff who lose their jobs for no good reason. Higher education is an expanding sector and already has one of the most ‘flexible’ workforces of any industry, with twothirds of staff now on short term contracts. ‘Despite this, university managements waste perhaps $50 million each year making staff ‘redundant’ when they are not. The constant threat of these arbitrary ‘redundancies’ directly undermines academic freedom and the morale of those who remain,’ he said. ‘Understandably, most staff in this position ‘take the money and run’. It is to Professor Bessant’s great credit that she was willing to go all the way and successfully contest a sham redundancy and get her job back.’ The Federal Court recognised that compensation could have been ‘significantly in excess of $1,000,000’ but at all times Professor Bessant wanted reinstatement

university managements, aimed at silencing dissenters and backing bad decisions. ‘The issues raised in the court were repeatedly raised by Professor Bessant and by the NTEU before she was sacked but RMIT refused to listen. It is a sorry day when we have to come to the Federal Court to get a university to abide by its own Agreement and the Fair Work Act,’ Dr Long said.

despite the personal trauma she experienced.

Professor Bessant was subject to a series of arbitrary changes by RMIT that started in late 2009 with removing her from a leadership role and ended up with her dismissal. The judgment confirms that RMIT acted against the law in a way that has harmed Professor Bessant deeply.

Justice Gray found that the dismissal was a ‘very serious’ contravention of the Fair Work Act and that the breach of the Collective Agreement was also ‘serious’. In his decision he said ‘Employers must understand that making use of redundancy as a pretext for getting rid of an undesired employee is not an option ... [and] that obligations entered into pursuant to enterprise bargaining agreements ... are real and substantive obligations, and must be met.’ (Paragraph 144)

In March 2010, when Professor Bessant was told by email that she had been rolled as head of youth work, she was so shocked she fainted, struck a chair and knocked out a tooth. Worse was to come.

The Court fined RMIT $37,000 for taking unlawful ‘adverse action’ against Professor Bessant and for breaching the redeployment provisions of the Collective Agreement.

Justice Gray’s decision states, ‘By this judgement, she will be vindicated.’

Dr Long said that the decision also reflected the group-think prevalent in Australian

Withholding results Maximising impact on management, minimising impact on students The NTEU has designed our industrial action to try to maximise the impact on university managements while minimising the impact on students.

Professor Bessant said, ‘My academic work is very important to me and I now look forward to focusing my energies on getting to know my students again and making a contribution to the research profile of the University.’

Carmel Shute, NTEU Media Officer Full Federal Court decision: www.judgments.fedcourt.gov. au/judgments/Judgments/fca/ single/2013/2013fca0451

For example, when we have a ban on transmitting student results to the university administration, we always provide a system whereby students who actually need their results by a particular deadline for a significant reason can obtain an exemption and have their results released. For most students, therefore, there will simply be some frustration and irritation at the delay in receiving their results. The results will eventually be released, and this will happen sooner if the senior management at the university put in the effort to negotiate an Agreement with the NTEU. Every Branch that has imposed withholding results bans has set in place mechanisms for students to apply for exemptions so as to avoid hardship. Any students who are affected by a results ban, and have good cause to apply for an exemption, should visit their local NTEU Branch office (location details are available via Branch websites). www.nteu.org.au/branches

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11

Holding the Line! Celebrating womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in higher education. For the latest information on events at your campus, please visit

www.nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek

Update Bluestocking Week 2013: Holding the line The theme for Bluestocking Week 2013 (12–16 August) is ‘holding the line’, as we face, in Australian public life, a swirl of resistance to women’s rights to gender equity, where we are mocked for ‘playing the gender card’ as though this is mere invention to get advantage or ‘whinge’ about ongoing sexism.

and paths to promotion and decision making power are still gendered. Women constitute the majority of casualised academics, but only a quarter of the professoriate, make up most of the lower level general staff without adequate opportunities for career advancement, and students are still sharply concentrated in traditional gendered disciplines and courses. Women graduates still earn less than their male counterparts, and are more likely to be in insecure jobs. NUS has to keep agitating about the lack of physical safety on campuses. Bluestocking Week is named for the pioneering women of the 19th century who grabbed the term, which was meant to be a derogatory dismissal of their achievements, and proudly wore the badge (and stockings) of serious scholarship. See www.nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek and the 2012 edition of Agenda for the origins and histories of the Bluestockings.

The National Union of Students (NUS) themed their Bluestocking Week, held earlier this year*, ‘Our blue stockings are on the line’. With a graphic of a woman stepping gingerly along a clothes line, NUS Women’s Department is clearly saying that younger women are not as confident as they should be that their sex and gender will not be used against them.

Last year when NTEU and NUS relaunched Bluestocking Week and organised events on campuses around the country, we created physical space and time to speak out against sexism. The feedback was very positive as women (and men) learned that their scepticism about the rhetoric of gender equity was justified and that in reality we have a long way to go.

We focussed last year upon celebrating the success of women in higher education drawing upon the history of women’s determined struggle for participation in universities as students and staff, as well as upon challenging gendered discrimination in the construction and transmission of knowledge. We emphasised that women may now have the numbers, as the majority of students and staff in universities, but we are still continually struggling against gendered segregation as a major obstacle to gender equity. Disciplines, occupations

Bluestocking Week is coordinated by the Women’s Action Committee which has representatives from each Division. Events are being organised at National, State and Branch levels. Contact your Branch to get involved and make suggestions. For more information and to keep up with what is being planned go to the website. Jeannie Rea, National President *In 2014 NUS will revert back to holding Bluestocking Week in August. www.nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek

National Women’s Conference This year’s biennial National Women’s Conference of delegates from NTEU Branches was held on 19–20 July in Melbourne. It focussed upon women in leadership – formal and informal - in higher education, in unions and in politics. The purpose was to consider and contest the constructions and values of leadership from feminist perspectives. While recognising women’s achievements in securing formal leadership positions, women leaders still face a very different experience to men and are judged differently (and more harshly). The conference drew upon the experience and expertise of feminist academics, politicians and union leaders, as well as that of all participants. It was recognised that feminist critiques also draw attention to the more complex and nuanced ways that women exercise formal and informal leadership and advocate more holistic and transformative approaches. Workshops focussed upon further developing delegates individual and collective capacity to ensure that gender analyses are not neglected in enterprising bargaining, recruiting, organising and campaigning. Activity focussed workshops included organising against casualisation and for secure jobs in universities with Sydney University Casuals Network passing on their clever and innovative yoga based action; educating and organising for safety at work (anti-bullying); strategies for an inclusive practice at work; media and communication skills; and even singing for strength and solidarity. The women’s conference was organised by the National Women’s Action Committee which has two representatives from each NTEU Division. www.nteu.org.au/women

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13

Indigenous News Whole-ofUniversity Approach survey The NTEU Indigenous Unit is keen to hear members’ thoughts about the recommended ‘Wholeof-University Approach’ to better Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander access and outcomes in higher education. The 2012 Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People made a number of Recommendations. These identify a number of priority areas that the Review panel believe will provide tangible and meaningful outcomes for Indigenous students and staff. Recommendation 10 from the Review states: ‘That universities adopt a whole-of-university approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student success so that faculties and mainstream support services have primary responsibility for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, backed up by Indigenous Education Units.’ On face value, this recommendation (if implemented according to the spirit in which it was made) would appear to provide a significant change to the current approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education; one that may deliver better outcomes for students and staff across the sector. Conversely, the NTEU Indigenous Unit have also been approached by a number of concerned members, indicating that a ‘Whole of University Approach’ could be interpreted by university management to erode, or even remove, the ability for Indigenous Education Units to provide appropriate academic and pastoral support for students by transferring those specific services to the universities’ wider student support services. There is also no clear indication about how this recommendation will impact upon current and future staff.

Forum 2013 The National Indigenous Forum was held on 23-24 May, and for the first time ever was moved from its usual venue in South Melbourne to the stunning Brambuk Cultural Centre in the Grampians. Set amongst some of the most beautiful natural bushlands in eastern Victoria, delegates and international guests were greeted by some of Gariwerd’s most famous residents – kangaroos, kookaburras and rock wallabies – on their arrival in Brambuk. After gathering around the Bora ring and receiving a Welcome to Country by Uncle Rooney Grambeau, the delegation of nearly 40 people moved into the Whale Room for the Forum. Over the next two days, delegates discussed issues around bargaining, cultural respect on campus, sovereignty versus cultural recognition, the cuts to university funding and what impact these will have on our staff and students, and a number of other workplace issues. Also for the first time ever, the NTEU was pleased to host representatives from New Zealand and Canada – Maori Officer Lee Cooper and Vice President Maori Hemi Houkemau from the NZ Tertiary Education Union (TEU), and ‘Aboriginal Member-at-Large’ Dan McDonald from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (see report, p.40). Delegates were able to gain perspective on issues facing Indigenous peoples in the sector across the Pacific region and draw parallels with the many struggles faced locally. A strong commitment between the various unions was made to continue sharing information and to examine

To ensure our members views on this important Recommendation are heard, NTEU has developed a private and confidential online survey seeking perspectives on how this recommendation may be implemented at different institutions. The survey will be open from 5pm, Friday 2 August. You will require your NTEU membership number to complete it (contact Adam or Celeste for assistance). www.nteu.org.au/indigenous/wousurvey page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

how we can best support each other as Indigenous unionists in working within higher education in the Pacific region. Delegates participated in the traditional ‘Yarn Session’: an opportunity for feedback on local issues at their respective institutions. A number of key themes that came out of this session were insecure work, cultural responsibility, racism and lateral violence, and ‘mainstreaming’ at the various units. It is clear that the specific issues affecting Indigenous staff are ongoing, and the sector is a long way from affording Indigenous staff the security and respect that they deserve whilst working at our institutions. National Assistant Secretary Matt McGowan gave an overview of the ‘Dumb Cuts’ campaign and analysis of the current state of play coming into the Federal election. The specific implications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff in the sector were discussed. Ken McAlpine presented an outline of the Round 6 bargaining strategy and tactics. As all delegates set to depart at the end of the second day, it was agreed that this year’s National Indigenous Forum was an empowering, supportive and productive two days of discussions, and that all felt invigorated by being in such amazing and culturally-inclusive surrounds. The Indigenous caucus is going to continue to investigate sites of cultural significance and their suitability as venues for our annual National Indigenous Forum, as it is important that the NTEU looks at continuing to work in an inclusive manner. The National Indigenous Unit thanks the delegates for attending, the NTEU staff for their support, and our International guests for their wonderful perspectives. We look forward to National Indigenous Forum 2014! Celeste Liddle, Indigenous Organiser

Indigenous news Why some people are arguing that Recognition is Ridiculous

Deliberation Australia has determined that almost all Aboriginal People want Sovereignty, Treaty, Land Rights and dedicated seats in Parliament.

There has been a growing discussion around the country concerning the cancelled referendum followed by the campaign mounted by the Government for Constitutional Recognition.

‘Recognition’ within the Constitution will potentially mean that Aboriginal people will be referred to as ‘original occupiers’ in this document. Additionally, this recognition will encompass certain Native Title rights as determined presently by law. ‘Original occupiers’ is not the same as being recognised as ‘Original Peoples’. Additionally, Native Title places Aboriginal land relationships within Western legal understandings of land ownership and is not rigorous. Native Title is not Land Rights, nor is it as detailed as the rights outlined within the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; for instance in the rights to land use and minerals. Aboriginal people have not marched for Native Title, but for Land Rights.

All the main political parties are currently supporting the proposal and the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is being paid by the Government to run an advertising campaign in support of Recognition. Various groups around the country have been allocated a portion of these campaign funds such as Recognise, You Me Unity and The Search Foundation. Many government and non-government organisations have stated their support, as has the ACTU. The basic proposals of Recognition include: • R ecognising Aboriginal Australians as ‘the first occupiers’. • Continuing relationship with traditional lands and waters. • Removal of laws based on race. • R ecognition of English as the national language with Aboriginal languages as part of the nation’s heritage. Much of the advertising material and the statements made in the media concentrate though about it being time to remove discrimination based on race as it is divisive, it being the right thing to do and it will facilitate Reconciliation. It is being put forward as a grass roots campaign that has had wide consultation. But many people are offended that the ‘Long Walk supporting Recognition’ with Michael Long was launched with representatives of all major parties on Sorry Day. Sorry Day is a genuine community and grass roots organisation recognising removals and previously non-political in nature. The National Congress Expert Panel stated that referendum success would depend on the support of the majority of Australians but note that the majority of Australians do not support Sovereignty and Treaty within the Constitution. In surveys, Issues

There has been no funding or media made available for any other case to be put before Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities or the wider Australian public.

In 1982, Canada recognised robust Land Rights. The same year that Australia began a ten year fight to deny them here and granted hundreds of illegal land leases in an attempt to later extinguish claims under the Native Title Acts. Those groups opposed state that before there is Constitutional Recognition, there must be negotiation of formal Treaties, Sovereignty and Land Rights that have been determined with rigorous rights as in countries such as Canada. Only then, they argue, can we negotiate Constitutional Recognition at the table as equals. The argument that if we get Constitutional Recognition we will have grounds to further explore Treaty, Sovereignty and Land Rights is difficult to maintain when the level of education of the issue in the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population was so low that the referendum was called off. The current campaign is still not dealing with the knowledge required for a reasoned vote. The Greens have policy that recognises: • Australia must comply with international agreements and laws that recognise the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples including the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. • R ight to redress and manage their land and waters. • A Treaty that recognises the prior occupation and sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Also in this issue of Advocate:

The NT Intervention – 6 years on Barbara Shaw, p.34

Indigenous Forum – Canadian Connection Dan McDonald, p.40

The NTEU Gubba Caucus produced a Ten Point Plan for a Post-Treaty Union that requires the Union to take steps to support Sovereignty, Self Determination and commits the NTEU to fostering these goals. The Greens need to examine their policy stance and consider supporting Treaty, Sovereignty, Self Determination and Land Rights before Constitutional Recognition. The NTEU needs to actively support this process of the grass roots Aboriginal population. Unless this is done, it would be analogous to the NTEU agreeing to broad concepts with management in Enterprise Bargaining with the detail and enforcement to be discussed later. This will affect all of us and we are not being given a full and balanced case to look at. There are some links below that give alternative views to the official Constitutional Recognition site. You may be interested to know that the Murrawarri People declared a Republic straddling the Queensland–NSW border in March and are applying to the UN for recognition. There has also been a meeting of concerned groups in Brisbane at the Murri School on the 22–23 June to prepare a National Movement. Terry Mason, Chair, NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee Original Sovereign Confederation originalsovereignconfederation.com Treaty Republic treatyrepublic.net Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy www.facebook.com/ BrisbaneSovereignEmbassyMusgravePark No to Constitutional Recognition www.facebook.com/ VotenoToConstitutionalChange Idle No More www.facebook.com/ IdleNoMoreCommunity First Nations Telegraph www.firstnationstelegraph.com National Unity Government nationalunitygovernment.org Murrawarri Republic kyliegibbon4.wix.com/murrawarrirepublic

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15

Casuals News Tackling insecure employment still a work in progress NTEU’s bargaining claims to address casual and contract employment through the creation of Scholarly Teaching Fellow positions (STFs) and Early Career Development Fellowships (ECDFs) are receiving a mixed response from universities during this bargaining round. Casualisation in bargaining While casualisation of the academic workforce is acknowledged by some employers as a serious issue, fixing the problem is caught between the current Labor Government’s view that it is up to universities to solve it, and universities blaming inadequate government funding for perpetuating the problem. New Agreements finalised so far at Curtin and Edith Cowan Universities have created new STF positions, while Central Queensland University – the only other finalised new Agreement – has very few casual employees. But the issue is a serious stumbling block for negotiations at many other sites. These latest initiatives are part of NTEU’s ongoing commitment to reduce insecure employment in higher education. During the last bargaining round this involved a range of claims for more adequate payment and resources for casual staff, which were substantially achieved. However, there have been some unintended consequences as a result, including some universities becoming reluctant to employ as many casual staff as previously, putting further pressure on the already huge workloads of many ongoing academic staff, or various courses simply dropping tutorials and other class contact activities. This has serious implications for the quality of education that students receive, not to mention the greater pressure put on many casual staff who are struggling to get enough work to make ends meet.

But while we are making inroads in higher education, unions in very few other sectors of the economy have made much headway. The ACTU’s Howe Inquiry into insecure employment in 2012 appeared to create a framework for unions to campaign around the issue while it was in the headlines, but there is little evidence of much movement. This is partly because there has been such strong employer resistance against moves to provide more secure employment, with major employer groups boycotting the Howe Inquiry and claiming that casual and contract employment gives employees greater ‘flexibility’ around working hours. While former Prime Minister Julia Gillard addressed the ACTU’s Community Summit on insecure employment in March, the Labor Government has shown only a lukewarm response to any positive initiatives.

Adam Bandt’s bill The Greens’ Federal MP Adam Bandt introduced a private member’s bill to amend the Fair Work Act in November 2012, seeking improvements for the thousands of Australian workers affected by insecure employment. The Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012 would provide a mechanism for workers employed as casuals or on fixed-term contracts to move to either full-time or part-time ongoing employment. Public hearings on the Bill occurred in May, but it had not been voted on by the end of this Parliament in June. And if Bandt fails to retain his seat at the election, it’s unlikely that the Bill would be taken up by either of the major parties.

New ACTU TV ads The ACTU has made insecure employment the centrepiece of its approach to the Federal election, with its first TV advertisements appearing during the Rugby League’s State of Origin series. Curiously, the ad doesn’t mention the ALP or the election, but urges viewers to join a union if they are concerned about their employment security.

Connect

VOLUME 3 No. 2 August 2010

VOLUME 3 No. 2

Watch all the TV ads online at the ACTU YouTube site:

August 2010

VOLUME 3 No. 2

www.youtube.com/user/yrawma

This has led to a 300% increase in people joining unions through the ACTU Contact Centre, a pleasing result, but one that indicates that job insecurity is rife in many industries. This is a potentially strong union campaign still waiting to happen.

VOLUME 3 No. 2 August 2010

Vol. 6 VOLUME No. 2 3

No.2013 2 June August 2010 AN NTEU & CAPA PUBLICATION

FOR CASUAL AND SESSIONAL

STAFF

Casualisation is ‘the dirty little secret of university expansion’

Academics address parliamentary

Michael Evans, National Organiser www.unicasual.org

August 2010

hearing

Strike a Pose!

Casuals aren’t just bending over

backwards

Supporting Swinburne Online learning and casual teaching What will be the impact of MOOCS?

Exploring an open future

The possibilities of open teaching and research

Read more in Connect, the NTEU and CAPA magazine for academic casuals www.unicasual.org.au/publications/connect

page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Why I’m A Member Kurt Iveson Precarious employment infographic

Unscrambling the facts and stats

read online at www.unicasual.or ISSN 1836-8522 (Print)/ISSN 1836-8530

g.au

(Online)

Casuals News Brainstorm! What advice would you give your supervisors and colleagues? Casual and sessional members, if you were actually asked, what would you advise your subject or course coordinator or Head of School to improve your working conditions? What would you put on a checklist for supervisors and sessionals to jointly check off to ensure that working conditions are being met – pay, payment for marking, other payment, facilities, access to professional development, tertiary teaching certificate, department meetings, travel between sites..? What would you like to ask of your colleagues – to be included in staff professional and social events, course team meetings, moderation and assessment panels, research groups, even a hello at the photocopier..? To make your suggestions, go to the website link below. Or contact NTEU National President Jeannie Rea directly at jrea@nteu.org.au. We will prepare an advice/checklist to give to supervisors and colleagues.

Flexibility. It’s more than bending over backwards. Sydney University Casuals’ Network has developed a yoga performance that highlights the difficulties of insecure work, with the tagline ‘Flexibility. It’s more than bending over backwards.’ Watch the video of the group performing their routine at the NTEU & NUS ‘Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts’ National Protest on 14 May 2013 in Victoria Park, Sydney. vimeo.com/nteutv/yogaaction Read more about this topic in the latest issue of Connect: www.unicasual.org.au/publications/ connect

Standing forward bend Represents the race-to-thebottom in our conditions.

Raised arms So we can reach for more qualifications, more experience, more publications, more hours, in search of stable work

Eagle pose Our arms and legs wrapped in knots, trying to meet the university’s constantly changing requirements.

Wheel pose Because casual staff are expected to bend over backwards.

One-legged tree pose Practice finding balance in a life of unstable work.

Chair pose A substitute for not having any office space.

Savasana - corpse pose Close our eyes. Play dead. This is what management wants us to do rather than fighting for a fair deal.

www.unicasual.org.au/ brainstorm

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17

NTEU 2013 Federal Election strategy

Photo: National Councillors gather out the front of Parliament House on 17 June to protest the university funding cuts. Photos Helena Spyrou

Big investment in campaign for a smart vote

On 18 June, a special meeting of the NTEU National Council made an historic decision voting to spend up to $1 million on a campaign to defend higher education in this year’s Federal election. This is a very significant decision and financial commitment and it was debated at length over the three day meeting of 120 Council delegates representing all Branches.

The Council resolved to campaign to: 1. Prevent a Coalition majority in the Senate by defending the Greens balance of power. 2. Secure the election of NTEU’s preferred Lower House candidates who support the Union’s higher education and industrial policies. 3. Enable NTEU members and activists to choose different methods of direct involvement in opposing the election of a Coalition Government, including the NTEU election campaign and relevant local campaigns run with the ACTU. This does not and will not involve any donations by the NTEU to political parties or candidates. The NTEU has never been affiliated to, or donated to, a political party.

Jeannie Rea National President

page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The decision to actively intervene in this election is, though, a departure from NTEU’s previous approach to elections where we have presented the various party positions, urging a vote for higher education which has, on balance, advocated a vote against the Coalition. The NTEU has also, at times, participated in targeted seat campaigns and ACTU campaigns – the most notable of these was the Your Rights at Work campaign in 2007. This year we are involved in the Secure Jobs campaign and have seconded a staff member to work with the ACTU on the public sector component of this campaign.

2012 National Council decision to focus on Senate When the NTEU National Council met in October last year, delegates deliberated upon the 2013 Federal election and recognised that the Coalition led by Tony Abbott had a good chance of forming government. On the basis of the Coalition’s track record, current policies and announcements, this was viewed by the Council as a potential disaster for higher education and for workers’ rights to organise and campaign. Council concluded that the NTEU should focus election campaigning on trying to prevent the Coalition also controlling the Senate. Between National Councils it is the responsibility of the National Executive to implement Council decisions. However, the seriousness of the political situation following the announcement on 13 April by the Labor Government of further cuts to high education propelled the National Executive to convene the first ever special meeting of the National Council, which made the above decision.

Balance of power in the Senate The decision to campaign to retain the Greens balance of power in the Senate is a very pragmatic one. The Greens have made higher education a top item on their election campaign agenda, which means that they have made a commitment for this election campaign and to follow through in Parliament regardless of which major party is in government. The Greens do have a reliable record as advocates for tertiary education and for students’ rights, and this is safer than supporting freewheeling Independents. The ALP cannot gain a majority in the Senate. On current projections, the Coalition is more likely to control the Senate either in its own right or with random right-wing small party or Independent support, which will harness them to policies which have no broad community support. For Labor, and even Coalition voters with an interest in higher education, the Greens holding the balance of power makes sense.

Labor’s betrayal on higher education For this election campaign the NTEU is building upon the momentum gained by the unprecedented public support for the Union’s campaign against the latest $2.3 billion cuts to universities and student support to advance our case for higher education as an election issue. We are determined to have the voice of the sector heard in the political life of this country. The decision of the Labor Government to make the latest cuts, on top of continuous cuts since 2011, totalling over $4 billion deeply rocked NTEU members and sup-

porters of universities and students. It was viewed as a betrayal of Labor’s commitment to higher education, which started in the halcyon days of investment in universities, abolition of tuition fees and the introduction of a tertiary living allowance by the Whitlam Labor Government. While free university education has gone, successive Labor governments have committed to increasing access and supporting quality teaching and research in universities. Julia Gillard as Education Minister in the first Rudd Government made grand promises, instituted the Bradley Review and then proceeded to talk big and make substantive budget promises. But almost immediately the cutbacks started. Opening up higher education through the uncapping of government supported places, increasing eligibility for student financial support, regional loadings and HEPP all fitted with a commitment to dramatically increasing the number and diversity of graduates. However, the refusal to address the base funding gap, the preparedness to sit by and do nothing as universities responded to funding deficiencies by continuing to exploit international students fees to subsidise local students and rapidly casualise teaching had already tested Labor supporters’ faith in the Government’s commitments. The Government just expected university staff to work harder, longer and more precariously. The new generation of students, many first in their family to go to university, have to manage in an environment of constant cutbacks in staff, courses and services. Labor’s determination to broaden the diversity of students has succeeded if measured by the significantly increased numbers eligible for the very tightly means tested Student Allowance. But what is the message to these students, if the Government introduces the Student Startup Scholarship recognising the costs of studying at university and then abolishes it with the offer of a further loan for poor students to increase their debt burden? But it was the decision to cut higher education to help fund the National Plan for School Improvement (Gonski reforms) that stunned everyone – even Mr Gonski. The very purpose of the new school funding

model is to put more teachers and support staff into schools to give all kids a better chance to succeed – and maybe go onto university, where we reluctantly have had to admit that the quality of education and student experience is in jeopardy. This Labor Government’s legacy may be many more students at university, but they struggle to stay and succeed because the costs of studying and living are so high and there is inadequate educational and broader support. Labor has taken their traditional supporters for granted and this is offensive. Labor policy should be determined by those who support traditional labour principles not swinging voters in key seats.

What can our campaign achieve? Making higher education a mainstream election issue is our aim. Retention of Greens balance of power in the Senate, preventing Coalition control of both Houses, is our objective. The NTEU’s campaign can send a message to Labor that university staff support cannot be taken for granted, and establish a university voice in the Lower House through the election of Andrew Wilkie or Anna Reynolds (following further advice from the Tasmanian Division) in Denison and Adam Bandt in Melbourne, noting that this does not assist the Coalition in any way. The NTEU University of New England Branch was also talking with Independent member for New England Tony Windsor, but he consequently announced his retirement (which also meant the end of the secondment of an NTEU staff member with the ACTU campaign in New England). The change of leadership provided an opportunity for the Labor Government to reverse the latest cuts to higher education and commit to a 10% increase in real funding per student and better student income support (and less debt). At the time of printing there had been no changes. Full text of the Council motion: www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/4053

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19

Cuts to higher education

Photo: Staff and students protesting the Gillard Government’s cuts to higher education, Melbourne, 14 May 2013. Photo Paul Clifton

The cruellest cuts of all On Saturday 13 April 2013, the then Minister for Tertiary Education, Dr Craig Emerson, released a Statement on Higher Education which said: ‘Today the Government announced savings in the higher education portfolio that will contribute to the funding of school education reforms designed to ensure that all Australian school children get a flying start in life.’

These budgetary savings, which add to a total $2.3 billion over four years (or $2.8 billion if you include the restrictions to self education tax dedications), comprise: • $900 million cut (described as an efficiency dividend) to university grants. • Savings of $1.2 billion by abolishing student start-up scholarships and replacing them with HECS type loans. • $ 230 million in savings by removing discounts for upfront or early repayment of HECS debts. The Government tried to sell these cuts as being nothing more than a slowing of the rate of the growth in university funding. The language used by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard at the time clearly indicated she expected universities and university students to be willing to make room for more important (higher priority) policies, including the funding of the National Plan for School Improvement (Gonski reforms) and Disability Care (the national disability insurance scheme). Chart 1 gives credence to the Government’s argument that the total level of spending on our universities has increased significantly and at a faster rate under the ALP than it did under the Coalition. It also shows that the impact of the efficiency dividend will not result in a reduction in total spending, but merely a slowdown in its rate of growth.

Paul Kniest NTEU Policy & Research Coordinator

page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

However, this does not take into account the entire picture. Importantly, Chart 1 also shows that when you adjust the total level of government expenditure to allow for rising costs (indexation) and increasing student load, then the real rate of growth per student has been very flat since 2007. It should be pointed out that the blips in funding per student between 2009 and 2012 are largely a result of the rolling in of once-off budgetary and/or policy changes – including transferring the funding for improved teacher education practicum payments into base grants, the transition to the demand driven funding system, a compositional shift to more expensive disciplines

by students and the bringing forward (and therefore a one-off double counting) of over enrolment payments in 2010.

20000

In other words, the real level of resources universities have had to educate each Commonwealth supported student does not reflect the recommendations of the Bradley and Base Funding Reviews, which both concluded the need for a significant (10%) increase in funding per student.

16000

While the rate of increase in funding per student over the last 4 years of the Coalition under Howard may at first glance appear significant, it was building from a very low base funding level, which had fallen as a result of more than a decade of cuts under the Coalition. It also has to be remembered that the subsequent increases in funding were made conditional on universities complying with the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and the National Governance Protocols, which saw both an unrivalled level of ministerial interference in university autonomy and academic freedom, as well as the foreshadowing of the Coalition’s doomed WorkChoice agenda. In addition, the April 2013 cuts must be seen in context in that they come on top of $2 billion cuts to higher education funding since January 2011, when universities contributed almost $400 million in savings to help pay for the Queensland floods. In each subsequent Budget and Mid Year Economic and Financial Outlook (MYEFO) since January 2011, higher education has been subject to budgetary savings measures, including: • Cuts to higher education performance funding ($95 million in May 2011, a further $241 million in November 2011 and $269 million in October 2012). • Reduced and ultimate abolition of discounts for students who repay HECS upfront or early ($230 million in May 2011). • Increased HECS fees to be paid by maths, statistics and science students by moving them from national priority

Chart 1: Commonwealth Grants (excluding Competitive Research Grants) and Student Contributions Australian Universities 2001 to 2017 ($m)

18000

Total Grants (without Efficiency Dividend)

14000 12000 10000

Coalition Labor

8000

4000

Student % (RHS)

Commonwealth(LHS)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: DIICCSRTE (2013) Estimates

rate to HECS Band 2 ($400 million in May 2012). Any analysis of the Budget finances would clearly show that higher education has contributed more than its share (compared to expenditure) to Budget savings over the last three years.

Impact of efficiency dividend cuts The $900 million efficiency dividend cuts apply to all university grants except for Australian Postgraduate Awards (APAs). These cuts will result in a loss over the next four years of: • $154 million in research and research support funding. • $ 24 million in student support and equity funding including Indigenous support funding. • $670 million in Commonwealth Grants Scheme, which is the funding universities receive to educate Commonwealth-supported students.

Total funding versus funding per student An analysis of the Government’s own projections of total funding (broken down

43.0%

Student (LHS) 42.5%

11,000

41.9%

42.2%

42.0%

42.0% 41.0%

41.1%

10,000

40.0% 9,000 39.0% 8,000

38.3%

38.0%

7,000 6,000

37.0%

2012

2013

2014

Total Grants (Adjusted for Indexation) Total Grants (Adjusted for Indexation & Student Load)

6000

Chart 2: Average Real Funding per Commonwealth Supported University Place 2012–2017 (2013 Values) 12,000

Total Grants (without Efficiency Dividend)

2015

2016

2017

36.0%

between government contributions and student contributions through HECS) for Commonwealth Supported Places in real (inflation adjusted) 2013 values is presented in Chart 2. The data in the chart demonstrates that the real level of direct Commonwealth funding per student falls from $10,900 per student in 2012 to $10,300 in 2015, before recovering to $10,500 by 2017. On average this represents a 5% decrease per student over the next four years. The only reason that total funding per student does not fall by the same order of magnitude is because of increased student contributions over the same period, where the average student contribution rises from about 38% in 2012 to more than 42% in 2015. The reason for this large increase in student contributions is due to increased HECS fees for maths and science students (as a consequence of no longer treating them as national priority places) and the fact that student contributions will rise by the full amount of indexation and not be discounted by 2% and 1.25% in savings that the Government has given to itself.

Impact on students and debt The real cruelty of cuts announced on 13 April, however, relate to the abolition of student start-up scholarships. These scholarships were grants of $2,000 per year to students in receipt of student income support, that is, the most financially disadvantaged students. This measure is estimated to save the Commonwealth $1.2 billion over four years. The scholarships will be replaced by loans, whereby students from low income backgrounds will be able to borrow the equivalent of the scholarships ($2,000 per year) and repay it through HECS. In other words, this will add anywhere between $6,000 to $12,000 to the HECS debt of the most disadvantaged students. This is unfair and cruel and will not help the Government meet its much lauded social inclusion agenda.

Source: DIICCSRTE (May 2013) Estimates

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21

Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts

Campaign album From the earliest rally in Perth, on 17 April, to the Day of Action on 12 May, NTEU members – with NUS, CAPA and students – came out in force to support our ‘Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts’ campaign. More photos in our flickr galleries: www.dumbcuts.org.au/resources/photos Perth

Sydney

Melbourne

page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Melbourne

Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts Brisbane

Adelaide

Newcastle

Canberra

Perth

Toowoomba

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23

Vote Smart

Vote for higher ed. The NTEU will be promoting an election campaign around the theme ‘Vote Smart, Vote Greens in the Senate’. This will be a highly targeted campaign designed to get the maximum impact for the funds applied. The campaign will include activities involving members who are keen to keep higher education in the public eye. It will include targeted television, billboard, online and other forms of paid advertising. While $1 million is a lot of money, when it is being spent on advertising it disappears very quickly. That is why the Union will be targeting our advertising to areas where it will make the most impact. Our analysis indicates that the States where there is the most likelihood of the NTEU influencing a battle for a Senate seat – and where the contests are likely to be between a candidate of the right and a Green – are in WA and SA. With the polls shifting so dramatically, the focus on SA and WA will continued to reviewed. But on this understanding, the majority of our paid media effort will likely be in those States. There will be some funds spent in the Lower House seats of Denison and Melbourne to support Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt, respectively, as key opponents of the recent cuts. The Union will have a significant online and social media presence through the campaign across the country to support and promote the work of our members on the ground.

Why target SA & WA? As most people understand, there are two houses of Parliament; the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate is known as the House of Review because most legislation originates in the House of Representatives and cannot be put into law until the Senate also agrees. A party that controls both houses of Parliament is able to pass legislation without

Want to assist the campaign? Over 300 members have already signed up to work on the NTEU’s election campaign. Our target is to involve over 2,000 members across the country. The NTEU’s election campaign will be a campaign designed to highlight higher education in the debates around the election, and will provide many opportunities for union and community members to get involved. It will be focused on three main objectives: 1. Highlighting issues affecting higher education, and in particular the current funding difficulties faced by our members in universities. 2. Seeking to ensure a Green balance of power in the Senate to prevent the possibility of a Coalition-controlled Senate. 3. Promoting a limited number of Lower House members who have demonstrated commitment to improved funding for the sector, and to a progressive industrial relations agenda The campaign will involve as many volunteers as can be mustered in our communities and in our universities

compromise or negotiation. There are six senators from each State up for election in 2013, plus two each from the ACT and NT. The process used to elect senators depends on the percentage of the vote they attract. With the exception of the Territories, a senator is elected when they get 14.3% of the vote. So, if a party attracts a 28.6% primary vote, they will elect two senators on their primary vote alone. It is often the case that one party or the other wins three seats in a given State on primary votes, with the other party winning two. The struggle for the last Senate seat is usually a battle for preferences. Based

page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

to promote the objectives of the campaign. There are many ways for our members to help out depending on your ability and interest. You can chose your level of involvement. Examples of things that you can volunteer for include: • Distributing campaign messages through your social media contacts. • Distributing materials to colleagues, friends and students. • Talking to students about enrolling to vote. • Having a student union representative come and speak to students about enrolling to vote. • Putting a corflute sign in your front yard or in your workplace • Being involved in a campaign committee in my city or region. • Helping to organise in an election event in on campus. • Participating in doorknocking of election material • Participating in letterboxing of election material. • Staffing a polling booth for a few hours on election day handing out NTEU how-to-vote materials. • Making a financial donation to help extend the range of the campaign. For info visit www.votesmart.org.au

on recent polls, it seems highly likely that the Coalition will election 3 senators in each State with the possible exception of SA and, on more recent polling, Victoria. In WA and SA, as a result of the expected voting patterns, it seems likely that the last place will be a contest between a candidate of the right and the Greens. It is on this basis that the NTEU is focusing its largest effort in these two States. If the election of sufficient Greens means the Coalition can be held to only 3 seats in each State, then no party will be able to use the Senate as a rubber stamp. Matt McGowan, National Assistant Secretary

Federal Election scorecard

Comparing the parties’ policies The lead-up to the 2013 Federal election has been marked with leadership uncertainty and the toppling of another sitting Prime Minister. The policy directions of the major parties are becoming moving targets in some key controversial areas including the $2.3 billion university cuts, the fixed carbon price, asylum seekers and potentially a reversal of policy to put single parents on Newstart allowances. Senator Kim Carr has returned to the education and research portfolios with enthusiasm and has anticipated policy changes, immediately noting the sector’s opposition to the $2.3 billion cuts announced back in April.

The Coalition released its ‘Real Solutions’ document in January 2013, which represents a thumbnail of policy ideas it would advance in government. The Coalition has not committed to reversing the $2.3 billion funding cuts, or even ruled out further cuts, and has avoided policy pronouncements in the health and education portfolios. If the Coalition perceives it has an election-winning lead, it may delay as long as possible – or even refrain from – issuing any detailed higher education policy. Though the Opposition Leader told the Universities Australia conference early this year that higher education policy could do with a period of ‘masterful inactivity’, it appears a Coalition Government would aggressively advance policy change, at least in relation to online learning, international education and research funding. The Australian Greens have responded to the $2.3 billion slashed from university funding by establishing the ‘Uni Cuts Hurt’ campaign, and committing to a number of positions on higher education including rejection of the funding cuts, a 10% increase in base funding per student, better student income support and measures to relieve student debt, and the protection of the rights of university workers. The 43rd Parliament was Australia’s first minority government since 194143. The passage of over 590 individual pieces of legislation during this period depended upon close working relationships between Labor, the Greens, and a number of key independents. Going into this election has seen the emergence of a number of minor parties that do not have a specific interest in higher education, including the Wikileaks Party, the Katter Australia Party and Palmer’s United Party. These can be added to the already established small parties – The Sex Party, Family First, CDP, various hunting/ fishing parties and others.

Four Independents voted to support Greens Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt’s motion against the university cuts in the House of Representatives on 20 June 2013: Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, Craig Thompson and Andrew Wilkie. The election campaign may bring greater clarity to the parties’ policies on issues relevant to NTEU members, and the policy positions listed on the scorecards following are based upon existing policies outlined by the Coalition and the Australian Greens, as well as Labor’s legislative and public record in the last three years, as of 12 July 2013. See overpage for our policy scorecard.

2013 is an Election Year

be Smart Enrol to Vote Today www.nteu.org.au/enroltovote

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25

Federal Election scorecard POLICIES

LNC GRN COMMENTS

ALP

$2.3 BILLION IN UNIVERSITY CUTS ✖ Increase funding per government supported student by 10% in line with the Base Funding Review (BFR)

–

✔

Coalition Labor has advised the sector that there will be no additional per student funding increase. The years. are silent on this issue. The Greens support a 10% increase in per student base funding over four

Reverse $900 million efficiency dividend to university funding

✖?

✖

✔

Restore Student Start-up Scholarships ($1.2 billion) and up-front payment of HECS ($300 million)

✖?

✖

✔

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY Maintain student demand-driven model

take In the June 2013 Senate Estimates, Labor stated that $2.3 billion of funding cuts are planned to on the changes be may there that are Minister new the from indications but 2014 January from effect cuts. funding cuts. The Coalition voted against a repeal of the cuts on 20 June. The Greens oppose the scholarIn the recent speculation, the new Minister has not indicated that Labor will reverse the cuts to opposing are Greens The cuts. these retain likely will Coalition The HECS. of payment ships and up-front them.

✖?

✔

✖

Maintain current ban on full fees for domestic students

✔

✖

✔

Support a national plan for investment in research

✔

✖

✔

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Commitment to reduce casualisation in Australian universities

✖

✔

Maintain a paid parental leave scheme

✔

Legally enforceable workplace flexibility for families

✔

✖

✔

Protect union rights

✔

✖

✔

STUDENTS AND INCOME SUPPORT ✔ Funding for independent student advocacy and representation

✖

✔

Maintain the real cap on HECS fees

✔

Increase student income support

✔

✔?

✔

Other Labor introduced the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and student on caps restoring considered now has Measures) Act in September 2011, but the new Minister and numbers. The Coalition has stated it supports the current system. The Greens reject demand-driven s. universitie for funding t-based entitlemen for Upon forming government, Labor reversed the Coalition’s policy that had allowed for full fee places Coalition The students. domestic for fees full oppose to continue domestic students. Labor and the Greens in 2010 and again in August 2012 stated it would reintroduce full fees for domestic students. in NoThe Government, with the Chief Scientist, published the National Research Investment Plan (NRIP) research national strategic a back to ns organisatio education vember 2012. In response to a call by higher called policy, the Coalition has committed to protecting only medical research funding. The Greens have for the Government to set a national target of 3% of GDP for research and development funding.

Labor has not responded to the ACTU’s Secure Work campaign. The Coalition is committed to greater employment ‘flexibility’. The Greens are committed to measures that reduce casualisation and increase job security. In November 2012, the Greens introduced legislation designed to allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for more secure working arrangements. weeks Labor introduced Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme on January 2011, with 18 levy on 1.5% a by paid Scheme Leave Parental Paid a paid at minimum wage. The Coalition is proposing paid at weeks 26 propose Greens The $150,000. to up salary full at paid income, taxable companies with the minimum wage, which could be topped up through bargaining. Labor, with the support of the Greens, passed the Fair Work Amendment Act in late June 2013, which by the includes extending the ‘right to request’ flexible work arrangements. The legislation was opposed right to Coalition and Senator Xenophon. In 2012, the Greens introduced a private members’ bill with a have the Fair Work Commission arbitrate if the employer refuses a request. nts The former Coalition Government introduced the Higher Education Workplace Relation Requireme returned Labor staff. university at targeted s WorkChoice of version y preliminar a were which (HEWRRs) have a significant number of union rights with the introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Greens , workplaces enter to unions of rights the including workers, committed to protect the rights of university action. strike in engage and organise members

The Coalition introduced voluntary student unionism (VSU) legislation in 2005, removing the funding with that supported independent student representation. This was partially restored by Labor in 2011 ns. The organisatio student by highlighted concerns the Student Services and Amenities Act, but with some rights. tion representa and advocacy student of Greens support the full restoration ns In response to the Base Funding Review, Labor stated it did not support increasing student contributio Greens The HECS. increase or places cap at that time. In August 2012, the Coalition stated it would not have a stated commitment to HECS reform to relieve the rising student debt burden. ged In 2010, Labor introduced changes that targeted student income support to the most disadvanta rural from students at targeted students. The National Party supports an expansion of income support Ababolish to d campaigne recently only have Coalition the and regional backgrounds, but groups within Allowance Youth increase to want Greens the and levels Newstart below remains study. Austudy support by $50. (See section on Student Start-up Scholarships for more.)

page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Federal Election scorecard

POLICIES

ALP

INDIGENOUS ISSUES Implement recommendations from the 2012 Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People (Behrendt Report) Mandate Indigenous employment targets tied to funding agreements for all universities

LNC GRN COMMENTS

Since Minister Chris Evans left office, there has been limited progress on the Behrendt Report’s findings. Even though Tony Abbott has declared Indigenous affairs will be a top priority under a Coalition Government, the Coalition has not released its detailed Indigenous Affairs policy. The Greens position on the Review is also unclear.

–

No parties have made a statement about this crucial area of higher education policy.

Overturn all aspects of the NT Intervention and restore the goal of true self-determination for Indigenous people

✖

✔

Repay ‘stolen wages’ to Indigenous workers and their families

The Coalition introduced the NT Intervention and this has been supported by Labor through the Stronger Futures legislation in 2011. The Greens are committed to repealing the Northern Territory Interventio n and Stronger Futures.

✖

✔

Ensure appropriate consultation with a view to negotiate and deliver true Sovereignty, a Treaty and self determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Labor removed its Stolen Wages policy from its national party platform in 2009. The Coalition is silent on this issue. The Greens are committed to compensating the Stolen Generations and have previously sought to establish a Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal.

✖

While all the major parties have made commitments to the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, none have done so in terms of the negotiation of a Treaty. Although the Greens have mentioned Sovereignty in their policy, it is in the framework of recognition within the Constitutio n as per the other two parties.

✔✖

✔

Marriage equality is part of Labor’s platform, and it has previously allowed a conscience vote on the issue. Coalition policy states that marriage be defined as being between a man and a woman, and party policy cannot be subject to a conscience vote. However, Tony Abbott has indicated that the party room of a future parliament could change that policy. Some Labor and Coalition Senators co-sponsor ed a marriage equality bill in 2012. The Greens support same sex marriage and have proposed private members bills on many occasions.

✖

✔

Labor’s policy on asylum seekers was changed as a result of the Houston Review. It involves the introduction of a ‘no advantage principle’ to ensure no benefit to asylum seekers who arrive by boat, and the reopening of Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. Both Labor and the Coalition supported the excision of the mainland from the migration zone, which now denies the application of the Refugee Convention to asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Both Labor and the Coalition have rejected bids to open offshore centres to inspection by Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, and blocked attempts to give Australian media the same access it has to mainland detention centres. The Greens want offshore processing stopped.

HUMAN / CIVIL RIGHTS Recognition for same sex marriage

Oppose mandatory detention of asylum seekers

CLIMATE CHANGE / SUSTAINABILITY Price on pollution (carbon price)

✔

✖

✔

Reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020

In 2012, Labor legislated a price on carbon with the Greens’ support. The Coalition intends to repeal any scheme within six months of winning office, and implement a Direct Action Plan that will depend upon planting soil carbons. As of 15 July 2013, Labor has removed the fixed price on carbon and moved to fast track a floating carbon price.

✖

✔

Labor and the Coalition share a target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% compared to 2000 levels by 2020. The Greens are pushing for a 90% renewable energy target by 2030.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27

Coalition’s IR plans

Hidden nasties In hiding for so long, the Coalition has finally released its industrial relations policy. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers highlight some of the hidden nasty surprises. Enterprise Agreements The Coalition plans to change the landscape of enterprise bargaining and tilt it in favour of employers by: • Making it clear that industrial action can only take place after there have been genuine discussions about the proposed Agreement (the policy is silent on what happens when an employer refuses to bargain). • Requiring that the parties, during enterprise bargaining, discuss ways to improve productivity. Agreement does not have to be reached on what is to be done about improving productivity but the fact that the Coalition has decided to take a seat at the bargaining table and tell the parties what they must discuss is concerning. • The Fair Work Commission will be required to determine that claims made by a Union are ‘realistic and sensible’. What this actually means is not defined.

It does however allow the Commission to make a judgment on the claims being pursued by Unions when this should be a matter solely for the Union and its members.

Bullying The Coalition plans to hobble Labor’s system of dealing with the blight of bullying in the workplace, which came into effect on 1 June 2013. The Coalition plans to require those subject to bullying to lodge their complaint with a regulatory agency first prior to accessing the Fair Work jurisdiction. This will no doubt cause further delay and deny bullied employees the relief that they so desperately need. The bullying laws will also be extended to apply to trade union officials and their conduct towards managers, employers and other workers.

Productivity Commission review Too scared to reveal the full extent of their attack on workers’ rights in this country, the Coalition plans to ask the Productivity Commission to review the Fair Work Act and report on:

The Coalition will no doubt stack the terms of reference to ensure that it gets the result that it wants.

Right of Entry The Coalition has made it clear that they intend to wind back right of entry access for Union officials. Unions will be able to seek access to a workplace if: • The Union is covered by an Enterprise Agreement that applies to the workplace. • The Union is a bargaining representative that is seeking to make an Agreement to apply to the workplace. • There is evidence that it has members who have requested their presence. If a Union wishes to enter a workplace which is covered by a modern award, or, an enterprise agreement that does not cover that Union, access will only be allowed if: • The Union can demonstrate that they have, or had, a lawful representative role in that workplace. • There is evidence that the workers or members have requested the presence of the Union.

• What impact the laws have had on productivity.

What ‘evidence’ will be required to support an entry to a workplace is unclear.

• What ways the law could be changed to improve jobs, wages, and make workplaces work better.

This article first appeared in Maurice Blackburn’s Employment & Industrial law news. Reprinted with permission.

Farewelling Tony Windsor The 43rd Parliament, the first hung parliament in 70 years, afforded Australians the opportunity to come to know Tony Windsor. Tony was the unassuming Independent who had been in public life since his 1991

page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

entry into the NSW Legislative Assembly and his 2001 move to the federal scene when he took the seat of New England from the National Party. It would be trite to say that Windsor is old-style Country Party. There’s some truth to that, but his politics had a broader reach and a deeper intellectual draw. Over the more than two decades of Windsor’s contribution to public life, neoliberalism, or ‘economic rationalism’ as it was commonly termed, has been ascendant, and in few places more so than the university sector. In some ways it might be said that the most effective voice against neoliberalism has been the conservative one – con-

Postgraduates

Voting for education and research The 2013 Federal election won’t be about higher education and research in the mainstream media, or within the major parties. But it should be. With the return of Kim Carr as Minister for Innovation, Higher Education and Research in recent weeks, there has been some renewed hope within the sector that the channels of conversation will be reopened and that higher education will be restored as an important part of the Government’s policy agenda. But none of us is in any doubt that we have a fight on our hands this election campaign. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) agrees with the NTEU that the focus this campaign must be on the Senate, where ensuring that checks and balances are maintained must be our priority. Students hold grave concerns that a Coalition-controlled House and Senate would result in the same slash and burn approach we saw under Howard – a roll-back of the Student Services and Amenities Fee, which has sustained so

many student associations; more cuts to higher education and research; and deregulation. At a recent meeting of the CAPA Executive and key affiliates, we locked down our key higher education and research policy priorities for the upcoming campaign. They are: • Putting a face on the Student Services and Amenities Fee • R estoring funds recently cut from higher education and research, and a commitment to increase funding by 10% as per the Bradley Review. • D emonstrating what casualisation means for postgraduates. • A n e-learning approach that values academic staff and enhances the student experience. • A clear message to the sector that universities are institutions of education first, and businesses second. We will also be supporting our friends at the National Indigenous Postgraduate Association Aboriginal Corporation (NIPAAC) in their campaign around the outcomes of the Behrendt Review.

We will help to facilitate candidate forums on major campuses and we will support the NTEU’s Enrol to Vote campaign. We will work with the National Union of Students and the NTEU as part of an ‘education coalition’ to ensure that the message across the sector’s peak bodies is a united one, capable of representing students and casuals as a whole. As we always have, we will establish a clear, balanced and fair policy campaign that delivers on the issues of importance for postgraduate coursework and higher degree by research students. This is not about partisanship, but about ensuring the strongest possible outcomes for an informed postgraduate population. Meghan Hopper, National President, Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA)

CAPA will not be releasing a ‘score card’ to judge the major parties. However, we will

servative in the best sense of the term: sceptical of grand departures from what has worked over time, and practical in orientation.

sor decried as hypocritical nonsense arising from the obsession of Coalition members with their bygone battles of university days.

What complemented this method in Windsor’s approach was a disdain for duplicity. The word ‘hypocrisy’ occurred in many of Windsor’s parliamentary speeches, and it was almost invariably a dart directed at the highly selective – or downright specious – application of user-pays.

When it was proposed in 2004 that the GST would be extended to previously exempted textbooks, Windsor, a fiscal conservative in the best sense of the term, pointed to the irrationality of the measure in the light of the first-homebuyers’ subsidy, and voted against it. In October 2005, he voted against the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), the forerunner to WorkChoices, which he also voted against in December of that year.

This was never more obvious than when Windsor railed against the Howard Government’s abolition of the students’ services and amenities fee, a measure forged under the guise of ‘voluntary student unionism’ and ‘choice’, which Wind-

be presenting a clear and concise publication for distribution on campus that outlines for postgraduate students, the position of each of the major parties on the policies that are important to them.

late 1960s and early 70s contained more than a dash of neoclassical instruction, but it was eclectic enough to offer other schools of thought, and suited his sceptical and discerning mind. When Windsor was thrust onto centre stage in 2010, Australians were presented with a straight politician of another era, and they warmed to him. Although he often used the term ‘politics’ in its pejorative sense, Tony Windsor showed us what the profession might be if practised by decent men and women from various walks of life. Tim Battin, UNE Branch President

Windsor’s education in economics at the University of New England in the

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29

National Teaching Conference

Photos: Above: Q&A session at the National Teaching Conference. Photos Paul Clifton

Strained but not spooked Delegates to the NTEU’s first National Teaching Conference were not ‘spooked by MOOCs’ as the Q&A session was themed, but were well aware of the opportunities and pitfalls. MOOCs, the (currently) free massive open online courses launched in 2012 from consortia of major US universities, have already attracted much interest from Australian universities, numbers of whom are already signing into the US consortia and developing their own MOOCs.

Conference speakers and other participants were concerned with the impact upon Australian university and academic independence if universities decided to accredit MOOCs to replace locally developed and controlled content. They were also concerned with the impact upon academic and general staff jobs. Because of the direct association made by university managements between digital technology and cutting labour costs, the ways that digital technology is adopted in university learning and teaching will accelerate existing trends in both ‘unbundling’ the academic role and casualising academic work.* In following up on the conference the NTEU National Executive has determined that a position paper be developed on online learning and teaching under the cloud of the MOOCs, focussing on four factors: content, admissions, accreditation and labour arrangements, as well as the overriding question of a sustainable financial model.

Jeannie Rea National President

page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The National Teaching Conference was held on 4–5 April at RMIT University in Melbourne, with over one hundred participants including delegates from most Branches as well as casual academic members, and also representatives from NUS (National Union of Students) and CAPA (Council of Postgraduate Student Associations). The conference was built around the key

themes of learning and teaching in a mass higher education system; the digital revolution and tertiary learning and teaching; and autonomy and authority in higher education courses and curriculum. Following the opening speech by the NTEU National President, Jeannie Rea, RMIT University Vice-Chancellor Margaret Gardner, who co-hosted the conference, provided a keynote address focussing upon her role as the Chair of the Strategic Advisory Committee of the Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) (the NTEU is also on the committee). University of Adelaide Vice-Chancellor, Professor Warren Bebbington, in the first session, introduced some controversy by speculating upon the value of teaching-only universities, as well as proposing wiping the slate and starting again on academic workload models. In this environment of passionate educators, this contribution opened parameters of debate, while the practicalities rolled into the enterprise bargaining agenda at that university. Most significantly, this was a conference of experts on higher education learning and teaching, and most speakers were not only NTEU members but activists and officials. This is testimony to the quality and high levels of commentary and analysis amongst the NTEU leadership and membership, and reinforces to us and university managements that NTEU activists are more than likely to be amongst the most professionally engaged and knowledgeable amongst university staff. It was remarked that we did not need to go overseas to find experts on Australian universities or call upon Ernst and Young. The program was purposefully organised around the major themes and not around occupations and employment arrangements. This was also to send a message that discussion about university learning and teaching must be inclusive of academics whether ongoing, contract or casually employed, as well as general and professional staff involved in learning and teaching, noting the increasingly blurred boundaries explored by NTEU National Vice-President (General Staff) Dr Lynda Davies in her presentation. This structure was at odds with the daily practice in universities where employment arrangements and position classifications, as well as sheer workload, mean that many staff work in isolation, despite the rhetoric of teamwork.

Top: Jeannie Rea & Professor Raewyn Connell. Below: Panel for ‘Curriculum and assessment in a mass system’ chaired by Cathy Rytmeister

Student session A whole session was devoted to asking ‘what do students want (and need?)’. Chaired by NUS President Jade Tyrell, the speakers included leaders representing Indigenous students, postgraduates, undergraduates, international students, as well a first year and an RMIT student. The student perspective certainly challenged some of our assumptions about how students understand the contemporary university. They were clearly unconvinced that universities are pursuing a student-centred model. They could not understand the fuss about applications of digital communication technologies in teaching and monitoring student progress, but insisted they wanted teachers to talk to and give feedback. Students bear the brunt of the casualisation of teaching, but are also aware of the plight of their casual teachers.

Learning and teaching Speakers on ‘Learning and teaching in the digital age’, as well as Prof. Bebbington, included Prof. Raewyn Connell, Sydney; Prof. Paul Turnbull, Professor of eHistory, UQ; and Prof. Stuart Bunt, UWA & NTEU WA Division President. On ‘Curriculum and assessment in a mass system’, Prof. Shirley Alexander, DVC (Teaching, Learning & Equity) at UTS; Cathy Rytmeister, Macquarie Branch President and Vice President (Academic) NSW Division; and Drs Andrew Funston, Brian Zammit and Julie Fletcher from Victoria University (pictured below). On the second day, ‘The work of university teaching’ was tackled by Dr Susan Mayson, Monash, Professor Belinda Probert, former DVC La Trobe; Dr Lynda Davies, Griffith and NTEU National Vice-President (General staff ); Dr Steve Mackey, Deakin NTEU

Branch President and Ted Clarke, University of Melbourne NTEU Branch President and was chaired by Dr Kelvin Michael, University of Tasmania NTEU Branch President and NTEU National Vice-President (Academic). The session on ‘Autonomy and accountability’ included Prof. Glenn Finger, Dean (L&T) at Griffith; Stephen Darwin, NTEU Secretary ACT Division; Associate Prof. Andrew Bonnell, University of Queensland NTEU Branch President and Queensland Division President; and Paul Kniest, NTEU Policy and Research Coordinator.

Internationalisation The final session on ‘Internationalisation of curriculum and mission’ featured Terri MacDonald, NTEU Policy and Research Officer; Prof. James Arvanitakis, University of Western Sydney and the 2012 Prime Minister’s University Teacher of the Year; Terry Mason, Badanami Centre, University of Western Sydney and Chair NTEU Indigenous Policy Committee and Dr Yuko Kinoshita, Japanese Program Convenor, University of Canberra. The Academic Staff Working Party of the National Executive will be following up on recommendations for further work arising out of the conference. For details of the conference program, speakers’ presentations and more go to the conference website. www.nteu.org.au/ntc2013 *Further commentary on MOOCs by J. Rea: ‘Online learning and casual teaching’, Connect, vol. 6, no. 2, June 2013, pp10-11, www.nteu.org. au/connect ‘MOOCs, money and casual staff’, Campus Review, vol. 23, no. 6, June 2013, pp 22-23, www. campusreview.com.au

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31

The future of universities

Since being awarded the Office of Learning and Teaching’s University Teacher of the Year Award late in 2012, I have been invited to speak at many events on ‘what makes a good teacher?’

I think most of the time people think I will respond with a set of dot points, explaining how I prepare course materials, delivery, assessments and all the important ingredients that go into developing a subject. While this is no doubt fundamental, I always respond in two ways: firstly about telling them about my first day at university as a student, and secondly, by asking and attempting to answer a very different question: ‘why do universities exist?’ The reason these two issues form the foundation of my presentations is because asking ‘what makes a good university teacher’ limits the understanding of the work we do: our work takes us out of the classroom and into the students’ homes, the cafes in which they share stories with their friends and in the discussions they have with class mates and acquaintances. We must ask: ‘what do we want those conversations to be like?’

Professor James Arvanitakis University of Western Sydney, Institute for Culture and Society

page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

My own experience highlights the changing nature of the student cohort: as a bricklayer’s son I entered an institution that was unwilling to assist me; and encountered academics who occasionally encouraged me to ‘pursue my father’s career’ as I ‘may not be suited to university.’

A story of lamb Let’s begin with the story of lamb: as the first member of my family to enter university I was unsure what to take on my first day. My mother, who had spent most of her life working in a factory in Greece and then ironing in Australia, responded to my question ‘what should I take to university’ the day before I started by telling me to take my passport. Her reasoning was that I needed identification and that way people would know who I was. She also packed me some roasted lamb, telling me it would assist me in making friends. My first day at university was hellish: I walked into the wrong lecture theatre and was too embarrassed to leave; I did not understand I had to find my own assignments; nor did I understand that I could not just find a lecturer and ask them questions (‘See my consultation hours’). Though I survived that first day, in many ways this set the tone for my time at university. I struggled through, found academics mostly disinterested in my plight, and many others hiding behind protocols I did not understand. It was a handful of teachers who encouraged me that made all the difference. I am reminded of this experience when I receive an email at the beginning of semester asking, ‘What do I bring to the first lecture?’

Students have changed: deal with it… The changing nature of the student cohort we work with today would not have been recognisable only a generation below. Being a ‘first in family’ student is not the rarity it once was, as our classrooms are filled with students who represent the wider participation program that has seen a surge in student numbers. But this is not the only change: like record labels and newspapers, we no longer ‘own the content’ or are the only ones who can deliver it. No longer is the delivery of lectures a simple linear and vertical process – lecturers standing at the front and talking to the students. Today we compete with many other information delivery mechanisms – and I am not just talking about Facebook. Universities are just one voice out there and we compete for attention and credibility with many others. This includes the shock-jocks who are given more airtime about misogyny and climate change than those who research the field. How do we compete with that?

In addition, most of our students work, have additional responsibilities and must try and juggle their time: as one young student told me, ‘my mum does not understand why I can’t babysit my brothers and write my essays.’ It is for many reasons that I support the widening participation and inclusion program and have no problem with larger lectures (or ‘massification’): this is a social justice project in which we are involved. This is not to dismiss the need for more funding to provide more support, but what we are doing is expanding the life choices of students – something about which we can and should be proud. Nevertheless, the growth in participation and inclusion does require changing our approach and practices – not always easy, but important for responding to the changing environment in which we work.

What is the role of universities? A recent report by Ernst and Young looking at the future of universities showed a distinct lack of understanding of the value of what we do.1 They focussed on increasing skills, better links to industry and ‘speed to market’ of innovations. The report failed for many reasons but I will mention only two. The first is that it mentioned ‘community engagement’ only in passing. The authors appeared to assume that we only exist to serve industry – ignoring the many other communities with whom we work. Many of my colleagues spend time with primary and secondary school children; advocate for tertiary education among Indigenous communities; work on community housing; promote health in refugee communities; or work with nuclear veterans. There is no commercial imperative here: what we are doing is promoting social justice and community cohesion. Conse-

quently, we can not measure the positive impact we can have on the various communities we engage with in purely financial terms. In addition, the Ernst and Young report fails within its own terms. While I have no problem with building closer links to industry, the main risk is always that we get caught up in meeting short-term priorities of partners. In other words, Ernst and Young are promoting the worst dimensions of short-termism that plague this country. Remembering that the top ten jobs created in 2011 did not exist ten years prior, we need to realise we are not only about skills and training, but about building an engaged, empowered, ethical and critically analytical citizenry. This is the future of universities.

Conclusion A generation ago, the complex ethical issues surrounding genetic patenting did not exist; Australia’s refugee obligations enjoyed mainstream acceptance, and climate change was the concern of a handful of scientists. We cannot predict the challenges of tomorrow, but we can work to build a set of principles that will encourage our students to deal with them. While delivering content is important, this is only part of the equation. Professor James Arvanitakis is Head of the Academy at UWS and a member of the UWS Institute for Culture and Society. He works to bridge the research/teaching nexus, as recognised by the Prime Minister’s Teacher of Year Award and an ARC Discovery Grant in the same year (2012). 1. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_future_2012.pdf

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33

The NT Intervention – Six years on Six years ago my family watched the TV in my living room as John Howard announced he would be sending in the military and taking control of our communities. I have never been more frightened in my life. I locked the gate of my town camp and kept the kids inside for two weeks for fear of them being taken. I worried constantly about my family out bush who didn’t understand what was coming.

Barbara Shaw Resident of Mt Nancy town camp in Alice Springs

page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

They said the Intervention was about stopping children from being abused, that it was going to stop the drinking and domestic violence. But all I have seen is racism and disempowerment of our people. It’s the old assimilation policy back again, to control how we live. The Government and many non-Aboriginal NGOs have taken over the assets and responsibilities of our organisations, both in the major town centres and remote communities forcing us to comply with their policies that take no account of Aboriginal culture and our obligations. Take income management, which I have been on for five and a half years. I ran for parliament in 2010 and outpolled both Labor and Liberal candidates in Central Australian communities. I have represented my people at the United Nations. But the Government says I can’t manage my money. On their own estimations of $6,000 to $8,000 per person per year administrative cost for income management, the Government has spent more than $30,000 just to control my small income. This system has made it much harder for us to share and care for each other. I used to run an unofficial safe house here at Mt Nancy town camp. I’d get money off all the parents every week. If there was drinking and fighting and the kids needed somewhere to be, they knew they were safe here at Big Mamma’s house and that I could buy meals for them. No one has the cash to chuck in any more. The Govern-

ment has refused to fund a community centre here on our town camp.

search for alcohol, along with ‘star-chamber’ powers that treat us as terrorists. I have heard that this week in a case brought by Palm Island residents, the High Court ruled that alcohol laws which target Aboriginal people are ‘special measures’ under the Racial Discrimination Act because they are for our own good.

The town camps of Alice Springs have seen a massive influx of people coming in from remote communities. Taking away Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) and Aboriginal Community Government Councils out bush means people have nothing to do there. At the Let me explain what this means for my life. moment I have five families and four Earlier this year there was a massive police generations staying in my house, my little raid here on my camp which they said was family and others from the bush, many a ‘routine operation’ to search for alcohol. trying to access There were paddy services like respite wagons, squad cars, Self determination is the care which should four wheel drives, a key... It is just disgusting how be available back surveillance van and much money has been wasted in their home compolice officers on dirt munity. We are one bikes circling every on bureaucrats to control family in each room yard, going in to us, or on ineffective nonand another in the search every house. Aboriginal services that can lounge room. As I was shaking in my not engage with our people. always, I have given shoes. I had many up my bed out of children in the house respect for older who are already scared of police and I relatives. didn’t want them coming through. I was Many who come into town to access the breaking the law that day. I had three services just stay here, or others come in cans left over from a six pack of beer in just to drink. I am witness on a daily basis the house. I was worried I was going to to the increase in drinking and fighting on be arrested and taken away with all these our camps that has come from this. children in my house. I gave it to the police and asked them not to come through It makes me sick in my stomach when I because of the children. But they said hear Aboriginal NT MLA Bess Price attack they had to. They walked through making me in Parliament as an anti-Intervention comments like they were a landlord doing activist who does not care about the an inspection, ‘this is a nice house, not like suffering of women and children. I have those other ones’. to deal with these issues every day and I see them getting worse because of the So many more of our people are going to policies she has supported. The massive prison. There are twice as many people influx of her own constituents from bush locked up now than before the Intervencommunities that have been robbed of tion and three times as many woman. jobs and assets is a major driving factor. Close relatives of mine – men, women and teenagers are all currently in prison. Bess Price promised on ABC radio after I’m giving support to my brother in law being elected to the Northern Territory looking after a baby and young child while Parliament last year that she would put his wife is in prison. back the Yuendumu community council. Where is that promise now? Her Country The house I live in is just one year younger Liberal Government has made it clear they than me. My father fought for funding will not be bringing back the Councils. Her to build houses on our town camps. We Government has cut funding for our youth used to manage them ourselves before programs, has cut funding for domestic we were forced to sign over our leases to violence workers in NT Hospitals. These the Commonwealth government. Now I are all things we have been campaigning am paying next to market rent to the NT for. The $1 billion that has been budgeted Housing agency on a house I have lived in since the Intervention for the income manfor much of my life. agement system Bess Price supports – but We have so many problems with NT has never had to live under – could fund Housing. We used to get repairs and the support and services that we actually maintenance done through our Aboriginal need to deal with these issues. council Tangentyere, but now we have Many more police are employed now in to wait and wait for shoddy work from Alice Springs, supposedly to deal with the NT Housing. We used to be able to have social problems. But the relationship with people making trouble on our town camp Aboriginal people has seriously broken dealt with straight away through Tangendown. We live in fear of the police, always tyere. Now we don’t have that power and hearing stories about them bashing our can’t do anything about problem visitors. relatives, or taking them 20km out of town I sit at my front door and see Public so they have to walk back. We are scared Housing Officers, toy coppers who just what happened to Kwementyaye Briscoe, cruise around our camps watching for who died last year after being taken into trouble and calling the police. It used to be ‘protective custody’ by the police. our Night Patrol — our own people who The Intervention gave police the power would actually get out of the car, engage to enter our homes without a warrant to with us, try and solve problems where

they could without police. Our Night Patrol is still active, but are being pushed aside out of their role. Living under NT Housing rules and regulations is not culturally appropriate. For example, in Aboriginal society when somebody passes away, the family moves out of that house and another moves in. We swap houses. Or if a young fella comes out of ceremony camp, he has to stay in a house with other young men. We can’t take our own initiatives to make these changes any more. There is a real ignorance and a hostile mentality towards Aboriginal people within the NT Housing department. I have fought the Intervention from day one. We built a massive amount of support from people and organisations right across Australia to try and stop the government from continuing the Intervention for another 10 years through the ‘Stronger Futures’ laws. But they refused to listen to us. I will keep fighting. Self determination is the key to getting us out of the social problems that we face today. It is the only way to do this. It is just disgusting how much money has been wasted on bureaucrats to control us, or on ineffective non-Aboriginal services that can not engage with our people. Whether it’s in a remote community or here in a town camp – services must be delivered by our people. We must be given the power and resources to take control. We have the language, we have the communication, we can relate to one another. And there must be proper funding to our organisations, on a scale that can actually help lift us out of shocking living conditions. Not just peppercorn short term grants that set us up to fail. I want to appeal to all the supporters I know are out there to keep fighting alongside me. Income management is not just in my backyard, now it’s coming to yours. On 21 June, there was a press conference in Playford, South Australia, announcing a new coalition that has formed there to fight the expansion of income management into their community. On 22 June there was a rally in Bankstown in Sydney which is also facing income management. Tony Abbott has said that income management should apply to all people on Centrelink across Australia. I truly believe he will be even worse for Aboriginal people than John Howard. I encourage everyone to vote for progressive parties other than the two major parties which have kept us under this Intervention. But most importantly we must continue to stand together and to struggle, to fight for Aboriginal self determination and to fight for jobs and services for all struggling communities — not the punishment of the Intervention. Black and White unite! This article was first published in New Matilda. Reprinted with permission. newmatilda.com/2013/06/21/ nt-intervention-six-years

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35

CHASS Forum

Questioning civility in Australia Comments on political (in) civility by NTEU National President Jeannie Rea at the CHASS National Forum 2013 at Parliament House on 20 June were picked up in the media. Participating in a panel on civility and democracy, she was asked why does incivility and downright rudeness continue to be a feature of Australian political life. The focus of the panel was upon political debate and the role of media. Rea opined that bad behaviour continues to be rewarded. She explained that it is reported and then repeated in further commentary, and then another attention grabbing comment captures further attention and it keeps going. Therefore, while public figures sometimes inadvertently make uncivil remarks, others purposefully do so knowing it keeps them and their message in the public domain. NTEU was a sponsor of the Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) Forum which addressed the theme of Civility in Australia. The Federal MP for Fraser (and former NTEU member at ANU) Andrew Leigh was also on the opening panel and spoke of his research on uncivil parliamentary language, specifically the use of the words ‘liar’ and ‘unparliamentarily’. Despite current presumptions, Federal Parliament has reached lower points of incivility in the past. This does not excuse it, but just suggests that we should not be too presumptive that incivility is more prolific. Throughout the day, speakers returned to the theme of what is meant by and desirable about civility in Australian public life. Alongside a fondness to consult dictionaries, there was consensus that civility

is a liberal democratic concept about a preparedness to look to the merits of an argument, to listening and being broad minded and inclusive. It was pointed out that this is at odds with the very structure of parliament which could be an exemplar for behaviour. However, the Westminster system is constructed as a government and opposition, where the leaders are separated by, apparently, a two sword length table. You have to be on a side – cross benches are always uncomfortable. And most public institutions and practices, such as courts and industrial relations, are constructed as adversarial rather than collaborative. But what is abusive and diminishes public discourse, and what is just good fun or enlivening to robust debate? This was unresolved, but Andrew Leigh and Andrew Jaspan, founder and editor of The Conversation, both argued that the anonymity of social media has increased the tolerance levels for much higher levels of abusive language and crude personalised insults. While many an abusive blogger would be a coward if confronted in person, it does seem that ‘blogger’ abruptness and rudeness has seeped into more public exchanges. Jaspan argued that trust has been broken in public discourse. While the session on civility and the arts focused positively upon the powerful role of the arts in creating more social and sustainable society, the afternoon session on the ‘Borders of Civility’ tackled the hard questions of how to deal with issues that ignite discontent and negativity. How can difference be accepted, but also contested? How can we be civil in negotiating inclusive citizenship? Dr Tom Calma, co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner, and Chancellor of the University of Canberra from next year, focussed upon incivility in the workplace and specifically upon lateral violence. He spoke of lateral violence as that amongst oppressed people to one another, where negative stereotypes contribute to low self-esteem and people then lash out on their own.

page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

In a riveting presentation on cultural competence and education, Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and former Dean of Law at the University of Sydney, grappled with the notion that legislating for civility can run counter to freedom of speech. She raised the debate over the harmonisation bill before parliament late last year, which sought to regularise anti-discrimination legislation across the country. What emerged was opposition to areas, such as racial anti-vilification clauses, which had been operating without controversy or any perceptible impact on free speech in some jurisdictions. On the other hand sweeping clauses using terminology such as ‘insult and offend’ raised concerns amongst others. The proposed bill was withdrawn. (NTEU had objected to clauses in the bill which exempted religious bodies including educational institutions from prohibition of discrimination against homosexuals.) Triggs noted that while Australia has ratified a number of international human rights treaties, they have not been given effect in local law, and concluded that maybe if we did it would help with drawing some acceptable borders that encourage civility in public discourse and action. In her presentation, Jeannie Rea focused upon women in public life, noting that this was unavoidable following a week where the (then) Prime Minister had her sex and gender used against her in particularly sordid commentary, and she was then accused of ‘playing the gender card’. Rea sought to unravel gendered from fair enough, even robust, criticism, but concluded that it is virtually impossible when a woman is always judged as a woman first – and that generally goes against her (see Editorial, p2).

Academic governance

Don’t leave it to the managers While the narrow elitism of the old professorial board was effectively challenged in the 1970s, today the university governance agenda is thoroughly focussed upon management and seems to have abandoned the original mission of providing academic leadership. In the 1970s, student and staff protest demanded greater democratisation of academic governance, but the mangerialist shift in the 1990s valued expertise and position over representation. This is an international trend and starts from an assumption that universities are by definition not well run and, as a corollary, questions the ability of academics to lead. Norwegian researchers, Larssen et al (2009) concluded: This includes at the system level a growing belief in the benefits of the marketplace in higher education governance, leading to a growing reliance on competition in the distribution of public funds for teaching and research. At the institutional level the role and position of formally appointed or elected leaders, managers and administrators has been strengthened and professionalised at the cost of the general involvement of the academic staff in governance matters. However, it is difficult to conclude that universities are more effective and efficient. New decision making structures do not necessarily lead to the desired behavioural changes, and outcomes of new governance arrangements seem to have a number of unintended consequences. Restructuring, and even renaming, of academic boards has resulted in significant diminution of academics representing ac-

ademics. Most participants’ roles are now defined by their professional position. Even if these members are still elected, it is from amongst a few choices, resulting in many electorates of few electors, for example of deans, associate deans or heads of school rather than fewer designations contested by many candidates. Not surprisingly, elected members then feel constrained to speak for the narrower interests of their electorate rather than proffer an opinion on any topic. This also makes for dull meetings of reports and set pieces, which also does not encourage greater competition and excitement about contesting board and committee elections. There are also many more members who are appointed to the board by virtue of their position. Whether they are voting members or not, a room full of people reporting not debating also discourages vigourous and constructive discussion. A typical scenario becomes that of report after report, usually with the ubiquitous PowerPoint. A board member’s request to discuss, for example, priorities in the university budget manifests at the next meeting in a long report from a delegate of the CFO where questions are permitted, but not necessarily answered and there is no actual debate. There are valiant efforts by academic board chairs and executive staff to invigorate their boards with more professional development opportunities for board members to increase their effective participation, but this does not work if there are fewer opportunities to really make a difference. Recognising membership of boards and committees in time and workload allocations also makes a significant difference, including signalling to staff that their contribution is really valued. Just as the participation of staff and students on university councils comes under regular attack (and has now been removed from the Victorian university acts by the Liberal Government), so too does participation in academic governance. The destruction of student representative organisations by the previous Federal Coalition Government (and only partial restoration by Labor) has rendered student representa-

tion difficult in some, and non-existent in other, universities. Academic boards and their committees as well as faculty boards and committees benefit greatly from student input, apart from the basic issue of students’ rights to participation (not just consultation) in the governance and management of their university. In this unhappy and unproductive scenario and extreme workloads, the participation of academics has also dropped off in faculty and university level academic governance. The thousands of casual academic staff have no opportunity to participate and are not even eligible to stand for election. NTEU encourages members to stand for boards and committees and to the demand time and opportunity to do so. We need to remember and implement the UNESCO 1977 Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel: Higher education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect the majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution. The principle of university autonomy is also recognised internationally and the intellectual freedom of staff and students is now enshrined in federal legislation as required in university policy, thanks to long term advocacy of the ALP by NTEU. We exercise intellectual freedom through our teaching and research, but if we fail to be involved in the academic governance of our universities we will continue to have to respond to bad decisions after the fact rather than stop them in their tracks. Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President This article draws from Jeannie Rea’s paper, ‘A Union perspective on academic governance in Australia today’, presented at an Academic Governance Forum in Sydney, 6 May 2013.

Larssen, I.M., Maassen, P. & Stensaker, B. (2009), ‘Four basic dilemmas in university governance reform’, (Norway) in Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy, 21/3.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37

The conservative experiment

Building ‘Big Society’ in Australia The ACTU and public sector unions, including the NTEU, are deeply concerned at the likely impact of current and forecast cuts to public services at both State and Federal levels.

Unions are also aware of an international trend to reduce or remove core public services, such as health, education and welfare, with privatised, for-profit companies acting as government agencies for these services.

Furthermore, the entire increase in the numbers of children now counted as being in poverty in 2011-12 came from working households, and that children living below the poverty line were now twice as likely to come from working families.

While so-called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are not unusual in Australia, the targeting of areas such as child protection, school education, universities, hospitals and policing is a concern. Also new is the rhetoric that surrounds these cuts, with the UK’s Cameron Government leading the international charge through its ‘Small Government, Big Society’ platform.

What is particularly disturbing is that these statistics covered the period before a range of austerity measures and welfare cuts were introduced by the Government. Given the likely impact of these measures, social commentators in the UK are now predicting that the level of poverty will rise considerably further. However, the response of the Cameron Government, like many conservative forces internationally, is to continue to reduce the role, scope and breadth of government support and to outsource public services, including health and education, wherever possible.

The Big Society concept In Australia, the Opposition under Tony Abbott have already adopted the philosophies championed by the Cameron Government as part of the Big Society agenda but for the most part the Australian public is unaware of the implications. This article presents the background to the Big Society and the targeted removal of public services in the UK, the impact it will have in an Australian context, and the need for unions to be active in the campaign to oppose the cuts to our public services.

Terri MacDonald Policy & Research Officer

The Guardian1 recently reported official UK figures finding that an additional 900,000 people – including 300,000 more children – were plunged into poverty during the first year of the Cameron Government.

page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

In the UK, the mechanism to reduce ‘big government’ is the flagship concept of the Conservative Party (and now part of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement), the so-called ‘Big Society’. Presented as a mechanism to empower local people and communities, it was sold as the way to cut through bureaucracy and to transfer power and decision making responsibility from the politicians to the people. However, in reality the Big Society is more about privatising the social welfare state on a massive scale; cutting back on public services by either tendering these

out to private companies or using community based volunteer labour to plug the resulting gaps. While the Big Society concept was initially championed by Anglican theologian and director of the conservative political think-tank ResPublica, Phillip Blond, the ideas behind it can be traced back to John Locke, Edmund Burke, William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin. More recent influences include American conservative communitarians who call for a return to ‘community and civic order’.

• Review arrangements for the provision of social welfare services. • I ntroduce community boards to manage the budgets and staffing of public schools and hospitals. • Engage community and not-for-profit organisations to deliver public services. • Increased reliance on and advocacy for community volunteerism.

Existence in Australia

At State level, the NSW, Victorian and Queensland In Australia, the concept underpinning governments have been the Big Society is being already seen in looking to streamline state many different areas. In higher education, public sector services. Rephilanthropy has been viewed by both views have been commisconservative governments and universisioned by WA, Victorian and ties as an untapped source of private fundNSW governments to review ing; in social welfare services, faith based the delivery model of social services by organisations (such as Mission Australia) the states, with a stated aim to look at have been lobbying for a greater role in alternative funding models. In Victoria, not only providing social welfare services, the Service Sector Reform project aims but to act as agencies or instruments of to determine ways that Victorian public government. In business, the Australian sector can adjust to both a growing deChamber of Command from a rising merce and Industry population and (ACCI) have launched shrinking budgets; While the Big Society concept their ‘Too Big to Ignore’ a consultation has lost political favour in the campaign, ostensibly paper has set a lobbying focus for UK, aspects of the language out the term of small business in the have now become embedded reference for the lead up to the Federal review as whether in the conservative policy election, but drawing State government agenda. much from the view should provide that government has social services, become too big and and if so, why and needs to be reduced. what. It is thought that the likely result of these reviews will be the emergence While the concept of the Big Society is of Social Benefit Bonds3 (already on trial in line with conservative philosophy, the in NSW within the state’s Child Protection political language used to pitch the idea is Services) and/or Public Service Mutuals that traditionally associated with broad left (PSM)4, both of which scheme outsource thinking. This is a deliberate strategy that public services to private enterprises. seeks to present the concept as a community based, grass roots ideology. Ironically, It is very clear that the Big Society philosthe concept in the UK has lost traction with ophy dovetails with the agenda of public both the left and the right in government, sector cuts implemented by conservative and is considered by many to have failed governments in NSW, Victoria, Queensland its original aims. Not surprisingly, there has and to a lesser extent in NT, ACT and WA. been a loss of public support for the Big Research undertaken by the ACTU (ACTU Society, with a 2012 survey finding that Jobs Report, February 2013) found more only 9% of the UK population believed than 50,000 public sector jobs were lost in policy would achieve its aims, and 39% of the year to November 2012, representing a the opinion that the Government should reduction in the overall numbers of public 2 ‘forget about the whole idea’ . sector workers for the first time since the However, the failure of the policy has not prevented Australia’s conservatives from seriously considering how it could be implemented here, with Opposition leader Tony Abbot and his senior colleagues meeting with the Big Society’s philosophical architect Phillip Blond in late 2012. The Coalition has already integrated the Big Society into its policy settings. Tony Abbott’s ‘Stronger economy and stronger Australia’ speech (Press Club, January 2012) essentially incorporates the four of the core tenets of the Big Society (albeit without naming it) stating that a Coalition Government would:

late 1990s. The report also notes that an analysis of State, Territory and Commonwealth government budgets signal further significant reductions in public sector jobs in 2013-14, and Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey recently flagged the abolishment of 12,000 Commonwealth public sector jobs as a ‘starting point’ should the Coalition form government.5 In terms of higher education, the Big Society style changes seen in the UK are likely to play out here in reduced public funding. Earlier this year at the Universities Australia conference, Tony Abbott clearly

signalled that universities will need look to alternate private funding sources under a Coalition Government, with the best the sector can hope for is no further cuts to public funding. He also told universities to consider ways they could increase international student numbers and improve levels of private investment and philanthropic donations, while simultaneously making clear that universities will be expected to maintain quality teaching and research. While the Big Society concept has lost political favour in the UK, aspects of the language have now become embedded in the conservative policy agenda. Therefore, the response of unions should do more than be oppositional – we must claim a new space and seek to redefine what we value as a society. If the Coalition win the Federal election, Australia will experience a substantially different political landscape, one that will seek to privilege neoliberalism and promote a socially conservative, fear based agenda. It will be also be blatantly and militantly anti-union. Thus, unions must be prepared to not only engage on the industrial forefront, but also claim the broader social justice sphere where the concepts of values, community, social worth, compassion, justice and humanity are seen to be part of the union role and agenda. The ACTU, in consultation with public sector unions, including NTEU, is currently formulating a campaign to promote these exact issues. 1. Butler P. (2013) ‘Poverty rose by 900,000 in coalition’s first year’, The Guardian, 14 June. 2. Hudson, S. (2011) ‘Most Think the Big Society Will Not Be Achieved, Poll Suggests,’ Third Sector. 3. NSW’s SBB system pays a return based on the achievement of agreed social outcomes. Under the SBB, ‘investors’ (private enterprise) fund the delivery of services targeted at improving a particular social outcome, with the view that achievement of this outcome should reduce the need for, and therefore government spending on, acute services. Public sector ‘savings’ are then used to repay the principal of the investors and additional reward payments (e.g. the return on investment), the level of which is dependent on the degree of outcome improvement achieved. 4. Mutuals are organisations that are owned by their customers, their employees or both, existing to serve them instead of shareholders. Co-operatives are one form of a mutual organisation. In 2012, the Australia Institute found that while 80% of Australians are members of co-operatives or mutuals, only 20% were aware of their connections. Most however, are currently confined to the finance sector. 5. Towell, N. (2013) ‘Hockey says 12,000 cull just a start’, Canberra Times, 17 May.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39

Indigenous Forum

Canadian connection Tansi (Greetings)! On 23-24 May, I was fortunate to join some forty-odd NTEU colleagues at your 2013 Indigenous Forum. My travel down from Canada was a first step in what we hope will be stronger links between Indigenous academic staff in our two countries. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) invites an Indigenous member of NTEU to make a reciprocal journey to our Forum for Aboriginal Academic Staff in Toronto in November. We will also be extending an invitation to colleagues we met from Aotearoa New Zealand, as CAUT becomes the third member of the partnership Lee Cooper and Hēmi Houkāmau of the TEU have already forged. Since our winters are somewhat harsher than those here in southern Victoria, I would suggest that NTEU and TEU bundle your delegates well. As we gathered at the Brambuk Cultural Centre on the first day, all delegates remarked on how good it felt to be in Aboriginal space, and how that relocation from the urban gave them strength. Outside the building, as we stood in circle, Uncle Rooney Grambeau gave a welcome to country. We then entered to conduct business. I think the tone of the meeting was set early by IPC Chair, Terry Mason (UWS) in his response to opening remarks by NTEU Assistant Secretary, Matt McGowan. Terry reminded those in attendance that this was Indigenous space, dedicated to an Indigenous agenda and focused on issues that flow from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff to NTEU leadership. Though he thanked Matt for his overview, and the National Office appeal for support of the ‘Uni Cuts, Dumb Cuts’ campaign, he stressed that the two-day focus would be on the Indigenous agenda.

that we know disproportionately impact programs for Indigenous people.

Most of the first day was then given over to the Members’ Yarn, where each delegate spoke of the issues at their university, and gave their perspectives both on what is needed to improve the working conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on campuses, and on how we as Indigenous peoples can support our communities in the move to sovereignty and equity. As each member spoke, I was struck by the similarity to remarks heard at our events. People spoke about the isolation they sometimes felt on campuses (where numbers are few), on concerns about ‘mainstreaming’ of services where the Indigenous voice gets lost, and on how the presence of Indigenous staff on campus is the greatest predicator of Indigenous student success and community perception of the university. It seems both our countries still lag in academic appointments of Indigenous lecturers and professors, and that many of the actions taken by university administrations to ‘Indigenise’ campuses are still at the surface level, where photo-opportunity and softly worded policy still trumps substance and real progress. In the yarn session, and in subsequent conversations I held with Indigenous colleagues over coffee and food, the inspirational nature of a grassroots Canadian movement often came up. Many spoke of the impact that ‘Idle No More’ is having in their communities and on their campuses. A young generation of activists is emerging worldwide, and it may be a case where we older Indigenous activists will be scrambling to stay with them. It may be the energy of students and young community members that will fuel our attempts to bring progress to the universities. It may also be their energy that can be harnessed to fight the university funding cuts occurring in both our countries, cuts

page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

As I sat during the second day, I thought that there is one area where NTEU has made significantly more progress than CAUT, perhaps reflecting a decade longer at the task of including Indigenous people in the forefront on national union activity (our Aboriginal Working Group didn’t form until 2006). You have been able to bargain specific language around Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander employment targets, and are reaching in this current round of bargaining toward specific numerical targets. We are not near that yet in Canada, though such language is sorely needed in our Agreements. Aboriginal peoples represent 4.3% of the Canadian population, yet we hold only about 0.7% of the academic positions in our universities. As Indigenous student enrolment climbs, we have lagged behind in the most crucial indicator for those students’ success on campuses (i.e. the presence of Aboriginal people on staff ). I hope you have success bargaining numerical targets this round, as it will embolden my Canadian colleagues to fight harder as the snows swirl this fall. There are many things I will bring home from my time up at Brambuk. I will bring home the yarns I heard, and will try to be an effective witness as I share them at our forum. I will bring home the similarities between our struggles for a place in the academy and for universities at the service of our communities and path to Sovereignty. Finally, I will bring home the spirit of celebration that your delegates carried into daytime sessions and night time gatherings. Too often, when we gather in Canada, we forget that our peoples were singing/dancing peoples and that our business was always conducted in an environment of feasting and stories. You remember that better than us: megwitch (thanks) for the reminder. Dan McDonald, Aboriginal Memberat-Large, Canadian Association of University Teachers Executive dan.mcdonald@viu.ca

Image: Helena Spryrou

Assisting refugee academics

CARA turns 80 What do South Africa’s Justice Albie Sachs, Paralympics founder Sir Ludwig Guttmann and Nobel Prize Laureate Sir Hans Kreb all have in common? None of them would have lived lives of outstanding achievement had it not been for the Committee for Assisting Refugee Academics (CARA).

rope is politically and economically united will be able to say’ that ‘this Continent was saved by its Western nations,’ Einstein told the crowd, urging them to donate to the Academic Assistance Council.

CARA, which recently turned 80, started out life as the Academic Assistance Council (AAC). Founded by William Beveridge, director of the London School of Economics in May 1933, its mission was to aid the academic victims of Hitler. Hitler, elected a mere two months earlier, lost no time in sacking university professors and staff suspected of beings radicals or Jews.

Ninety-year-old German-born Professor Lewis Elton, father of the comedian and author Ben, is the oldest surviving beneficiary of CARA’s work. A physicist and education researcher, Elton is Jewish. His father, a professor in ancient history in Prague, fled with his family to the UK in 1939, thanks to a grant from CARA. The grant lasted a year by which time his father had a job as a classics master at a grammar school. Lewis Elton enjoyed a long and successful career, working as Professor of Higher Education at Manchester University and Professor Emeritus at University College London.

Soon, dismissing academics because of their politics or race had become part of a much broader Europe-wide phenomenon. By 1939, thousands of academics had lost their jobs in Austria, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Spain and Portugal. According to Professor David Zimmerman, an historian at the University of Victoria in Canada, in the early days of CARA, ‘the Holocaust was still beyond imagination: help was offered to save careers not lives.’ Between 1933 and 1939, CARA helped around 900 scholars financially and/or by finding them positions. Beveridge estimated the figure was more like 2000 since many simply required advice. Albert Einstein threw his weight behind the operation telling 10,000 people at the Albert Hall in London in October 1933. ‘Let us hope that a historian delivering judgment in some future time when Eu-

Staff at the London School of Economics were inspired by Einstein’s speech to donate a percentage of their salaries in support of their refugee colleagues. The recipients of that aid went on to win 18 Nobel prizes, and16 received knighthoods. Other CARA members included, Sir William Bragg, Professor at the University of Adelaide for 23 years who uniquely shared a Nobel Prize in Physics with his son (Sir Lawrence Bragg), and Australian-born Oxford and Harvard professor Gilbert Murray, an outstanding classical scholar and public intellectual.

Post-war, CARA helped academics seeking refuge from the People’s Republic of China and the Eastern Bloc. One of CARA’s most vocal supporters is the South African human rights leader, Albie Sachs, whom CARA helped in 1966 and again in 1988. Sachs was exiled for his anti-apartheid activities and lost an arm when a bomb was placed in his car by South African security agents. He often speaks of the ‘immense

moral and emotional comfort’ which CARA offered. Sachs went on to be appointed by Nelson Mandela to South Africa’s Constitutional Court in 1994. Since the 1990s, CARA shifted its focus to the Middle East, particularly Iraq, and to Africa. It is not widely known that academics are routinely killed or kidnapped in a number of countries as a consequence of their profession. Hundreds have lost their lives in the past decade. In Iraq alone, 19 academics were assassinated in 2011. CARA runs special programs focussed on Iraq and Zimbabwe. It launched its Iraq Program in late 2006 in response to a targeted campaign of assassination and kidnap against Iraq’s academics. Its Zimbabwe Program began three years later, when the number of academics fleeing Zimbabwe soared and the higher education sector underwent a dramatic decline. At home in the UK, CARA helps refugee academics with education, training and employment advice; financial grants; support with extra costs such as travel and child care; and assistance through work placement/shadowing opportunities and a mentoring program. CARA works internationally with other similarly-minded organisations and joined with the Scholars at Risk network and the Institute of International Education’s Scholar Rescue Fund to denounce – in the strongest terms – the attack on the University of Aleppo on 15 January this year. Sadly, it looks like CARA has its work cut out for it for many years to come. Carmel Shute, NTEU Media Officer CARA www.academic-refugees.org

Left: German-born physicist Professor Lewis Elton, the oldest surviving beneficiary of CARA’s work. Right: German-born physician, biochemist and Nobel laureate Sir Hans Kreb (1900-1981). Image source: Wikipedia

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41

International

Garment workers pay the ultimate price Over 1000 workers were killed when the Rana Plaza garment factory collapsed on 24 April in Dhaka, Bangladesh. At least as many more were seriously injured and are probably unable to work again. Their many dependants have lost their wage earner and now have to manage the costs of caring for their injured relatives. A few months’ earlier, 112 workers died in a fire in another Dhaka factory. This caused merely a blip in the international news stream. More than 600 Bangladeshi garment workers have been killed at work over the last decade. One thousand

deaths has captured attention, but will it hold our interest long enough to make change? Journalists, to their credit, have been keeping this ‘story’ in the public eye. The recent Four Corners report bailed up Australian distributors and retailers and we have subsequently heard big name companies squirming about how it is not their responsibility. This is an old story. Companies have been successfully distancing themselves from bad publicity by sub-contracting for years. There are 3.5 million garment workers in Bangladesh and this number is rising all the time, as companies flock to Bangladesh where the Government colludes with the factory owners against the workers. Bangladeshi garment workers suffer long hours, are paid too little to live on, and are constantly frightened by the terrible and unsafe working conditions. Unions are forbidden from entering workplaces. The international labels avoid responsibility for their products made under these conditions and then also have the audacity to claim that Bangladeshi work-

page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

ers have implored them to keep trading in Bangladesh so they can keep their jobs. These proprietors are apparently very concerned about the welfare of workers! And yet back in Australia they are also part of campaigns against amendments to the Fair Work Act to enable unions to enter and monitor workplaces. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) has reported that every day they are still finding factories and sweatshops with locked and blocked doors, non-existent or unmaintained fire equipment, unsafe wiring or power sources and multiple breaches of safety laws and regulations. The TCFUA has fought for many years to improve the wages and conditions of local clothing and textile workers who work either in factories, sweatshops or at home as outworkers in their lounge rooms or in backyard sheds for piece rates. It took more than two decades to get some federal regulation of outwork where outworkers and sweatshop workers can be protected. TCFUA Secretary Michele O’Neil recently said, ‘Our union sometimes gets accused continued next page...

International Protecting global education & educators In the last Advocate (vol 20, no 1) we reprinted an article from University World News on the bombing of Aleppo University in Syria. The article aroused some controversy arguing that it took a particular side. It was arguably as balanced a news report as possible considering it was published the day after the bombing and quoted a number of sources in trying to work out who was responsible. That over eighty students and staff were reported killed has not been disputed. By the time Advocate was published several weeks later, more information and debate – and unfortunately fighting and bloodshed – had occurred both revealing and obscuring the motivations of those responsible for the two Aleppo explosions.

Advocate published the article because we will continue to campaign for the intellectual freedom of university staff and students. Bombing students and staff is the extreme end of the continuum from denying the free exchange of ideas within universities and broader society. NTEU consistently supports campaigns by Educational International (EI), the global federation of education unions, in defence of educators persecuted for speaking out. NTEU is also affiliated to Scholars at Risk (SAR) an international network of higher education institutions in over 34 countries dedicated to promoting academic freedom and defending the human rights of scholars worldwide. SAR’s mission is to protect threatened scholars, prevent attacks on higher education communities and promote academic freedom. In this edition of Advocate we recognise the 80th anniversary of the Committee for Assisting Refugee Academics (CARA), who are also running an emergency appeal for Syrian academics. There is also the Scholar Rescue Fund (SRF) founded by the Institute of International Education (IIE) in 2002, providing academic fellowships and other support for established scholars whose lives and work are threatened in their home countries. CARA, SAR and IIE-SRF are all members of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA). GCPEA was established in 2010 by organisations from the fields of education in emergencies and conflict-affected fragile states, higher education, protection, interna-

tional human rights, and international humanitarian law who were concerned about ongoing attacks on educational institutions, their students, and staff in countries affected by conflict and insecurity. On 18 January, the Global Coalition put out a statement condemning the January attack on Aleppo University. ‘There can be no possible justification for such an attack on students in their examination rooms and dormitories. It is one more grim example of the way that educational institutions, and their innocent staff and students, are all too often caught up in violence around the world,’ said Stephen Wordsworth, Executive Director of CARA. ‘The bloodshed in Syria continues and all levels of education have paid a heavy price in the conflict. Reports are that in some parts of Syria education has come to a virtual standstill. All parties must immediately abstain from targeting educational facilities and educators and students must be protected. ‘We call upon the parties in Syria to take all necessary steps to protect schools and universities, and those who work and study in them, from any further attacks. Syria’s academics and its young people are the country’s future,’ concluded Mr Wordsworth. EI www.ei-ie.org SAR www.scholarsatrisk.org CARA www.academic-refugees.org SAR www.scholarrescuefund.org IIE-SRF www.scholarrescuefund.org GCPEA www.protectingeducation.org

Garment workers pay the ultimate price continued of forcing Australian jobs offshore because we fight for workers to receive a wage they can live on, have safety standards that protect their life and laws that require companies to disclose the details of their whole supply chain, whether the clothes are being made in a factory or someone’s home. Well I’m OK with that – it can’t be a job at any price. Safe work with dignity is not too much to ask’. These days, as International Women’s Day (IWD) has been co-opted by the corporate world, it is too often forgotten that IWD commemorates the brave young New York women garment workers who one hundred years ago organised and took to the streets in protest demanding their rights following a fire at the Triangle shirtwaist factory, which killed 146 workers. Some years ago, I remember a survivor of a toy factory fire in Thailand speaking at

the Melbourne Trades Hall about having to jump out the window of an upper floor onto the bodies of her dead co-workers. When asked what we should do to help, she said that we must keep organising in our unions and fighting for decent wages and conditions and occupational health and safety laws – in Australia. She said our wins gave them hope of what is possible. It is considered rather old fashioned these days to talk of workers of the world uniting and fighting, but international solidarity is critical. Precarious work, dangerous workplaces, bans on unions organising and striking – these are not just issues of the last century or of developing countries. The TCFUA with community and activist groups has led a campaign to make fashion brands and companies accountable. Consumer campaigns demanding ethical

production and clean supply chains also do have a role. As argued in TCFUA Journal this autumn, ‘Bangladesh is desperate to maintain and grow its garment industry. Global brands are desperate for us to buy and wear their labels. Workers and their families are desperate. Self-regulation, brand specific codes and private sector audits do not work. ‘Workers being free to organise a union and demand safety standards, higher pay and enforceable labour laws from their government do work. Enforceable tripartite union, government, business agreements backed by law, effective compliance and unionised workplaces do work.’ Jeannie Rea, National President

Image source: Yahoo

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43

Unrest in Turkey

Photo: Ceyda Sungur, urban planning professor at Istanbul Technical University, is tear gassed in Gezi Park. Source: Osman Orsal/Reuters

Gezi Park protests resonate in Turkish academe In recent weeks, images from Turkey of tear gas and excessive police force, and stories about government investigations and accusations aimed at Gezi Park protesters may have surprised many outside observers. Initially a small protest to stop plans to demolish one of the few parks left in central Istanbul, it erupted into vast demonstrations against the policies of the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Yet the anger that has been on display – and the unwarranted crackdown by the authorities – would not surprise those who have been watching recent clashes between the government and parts of Turkish higher education. In December a similar but smaller protest took place at Middle East Technical University, a public university in Ankara. Students wanted to demonstrate against the policies of Erdoğan’s political party during a visit by the prime minister to the campus. There, too, reports indicated that the police had launched unprovoked attacks and violence against demonstrators. When faculty members issued statements condemning police brutality, state officials began to press charges and opened disciplinary investigations against student protesters. Then some government-appointed rectors condemned students there as ‘radicals,’ and many faculty members responded by condemning their own rectors as undemocratic. That was not the only example of how universities have been on the front lines between Erdoğan and his opponents.

Asli Igsiz Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies New York University

page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Over the last few years, Erdoğan’s political party, known as AKP, has concentrated power and carried out a series of regulations that compromised the autonomous decision-making process of various public institutions, including academic ones. Previously independent bodies, such as

the Turkish Science Academy, have been forced to accept AKP-supported candidates; other institutions that were supposed to protect the environment have been absorbed into other bureaucracies or completely dismantled. Indeed, it was only because of the Gezi protests that the Turkish Parliament postponed debate on an AKP-sponsored draft law affecting thousands of hectares of forests that enjoy special protected status as conservation zones. The proposal would have eliminated independent assessment of those areas by scientists or by scientific institutions, leaving the fate of the regions to politicians. Like Gezi Park, they would then have become open for private exploitation for tourism or construction. The Council of Higher Education, which oversees Turkish universities and is often referred to by its Turkish acronym of YÖK, has long operated as an extension of the Government. But under the AKP, its centralised disciplinary actions have drawn sharp criticism. In 1982, following a coup d’état, the military-sponsored constitution established the Council to exercise control over higher education. Accordingly, universities cannot autonomously elect their administrators and depend on the Council to open an academic position. The President of Turkey appoints the head of the Council and university rectors – the latter from one of the three candidates who have received the most votes from the faculty. Controversial voting processes and bullying are among the grievances recently reported. What’s more, the

Council also started a series of disciplinary investigations against faculty members and students, often prompted by issues on the state agenda, which under current circumstances means the AKP Government. Academics have also been targets because of their research. For example, Onur Hamzaoğlu, chair of the department of public health at Kocaeli University’s School of Medicine, has conducted research on health hazards at urban industrial sites. Not too long ago, Hamzaoğlu found heavy metals in breast milk and infant faeces. After he publicly cautioned residents of Kocaeli against the dangers of chemical pollution supported by his findings, the leaders of the city and the province, both members of AKP, brought him to court. Hamzaoğlu was accused of ‘threatening to incite fear and panic among the population.’ In addition, reportedly following the lead of the Ministry of Health and the Council of Higher Education, the rector of the university opened a disciplinary investigation against Hamzaoğlu. Turkish scholars have long been vulnerable to state prosecution in fields deemed ‘sensitive’ by officials. Recent high-profile examples include İsmail Beşikçi, Müge Tuzcuoğlu, Pınar Selek, and Büşra Ersanlı. They were detained and/or interrogated on the basis of their research on Kurdish populations or their teaching at a Kurdish science academy. Some were also subjected to ad hominem attacks by pro-government news media. Students are equally vulnerable to investigations. During the Gezi protests, Elisa

Couvert, a French student, was deported and reportedly interrogated about her thesis on the Kurds. The Council of Higher Education appears to have investigated students and faculty members who supported and/or attended the Gezi protests. Also, a textbook on the history of the telegram (written by a professor at Ankara University) was reportedly held as evidence of illegal organisation. According to the Initiative for Solidarity With Detained Students, students involved in the protests sometimes are forced to choose between their rights as citizens and the right to education: Government-appointed university administrators reportedly punish or investigate student protesters, suspending them, expelling them, and/or not allowing them to make up necessary examinations if they are detained. Surveillance, allegations of cronyism, concentrations of administrative powers, violations of academic freedom, and denying students their education are but a microcosm of the climate in Turkey. Much of this is not new, and yet it is most distressing that this is happening under a civilian government often hailed as a ‘model of democracy.’ But while protesters in Istanbul and elsewhere have taken to the streets for a variety of reasons, it’s clear higher education has a big stake in how the demonstrations are resolved. This article first appeared in The Chroncile of Higher Education blog, 2 July 2013. www.chronicle.com/blogs

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45

News from the Net Pat Wright

eLectioneering Campaigning is warming up for the 2013 Federal election. Of course, a base level of campaigning in the traditional news media is always with us, particularly for the conservative Coalition. However, campaigning in the traditional news media is being augmented more and more in 2013 by campaigning with information and communication technologies (ICTs) and social media networking. Just as crude economic rationalism is very economical of thought and effort, relying on the market metaphor to explain everything, so, too, does relentless negativity. Relying on simplistic slogans to dominate the political discourse, and slack journalism to focus on gossip, scandal and the foibles of particular politicians rather than the analysis of policies. Thus have journalists and commentators in the traditional news media shredded the credibility of all politicians and provided a large section of the population with an excuse to eschew all politics in the guise of non-partisan objectivity, aka timidity. Meanwhile, the journos themselves have become little more than Parliament groupies and have lost almost as much credibility as the politicians – and at a time when their publications and broadcasts are losing ground to new media and social networking on the internet. Faced with their dwindling influence through traditional media and the growing influence (albeit relatively small as yet) of the internet, the major newspapers and broadcasters are migrating a version of their content online. Newscorp now has online versions of its newspapers, including The Australian, with the lead paragraph of its stories available free, and the rest

of each story available through online subscription. Fairfax has followed with online versions of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, again behind a paywall after the first ten downloads each month. Both corporations tantalise potential subscribers with occasional freebie stories in full. In moving online, the mainstream newspapers have to adapt to the new environment, evolving from a one-way communication style to something more like a conversation – and some newspapers are better at it than others. They also face strong competition from longer-established online journalism, some of it superior to their hardcopy rivals. Publications native to cyberspace include Inside Story, The Global Mail, PoliticOz, The Monthly, The Conversation, Crikey, New Matilda, On Line Opinion, and now an Australian edition of The Guardian. SBS and ABC television and radio provide On Demand and iView programs for a fortnight or so, provide newsclips on their YouTube channels, video and audio podcasts, email lists, RSS feeds, tweets with links on Twitter, and status updates and conversations on Facebook. Channel ONE uses the Zeebox mobile phone and tablet app to synchronise football scores and stats, Formula 1 lap times etc. with their sporting telecasts to enhance the viewing experience (so why not electoral contests?). All of these developments indicate a growing popularity of the internet, relative to traditional media, but whether they have any electoral influence remains to be seen. It is clear that the Coalition enjoys greater influence in the traditional media, and perhaps Labor has a small lead in the new social media. Certainly, Labor is expending more effort online than the Coalition. Email messages from the PM to ALP members, Facebook pages for senior ministers, Twitter streams from almost all MPs (@KRuddMP has almost 1.3 million followers), videos and animations on YouTube, and SMS text messages all help to maintain an online presence. But will the online campaign make much difference, come election day? The answer to this question is Maybe No and Maybe Yes, according to some recent publications. The Web of Politics: the Internet’s impact on the American Political System by Richard Davis of Brigham Young University (OUP)

page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

is a skeptical analysis of the uses to which ICTs have been put by the major parties in the USA, up to and including in the Congressional election in the middle of President Obama’s first term. Davis’s general conclusion was that use of the internet made no significant fundamental change to the established political system, partly because the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, were equally proficient in using it. Guide to Online Campaigning for Unions: Everything a Non-Expert Needs to Take an Online Union Campaign from Start to Finish by Alex White (at alexwhite.org or Amazon.com) is a practical handbook for unions, but with equal relevance for political parties, augmented by articles on the alexwhite.org website, such as ‘What Labor Can Learn from Obama in 2013’ New Matilda (23 Jan 2013) and ‘It’s the personal contact, stupid’ The Drum ABC (22 November 2012). White’s experience of two and a half months as an Organising Fellow on Obama’s campaign for a second term led him to a conclusion complementary to that of Davis – the internet and ICTs in themselves, when used simply for the transmission of information, have little impact on electoral outcomes, but, when used to bond volunteers, to keep them well-informed, maintain morale, exchange experiences, equip them with targeted electorate intelligence, the subsequent personal contact with the undecided around the water-cooler, in the coffee shop or on the doorstep can make a great difference. The US Democrats had invested more in the technological than in the personal in the Congressional campaign (and lost their majority), then immediately began investing more in the personal, armed with the technological, in the Presidential campaign (which they won). So, it is possible, though perhaps not probable, that Labor’s superiority with the internet and ICTs might make a difference in the Federal election – a moot point. And whether any such difference on its own would be big enough to win is even mooter. Still, stranger things have happened. Pat Wright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of Adelaide. pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au

Lowering the Boom Ian Lowe

Budget fails science and research I am still recovering from the Australian Government’s 2013-14 Budget. It showed all the vision, imagination and commitment to our longterm future we had come to expect from Wayne Swan.

Both the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering backed Professor Chubb’s call for a national science and technology strategy to guide investment in research and innovation, pointing to the fragmentation of spending across a range of departments and agencies.

New strategy for funding As part of his pitch, Professor Chubb observed that research funding is ‘severely rationed’. That is not news to anyone writing research grant applications, but it isn’t easy to find out how much effort is fruitlessly expended in pursuit of financial support.

Rather than do something about the scandalously low revenues from the mining tax or attack the multi-billion dollar subsidies A paper was published in Nature recently of the fossil fuel industry, he targeted by three researchers from Queensland higher education to pay for the extra University of Technology, documenting money needed to the time wasted by bring the schoolAustralian researchI found no mention of ing system up to ers competing for science at all in the many standard. grants. They estimatpages of Budget analysis by ed that more than While the cuts to 550 person-years the commercial media. Not university budgets of effort went into one word. When I did track were up in lights, preparing 2012 grant it was almost imdown the details, I didn’t find applications for the possible to dig out any good news. Australian Research how the GovernCouncil (ARC). Based ment had treated on average academic the research comsalaries, they concluded nearly $70 million munity generally was spent pursuing the elusive research or science and technology in particular. dollars, with 80 per cent of the researchers The Budget papers once contained a coming away empty-handed after all their specific Science and Technology Statework. Given that universities have internal ment, detailing the funding of the various processes which usually encourage only agencies and programs in an integrated the most capable researchers even to apway. Now the references to funding for ply for ARC support, it should be a public science and innovation are deep in the scandal that the funding system fails 80 fine print of allocations to several different per cent of them. government departments, various agenProfessor Chubb has backed his argument cies like CSIRO or ANSTO, or implicit in the for a new strategy with analysis conducted funding of universities. It is a symptom of for the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineerthat approach that I found no mention of ing and Innovation Council. Comparing science at all in the many pages of Budget Australia with 16 selected OECD countries analysis by the commercial media. Not on 22 measures of science and innovation, one word. the study found Australia in the top five on When I did track down the details, I didn’t only one measure, science performance of find any good news. Most allocations for 15-year-old school students. research barely covered cost increases, Many of the countries that do better have while some clearly went backwards. a government body that coordinates The Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, science funding. That approach would came out the week after the Budget to require research agencies and governcall for a science and technology strategy ment departments to devote a share of to ensure ‘we are doing research in areas their funds to priority areas. The politics of that are of critical importance’. That would setting those priorities would be intercertainly be a good idea! esting, especially if there is a change of government in September.

Public vs commercial The Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program was set up to improve the flow of ideas from the research community into practical applications. The approach began with a good balance between centres aimed at commercial development and those with the purpose of advancing the public good. After John Howard was elected in 1996, the public good centres were steadily phased out in favour of an increasing emphasis on helping private corporations to turn research into profitable activities. The new centres funded since 2007 have gone some way to restore the balance. I am personally involved in advising the CRC for Low Carbon Living. I would like to think that such a centre had bi-partisan support; its Board is chaired by former Howard Government Minister Robert Hill. So I was startled to read comments from the man apparently lined up to head a business advisory group if the Liberal-National Party Coalition wins the Federal election. Maurice Newman was quoted in The Guardian Australia as saying that the renewable energy target and the carbon price should be scrapped because ‘the whole science on which it is based is somewhat in tatters’. He went on to repeat the discredited furphy that Australia’s economic competitiveness depends on cheap energy as well as stating ‘when we look at the science it no longer supports the global warming theory’. Those are not the only strange ideas Mr Newman has. The same report noted that he had written an attack on wind energy, printed in a fringe right-wing journal. Newman’s summary: windfarms are ‘grossly inefficient, extremely expensive, socially inequitable, a danger to human health, environmentally harmful, divisive for communities, a blot on the landscape, and don’t even achieve the purpose for which they were designed’. They seem to be responsible for everything but Michael Clark’s back and St Kilda’s poor form! We will be in for a very nasty time after the election, judging by the sorts of advice an Abbott Government would be getting. Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47

The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn

Racism in academic hiring Ten years ago I went out to lunch with my friend Joe who, like me, was working as a casual academic. I barely waited to put in my lunch order before debriefing him on my latest unsuccessful job interview. At the time I didn’t understand that people don’t get jobs in academia just because they are good at stuff like teaching. Connections, histories, reputations – they all matter. Now it’s perfectly obvious why a professor, who had run out of soft money, would make sure his best research assistant got hired, but at the time I blamed it all on the gender thing. So I got my feminist rant on to Joe, who ate his lunch and patiently listened to me for around 20 minutes until I had exhausted my rage. Then he said something I have never forgotten: ‘Inger. I understand you being pissed off. But consider this. There are some women on permanent staff in that architecture department. There are no Asians.’

Joe calmly ate his lunch while I struggled with my feelings. I asked him if he ever got angry and he answered yes, of course. Then he pointed out that getting angry all the time is exhausting. I nodded – I had come to the same conclusion about sexism. So we tacitly agreed to change the subject and talked about computers for the rest of lunch.

I encourage you to look around you for a moment. Academia is very white – too white. I’m sure those people who sit on academic hiring committees would be horrified to be called racist. But there really is no other word for the practice of hiring ‘people like us’ without even noticing it’s happening. Granted some departments, notably in science, ‘Inger. I understand you are a little more being pissed off. But consider diverse, but the fact this. There are some women that we can point on permanent staff in that to them as different is telling don’t you architecture department. think? There are no Asians.’

I went home afterwards feeling deeply troubled. I was finally forced to face my own White Privilege and it wasn’t pretty. I had taken it for granted that being a woman mattered far more than being Asian when it came to being discriminated against in hiring decisions. But the numbers didn’t lie. In fact, I just checked on the website for that particular department. There are STILL no Asians on permanent staff. There is now one person with a Greek name and another who is Italian. Progress?

I stopped mid chew.

Hardly.

Joe, I should point out, is of Asian descent. In that moment I realised I had never thought consciously about the implications of Joe having an Asian background and me having some kind of mongrel British one. Or, more precisely, if I did think about it I had dismissed it as irrelevant. But suddenly I realised race did matter – at least, it seemed, in academic hiring practices.

Let me tell you another story, about my friend Peter, who is of African descent. Peter is a widely published scholar and popular teacher. He is erudite, charming and funny. In short, he is the perfect colleague to have at faculty lunches. However, after many years, Peter is still working as a casual academic.

There were plenty of talented people of Asian descent, like Joe, who studied architecture with me. Plenty of those people were casual lecturers, just like me. If the past was anything to go by, as a white woman I had much more chance of getting a job in that department than Joe did. In fact, as it turned out, Joe hadn’t even been short listed for the job I missed out on, despite being just as qualified as me.

Not long ago Peter told me how he was on the ‘long short list’ for a permanent job. The hiring committee did a phone interview with him because they were considering moving him to the ‘short short list’. I asked him why there was an interview for that and he replied, totally matter of factly with a touch of wry humour: ‘oh, they saw my name and probably wanted to confirm that I could speak English’. I had no words.

get edXpress NTEU’s monthly free e-news service with the latest higher education news, information & gossip

Subscribe for free at www.nteu.org.au/edxpress page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

I’m far from the first person to say that privilege is often mistaken as being normal: as ‘just how things are’. It can take effort to notice the systems that perpetuate privilege in action and there can be push back from colleagues if you question the way things are. But, as Peggy McIntosh says, individual acts are not enough in the face of these problems. ‘To redesign social systems’ she says, ‘we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions’. On any given day inequities of all kinds are being earnestly and carefully discussed in the seminars, cafes and lunch rooms of academia. Articles about racism written by academics appear in newspapers all the time, but we rarely subject ourselves to the same level of scrutiny and critique. We need to start talking about the colossal unseen dimensions without guilt – it’s far better just to be angry. Oh, in case you were wondering: Peter didn’t make it to the short short list either. Dr Inger Mewburn does research on research and blogs about it at www.thesiswhisperer.com With thanks to my good friend Dr Tseen Khoo, who inspired me to write this piece and provided me with some great feedback to make it better.

Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Lesley Francey

A living wage New Zealanders make a habit of comparing ourselves to you Australians. We worry who has the best food, the nicest weather, the most sheep, the strongest (or weakest) economy, the most banal politicians, and of course, our neverending debate about sports teams and athletes. I suspect much of the time Australia is unaware its little brother is comparing itself so assiduously. One area where we often look jealously across the Tasman may surprise you - it’s your minimum wage rates. A couple of months ago the Government increased the minimum wage here in New Zealand by 25 cents to NZ$13.75 an hour. This meagre rate means two adults working full time on the minimum wage will earn between NZ$800-900 a week after tax. Take away an average rent for a family house, especially in a big city, healthy food, electricity, phone and other basic necessities and there is little if any breathing room for families who face any out-of-theordinary costs. For a single income family it is nigh on impossible. For a tertiary education union like us you would hope that the minimum wage rate would be little more than academic (if you’ll excuse the pun). However, Victoria University of Wellington employs bookshelvers in permanent jobs on exactly that rate. And other tertiary education institutions here have similarly low rates for staff and contractors. Tired of insubstantial and incremental gains around the minimum wage, unions and community groups around New Zealand have united in a Living Wage campaign. The campaign bases itself on the successful Living Wage campaign in Britain. It sidesteps government, instead targeting major employers, such as coun-

L N

cils and universities, to pay at least the living wage to their own employees, and to make it a condition in their contracts with companies that offer services such as cleaning and security. The campaign has named a living wage rate of NZ$18.40 an hour, calculated by researchers at the Anglican Church’s Family Centre, as ‘the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life’. About 40 per cent of New Zealand’s 1.85 million employees, or around 740,000 people, earn below that rate – including beginning teachers, chefs, truck drivers, mechanics and carpenters, as well as traditionally low-paid groups such as cleaners, caregivers and checkout operators. Charles Waldegrave, who led the Family Centre study, says the NZ$18.40 figure is based on ‘not including any luxuries at all’. ‘The whole idea is you could participate in society and have enough to pay your rent and food and power,’ he says. Many tertiary education employees, such as library assistants, gardeners and cleaners, are on salaries and wages below NZ$18.40 an hour. For instance, tutors at Victoria University of Wellington, some of whom have masters degrees and are studying towards doctorates, have a starting pay rate of NZ$17.54 an hour. Many of these tutors are also studying full-time, and are no longer eligible for a student allowance. They work limited parttime hours. They need a job that pays a fair wage just to live. There are some general staff, caretakers and security staff at Victoria University of Wellington who earn lower rates than tutors, some close to or on the minimum wage, and many are trying to support family on those pay rates. By comparison, Victoria University of Wellington’s Vice-Chancellor earns the equivalent of NZ$250 an hour. Institution leaders like him have a key role to play turning their institutions into living wage employers. Universities are meant to be transformative, not just for students but staff. People at universities should be making a better life for themselves and their communities. We would like to see universities and

As gap between thevery rich and otherthe tertiary employers among the first employers to sign up to the Living New Zealanders don’t get paid en Wage campaign.

Someover employers New Zealand, All thearound world communities including the Wellington City Council, campaigns. living wage cam have committed to The being living wage employers.Food However,Workers so far tertiaryUnion educationNgā R and employers have been quiet on the Living organisations together around a c Wage campaign. inequality and poverty in our soci We would like to see them commit publicly to being living wage employers and

ensure that theirwe contractors are thethe same. livin Why do need Employers, especially big public sector

employers whoZealand are in the business of l New has gone from giving people better employment opporunequal inbeyond the past tunities, need to move seeing20 the years minimum wage as a baseline and focus l Income inequality reached its instead on what their employees actually byorder 3%to in need in care2010-11 for their families. l The richest 150 people in New One Vice-Chancellor, Steve Maharey of Massey University,by hasless told the media2% moved than that he believed the living wage was a l The top 1% of earners has m ‘worthwhile debate’ but also said that he was speaking as a former Cabinet Minister combined cash and assets of and not as an employer. As an employer l One in five, or 230,000 NZ ch he has recently contracted out dozens of one in four low-paid cleaning jobs. Pacific, and one in l of poor children fro He and40% his colleagues need to commit, come as employers, to the Living Wage campaign. or self employed

Lesley Francey is National President/Te What will the living wage Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary

Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o l Call for a living wage that is b Aotearoa www.teu.ac.nz l Work with local networks to b l Acknowledge the many facets l Recognise the many voices in and outside of paid work l Make the living wage a real is

How will the living wage

l Businesses commit to the prin l All publicly-funded bodies lea NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July • www.nteu.org.au/advocate page 49 l 2013All publicly-funded•bodies inc policy and partnerships with s

My Union NTEU at 20: An unlikely union The NTEU was and remains an unlikely union. It started small, but has grown to 28,000 members: but still a minnow among ACTU affiliates. It started life as an amalgamation of two small academic unions and three modest general staff unions. It now has coverage of most classifications in higher education and limited coverage in other parts of tertiary education. Most other unions have vacated higher education. It can legitimately claim to be the pre-eminent voice of employees in the sector Enterprise bargaining It was NTEU’s fortune that its formation in 1993 coincided with enterprise bargaining. Its quasi-decentralised structure meant that it adapted to the new system more rapidly than other unions, but it also realised that decentralised bargaining required central coordination. The bargaining coordination dated from almost the beginning of the Union, centralised finance and employment arrangements came later. It managed to extract modest wage increases during the Labor period and initially fared well under the Coalition’s less friendly regime of individual and ‘non-union’ Agreements. The coordination of bargaining was assisted by lack of coordination amongst Vice-Chancellors. While the Government pretended to stand aloof from bargaining it set conditions, via the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), that rendered Vice-Chancellors the agents of Government. While some resented this, their managerial prerogative was enhanced. The incoming Labor Government abolished the more anti-union provisions of WorkChoices, but the fifth round of bargaining is the longest so far. The current round proceeds slowly with only three Agreements made, and five days of strike action at the University of Sydney has not led to an Agreement in a strong Branch. The overall experience of enterprise bargaining, however, has been positive.

What’s your NTEU story? Let us know and be part of our 20 year anniversary celebrations.

www.nteu.org.au/mystory Policy and campaigning The NTEU has always prided itself on the quality of its research and its ability to convert its research into campaigns. Well-prepared submissions, cogent argument and access to Ministers do not in themselves guarantee success. The Union had good access to Ministers Vanstone and Nelson, but the former presided over large cuts to the sector. Nelson went some way towards restoring funding but at the price of more intrusive regulation of teaching, research, industrial relations and internal governance of institutions. The Union had more policy success under Labor with legislation enhancing intellectual freedom, increased research funding, changes to the ERA and enhanced access to higher education. This was not matched by appropriate funding, with the staff-student ratio increasing over time. The cuts in overall funding in 2012-13 took place with little or no reference to the NTEU. The campaigns against the 1996 funding cuts made the Government aware that the ire of sector was a risk to be borne. Both the Union and the Vice-Chancellors campaigned for many years for more realistic supplementation arrangements against the opposition of Treasury and Finance. The cuts in the last two Federal Budgets led to the decision in June to spend $1 million supporting selected pro-higher education candidates and the maintenance of a Greens’ balance of power in the Senate. NTEU never supported the Coalition and was generally reluctant to

page 50 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

endorse Labor. By taking this controversial decision for the 2013 election campaign it took a significant step to being a partisan electoral organisation as well as an industrial union.

Constituencies The NTEU has some distinct constituencies. The Union has devoted considerable resources for Indigenous members with two full time staff at the National level, guaranteed representation at all levels of the Union, priority to Indigenous matters at Executive and Council meetings and Indigenous employment as a mandatory claim in enterprise bargaining. The Indigenous Policy Committee includes a representative from each Division and the Chair also sits on the National Executive The Women’s Action Committee (WAC) has remained active and was influential in persuading the Union to adopt parental leave as a mandatory claim in bargaining. For general staff, provision was made in Union rules to provide for separate meetings of academic and general staff. These fell into disuse very early in the Union’s history and specific working parties now deal with issues of particular concern to specific constituencies. The Victorian Division has been active in defending TAFE staff in that State. On the other hand, the Union has been less successful in recruiting the growing number of research only staff although it was able to campaign successfully for amendments to the ERA.

Superannuation As the largest union in the higher education sector the NTEU has usually held one position on the Unisuper Board.

Inter-union and international Since its inception, NTEU has held a seat on the ACTU Executive. While higher education is not the ACTU’s highest priority,

My Union the NTEU’s approach to campaigning on behalf of casual employees has been adopted by the peak body. The NTEU has also become influential in the international higher education union organisations. General Secretary Grahame McCulloch is a member of the Executive Board of Education International and the NTEU has done significant work with unions in the Asia Pacific area.

Successes From this selective review the following conclusions can be drawn: • T he NTEU survived the immense pressures on unions. • It learnt how to bargain successfully and spread benefits across the sector. • I t achieved some of the highest salaries for university staff in the world and higher than traditional comparators within Australia. • It contested the harder edges of managerial prerogative. • It maintained a high level of leadership continuity. • It shifted resources to the Branches while maintaining strong central control of resource allocation and strategies. • It maintained a policy relevance, although it was shut out for much of the Coalition period. • It modified the ERA.

What is to be done? • To lessen the gap between the increase in student numbers and declining funding per student. • Provide a greater level of job security for non-continuing staff. • I nsist on payment for work performed ‘beyond contract’. • Recruit more younger academics who may not understand the utility of collective strength. • Organise research only staff. • Assert that in research quality is not determined by metrics or by journal rankings. • Plan for leadership succession at all levels of the Union. • Prepare for a more hostile government. The NTEU has survived twenty years of turbulence. It is well placed to face a difficult future. John O’Brien is a Life Member and is writing a history of the NTEU.

Vale Paul Mees The NTEU notes with sorrow the death of long-standing NTEU member and public transport campaigner, Associate Professor Paul Mees, on 19 June. Paul was diagnosed with cancer over a year ago and died aged 52. Paul was a visionary who combined determination, iron-clad reason and the best elements of Catholic faith in his crusade for a better public transport system. He will be sadly missed by his friends and family. Melbourne has lost one of its most important advocates for public transport. The NTEU extends sympathy to Paul’s family, friends and colleagues. Paul was a public intellectual with a resolute dedication to calling governments and university administrations to account. Paul brought intellectual rigour to this important area of public policy. In a field where huge commercial contracts and corporate interests distort the debate, Paul never flinched in speaking truth to power. He paid a price for this in his professional career. At the University of Melbourne, he was criticised by senior management for his public denunciation of the Victorian Government’s road-building fervour and of their senior transport policy advisors. Rather than retracting or modifying his statements in the face of pressure, Paul stood up for the principles of academic freedom and challenged the University to honour its own policies. Paul’s first book on urban planning, A Very Public Solution, written whilst a post-doctoral fellow with Patrick Troy at the Australian National University, received much acclaim and gained Paul international recognition. His second book, Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age, was reprinted twice. It cemented Paul’s reputation as an innovative thinker on public transport and urban planning. From 1998-2008, Paul taught at the University of Melbourne but was demoted for controversial comments made about State Government figures and the continued privatisation of public transport. Paul subsequently resigned and joined RMIT, lecturing in statutory planning and transport planning. Paul was also well known as an outspoken advocate holding elected positions Public Transport

Users’ Association (PTUA); firstly as the Secretary from 1986 to 1992, and then as the President until 2001. RMIT Branch President, Dr Mel Slee, was a personal friend and colleague and joined the hundreds of people gathered at Our Lady Help of Christians on Wednesday 26 June for Paul’s funeral. ‘The range of mourners from many walks of life was a testament to Paul’s many years of public advocacy. People came from urban planning and public transport fields, academia, politics, the media, the law and the union movement to join his family and many friends in honouring his passing,’ she said. ‘It was a fitting tribute to Paul’s ebullient and irreverent sense of humour that a time of sorrow also included laughter as his family and closest friends shared their fondest memories of Paul. Close friend, Ian Calcutt, read an excerpt from one of Paul’s speeches entitled ‘From the letter of Paul to the Melburnians’; a biting satire of Melbourne’s woeful public transport system.’ Paul’s wife, Erica Cervini (who writes ‘The Third Degree’ higher education blog), told how they arrived on their wedding day by tram and reported that neither Paul nor Erica owned a car with Erica being one-up by not even having a driver’s licence. Tony Morton, President of the PTUA, said: ‘Paul was an outstanding contributor to the transport debate, not least in Melbourne through his work with the PTUA. ‘Paul was one of Australia’s most prominent public transport advocates. He energised an entire generation of activists to challenge the road lobby and seek a better deal for trains, trams and buses. He will be sorely missed but leaves behind a strong community movement dedicated to carrying on his legacy.’ Matt McGowan, Natl Asst Secretary

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 51

My Union NTEU members running in the Federal Election A number of NTEU members are candidates in this year’s Federal Election. Advocate is proud to present them to you.

Corpus Christi. Later, Deborah took up a posting as a lecturer at the University of Newcastle’s School of Education, both at the Callaghan and Central Coast Campus.

(still going well at 86) ran a retail jewellery shop in Gawler Place for fifty years. Rick and his wife Deb live in Beulah Park with their two teenagers.

Deb’s connection to the Central Coast community through education guided her into politics. Here she saw the power of the Parliament, combined with her passion for social justice, in bringing people together to create a more inclusive society.

Rick attended Magill Demonstration School and then Kings College. He graduated from Law at the University of Adelaide in 1976 and did his Articles in 1977. Rick then attended Graceland University, USA, graduating from the University of Toronto (Canada) in 1983 with a Masters in Criminology. He received his Doctor of Legal Science from the University of Canberra in 2002.

In 2012, Deborah became the first woman to chair the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Deb is a member of the Speakers Panel, and serves as Assistant Speaker in the House of Representatives. She married Paul in 1985 and they have three children whom they have raised on the Central Coast.

Andrew Leigh ALP member for Fraser ACT A father of three sons, Andrew lives with his wife Gweneth in Hackett, ACT. Prior to being elected in 2010 as the Federal member for Fraser, Andrew was a Professor of Economics at ANU, and a proud member of the NTEU. Andrew holds a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard, having graduated from Sydney University with degrees in Law and Arts. He has previously worked as a lawyer (including a stint as Associate to former High Court Justice Michael Kirby), and as a Principal Adviser to the Australian Treasury. Andrew is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, the only parliamentarian to be a fellow of one of the four national academies. In 2011, he received the ‘Young Economist Award’, a prize given every two years by the Economics Society of Australia to the best Australian economist under 40. Andrew’s books include Disconnected (2010) and Battlers and Billionaires: The Story of Inequality in Australia (2013). When not in the office, Andrew enjoys spending time with Gweneth and the boys, enjoying the beautiful Canberra outdoors.

Deb O’Neill ALP member for Robertson NSW Deborah O’Neill MP was elected to the Federal Parliament in August 2010, and is the Member for Robertson For the best part of three decades Deb was a teacher at St Edward’s College and

Rachael Jacobs Greens candidate for Brisbane QLD Rachael Jacobs is the Greens candidate for the seat of Brisbane. She is a lecturer in Education at the Australian Catholic University, and a writer and dancer. As an educator and former teacher, Rachael is passionate about early learning, school and tertiary education and is proud of the Greens’ strong record on this issue. ‘The Greens have a plan to fund Gonski while protecting university funding. We’ve stood proudly with the NTEU against successive cuts and will do what we can to protect job security and grow funding for the sector.’ A Fortitude Valley resident, Rachael is passionate about homelessness, immigration, multiculturalism and the arts. Rachael is on a number of boards including Drama Australia and the Primary Arts Network. She is an active member of Oxfam and a strong advocate for foreign aid. In 2012, Rachael was the Greens candidate for Brisbane Central in the Brisbane City Council elections. She has recently submitted her PhD on Senior Secondary Drama Assessment.

Rick Sarre ALP candidate for Sturt SA Rick Sarre is as the Labor candidate for Sturt (held by Christopher Pyne). Rick was born in Norwood and grew up in Rosslyn Park. His late mother Winifred taught English and French at Norwood High for fifteen years and his father Brian

page 52 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Rick has been with UniSA now for almost 30 years, except for periods of teaching in Sweden, and working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in Hong Kong. He is Professor of Law and Criminal Justice in the Law School at the University of South Australia. Rick has been a volunteer for the Norwood Community Legal Service, Camp Quality, Victim Support Service, OARS, Community Transitions, the Adelaide University Football Club, and his church’s Community Café. He is the co-pastor of this church, the Community of Christ, in Adelaide.

Jonathan Hallett Greens candidate for Perth WA Jonathan Hallett is an academic at Curtin University and a tireless advocate for public health, marginalised groups and the local environment. Driven by optimism and building a more ecological and liveable Perth city, Jonathan is running for the Greens because their policies promise the protection of our environment and our future. He would like to see us invest in building a better future for us all, ending inefficient subsidies to polluting industries, and take advantage of our mining boom rather than squandering it. The Greens are serious about making smart choices for our future. That means using and investing all our resources wisely. For Jonathan, this means a sustainable economy whilst developing exceptional public transport with light rail networks, large scale renewable energy, integrating dental care into Medicare, a focus on local food production and a vibrant community based culture. He is also committed to rejecting the cynical politics of fear and hysteria over asylum seekers shown by the old parties. Standing for the Greens is Jonathan’s opportunity to champion universal access to high quality education, which he believes, is fundamental to Australia’s prosperity, environmental sustainability, well-being and social fulfilment.

My Union Tribute to Senator Trish Crossin NTEU Life Member Trish Crossin has served her final term as Senator for Northern Territory after being deselected in a controversial ‘captain’s pick’ by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who declared Olympic champion Nova Peris as the candidate for this year’s Federal election.

Charles Worringham Greens candidate for Ryan QLD A Senior Lecturer at Queensland University of Technology, Charles has studied movement problems in Parkinson’s disease, workforce health, and has developed real-time remote monitoring for cardiac rehabilitation, with funding from industry, ARC and NH&MRC. He teaches movement disorders, motor control, research methods and statistics, and served as Acting Head of School in 2011. Charles was on the faculty at the University of Michigan before moving with his family to Brisbane, and his PhD is from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Outside academia Charles is a lifelong distance runner, enjoys canoeing and the bush, and was the inaugural chair of Kenmore State High School Council. ‘Many more people than I imagined recognise that major challenges – economic, environmental, and in food and energy systems – confront our world. As teachers, researchers and citizens we could play a big part in meeting them. We can move rapidly to a clean energy future, rebalance our economy away from an over-reliance on fossil fuel exports, promote other sectors such as sustainable food production and tourism, and, of course, research and higher education. Brisbane’s west has an exceptional university and residents with a remarkable breadth of expertise and knowledge. We have so much more to offer the world than our coal and gas.’

Trish Crossin was elected to the Senate in 1998. She has a Bachelor of Education and has taught in Melbourne, North-East Arnhem Land and Darwin. Prior to entering the Senate, Trish worked as an Industrial Officer with the NTEU and the AEU. Trish was made an NTEU Life Member in 2001. Trish Crossin has been a strong voice for the NT and a progressive voice in the Senate. She campaigned against the abolition of bilingual education and mandatory sentencing. Four years ago, Trish initiated the review of the Sex Discrimination Act, which led to some major amendments, and initiated and tabled the Marriage Equality Bill in the Senate last year. In her final Senate speech, Trish thanked her ‘comrades in the trade union movement, especially in the NTEU, where I learnt so many of my skills to do this job.’ NTEU National President, Jeannie Rea said, ‘Trish Crossin epitomises the passionate, consistent commitment to progressive social change that we should expect from unionists and feminists going into parliamentary politics. She was diligent in pursuing new and old controversial matters particularly in relation to human rights and social justice. ‘We may not have thought reviewing the Sex Discrimination Act was going to be controversial as we have lived with it for many years, but as soon the opportunity arises, we again see those who would deny sex and gender equality and equity come out of the woodwork. Trish would stare them down across the committee room, on floor of the Senate and, I suspect at times, in her party room. We will miss her and the NTEU is very proud that she has never forgotten her union.’

Achievements... Trish said her highlights had included being part of the ALP gaining government in the Northern Territory in 2001 and winning the Federal election in 2007; meeting US President Barack Obama; representing the Australian Parliament overseas; visiting the Antarctic; and chairing the Indonesian Parliamentary Friendship Group. Trish confronted her deselection, asking ‘Do we need more women in parliament? Of course we do, but not at the expense of each other. Do we need Indigenous representation? Most

certainly we do, but not in a vacuum without a plan or without a strategy. Just because one person says it must be so does not make it right or democratic. The review of the 2010 Federal election recommended that intervention in party preselection by the national executive should only occur as a last resort, rather than as a first resort, and only in exceptional circumstances. There are many wonderful Indigenous members of the party in the NT who have now been denied the chance to replace me. This is grossly unfair. It is undemocratic and it is not the Labor way.’

...and regrets At the end of her speech, Trish declared the worst day of her Senate career was the announcement of the Northern Territory intervention. ‘To move into people’s lives and communities in this way left me speechless and helpless. The people that I had lived and worked with were humiliated and shamed. They were left to wonder why and how it had come to this. Then, when we won government, they lobbied me continually to make changes faster than we did and to recognise that support and assistance was needed. The final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody says ‘If there is one lesson we can learn from history, it is that solutions imposed from the outside will only create their own problems.’ Isn’t that so? Just have a look at the last five years.’ NTEU thanks Trish for her many years of service to the Territory and the country, and wishes her all the best in whatever future endeavours she embarks. Sources: abc.net.au, trishcrossin.com.au

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 53

My Union NSW delegates & activists e-news The strength of a union depends on more than just the size of its membership – to a large extent it depends on how active and engaged its members are. As a democratic, member-driven organisation NTEU supports the active involvement and leadership of our members at all levels. Resourcing delegates is a vital part of this work. For many university staff, NTEU delegates are the first point of contact with the Union. They build the strength of the NTEU in their local workplace by organising meetings, recruiting new members, and encouraging other members to become active. In the NTEU’s NSW Division, a range of new resources for delegates has been created to support this work—including a quarterly electronic newsletter and a delegate handbook. ‘We value the work of our delegates and recognise the vital role they play in our Union, which is why we want to ensure our delegates and activists feel trained, confident and supported in their work,’ said Genevieve Kelly, NSW Division Secretary. ‘Last year we created a range of resources designed to support delegates in building for a better workplace. These resources are about acknowledging and respecting the work delegates do to support the NTEU, and campaign for a better future for our sector.’ ‘Key to these resources is our quarterly electronic newsletter for delegates and activists. We have also released a handbook for delegates and continue to promote training opportunities for our active members.’ The NSW Delegates and Activists e-bulletin shares the personal stories and experiences of NTEU delegates and activists, provides information on what is happening across the state and also seeks to build connections between campus activists. The NTEU NSW Delegates Handbook contains information about how to ap-

Branch and delegate development

Some delegate feedback...

NTEU has made delegate development a priority for 2013. Facilitated workshops with Branch Committees and delegates have begun at Monash, ANU, UTas, Adelaide and UNSW. Workshops with Melbourne, CSU, Curtin and Griffith will follow soon.

New Delegate UNSW

The workshops help Branch Committees and delegates understand their roles and responsibilities within the workplace and the Union, and help them to become more active and effective. The workshops explore participants’ reasons for becoming a delegate and the values and principles that underpin their decision. The participants also define what they mean by a strong union and how to develop strong delegate networks. Participants then identify what they each need to do to achieve this. Each Branch will have three workshops over 6 months. Three bargaining training sessions were held to assist bargaining teams in universities in NT, NSW, SA and QLD to better understand bargaining and to negotiate effectively. The first of a series of train-the-trainer workshops was held for NTEU staff who will be training members about classification issues. Helena Spyrou, Education & Training Officer

proach colleagues to join NTEU, organise workplace meetings and build around workplace issues. It also has information about the training opportunities available to our delegates. Both publications are based on real examples from NTEU delegates and draw on their stories and experiences. Emma Rush, delegate at Charles Sturt University, shared her story in issue 2 of the newsletter as a way of encouraging and supporting new delegates. ‘I chose to share my story (‘What I do as a delegate’) because I thought it might be useful to members considering becoming delegates,’ Dr Rush said.

page 54 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

I didn’t really know much about the NTEU before coming along, but I knew I wanted to start getting involved. I feel like it’s time to start putting my money where my mouth is.

I am now less intimidated by the idea of becoming a union delegate, as I am more comfortable working on a oneto-one basis or with small groups of colleagues. New Delegate UNSW

I found it to be quite uplifting, really, it strengthened my resolve to get more involved. New Delegate Monash

As always hearing about other people’s workplaces was interesting and challenging. ... reminded me of how wonderfully democratic and supportive is our union. New Delegate UNSW

I really enjoyed hearing about issues other members had experienced and what actions they took. ... I would love to be more proactive. New Delegate Monash

It inspired me to keep on trying to change things-get new members. Experienced Delegate Monash

I got a lot out of discussion about non-industrial actions and media-related awareness campaigns. It made me want to get more involved. I will try to be more proactive in recruiting new members. New Delegate Adelaide

‘The delegate role is a useful and rewarding one, but it’s not all that clear what it involves until you are in it! For anyone considering becoming a delegate, I really recommend it: it’s interesting (you learn heaps) and it gives you the capacity to inform and support your colleagues, and to channel their feedback up to the local Branch for action.’ The NTEU NSW Delegates Handbook are available from local Branch offices. Adam Knobel, Communications Officer/Organiser, NSW Division Interested NSW delegates and activists can sign-up to receive the quarterly e-bulletin at: www.nteu.org.au/nsw/delegates

My Union New staff in NTEU offices

His last full-time position was at Greenpeace International (Amsterdam) working on brand/identity development and a variety of communications campaigns. He has 20 years communications experience.

Advocate is pleased to introduce new faces in NTEU Branches and Divisions. Toby Cotton Campaigns & Communications Officer, Victoria Originally from the UK, Toby has been a consultant specialising in strategic campaign communications and brand development for a variety of European not-for-profit organisations.

Sharon Bailey Branch Organiser UTS Sharon has experience as a Workplace Delegate, Organiser, National Education Officer and Lead Organiser with various unions over a 23 year career in the trade union movement. Sharon is excited to be a part of the NTEU team and is looking forward to applying her union education, industrial and organ-

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

Sharon is committed to engaging members and potential members around issues they care about to ensure they have a voice in matters that continue to impact on their working and personal lives by having a strong union on the ground.

Staff movements Linda Gale, Senior Industrial Officer in the Victorian Division, takes up the position of Acting National Industrial Organiser while Sarah Roberts is on maternity leave. Jenny Savage has retired as Finance Unit Coordinator in the National Office, a position she has held for the Union’s entire 20 years. We wish her all the very best in her retirement!

Want to receive your own copy of AUR?

vol. 54, no. 2, 201 2

Published by NTEU

ising skills to assist members in building their union at work.

AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU.

ISSN 0818– 8068

AUR

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

Australia n Unive rsities’R eview

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

www.aur.org.au

AUR is listed on the DEEWR register of refereed journals.

Your NTEU membership details When and how to update them Have your workplace details changed? Î Please update your workplace office or building details, phone numbers, campus location etc. Has your Department/School changed name or merged? Î Please help us keep up with institutions’ penchant for renaming Deptarments and Schools. Have you moved house recently?

Update online: Go to www.nteu.org.au Click on ‘Member Login’ ID = Your NTEU membership number Password = Your surname in CAPITALS

Î If you have nominated your home address as your NTEU contact address, you must update it.

Go to ‘My Home’ Select ‘Your Profile’ and then select ‘View Details’

Has your family name changed? Have you moved to a different institution? Î Transfer of membership from one institution to another is not automatic. Have your employment details changed? Î Please notify us to ensure you are paying the correct fees. Have your credit card (i.e. expiry date) details changed?

Please contact: Melinda Valsorda, Membership Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email mvalsorda@nteu.org.au

Please contact:

Have your direct debit account details changed?

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

Are you leaving university employment? Î If you are no longer an NTEU member, deductions will continue until the National Office is notified. Have your payroll deductions stopped without your authority?

Contact your institution’s Payroll Dept urgently

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 20 no. 2 • July 2013 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 55

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

MEMBERSHIP FORM

 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 CITY/SUBURB PHONE |WORK INCL AREA CODE

HOME PHONE INCL AREA CODE

|DATE OF BIRTH

EMAIL HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY BEEN AN NTEU MEMBER?

 YES: AT WHICH INSTITUTION?

YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT DETAILS

|DEPT/SCHOOL |CLASSIFICATION LEVEL LECTB, HEW4

POSITION

|POSTCODE | MALE  FEMALE  OTHER _______

|ARE YOU AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL/TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER?  YES

 PLEASE USE MY HOME ADDRESS FOR ALL MAILING

|CAMPUS

INSTITUTION/EMPLOYER FACULTY

|STATE |MOBILE

STEP/ |INCREMENT

|ANNUAL SALARY IF KNOWN

YOUR EMPLOYMENT GROUP

 ACADEMIC STAFF

 TEACHING & RESEARCH  RESEARCH ONLY  TEACHING INTENSIVE

 GENERAL/PROFESSIONAL STAFF

I HEREBY APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP OF NTEU, ANY BRANCH AND ANY ASSOCIATED BODY‡ ESTABLISHED AT MY WORKPLACE.

 RESEARCH ONLY

SIGNATURE

DATE

OTHER:

YOUR EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY & 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

| STAFF PAYROLL NO.

I INSERT YOUR NAME

IF KNOWN

OF YOUR ADDRESS HEREBY AUTHORISE INSTITUTION

|DATE

SIGNATURE

OPTION 2: CREDIT CARD

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXPIRY

OPTION 3: DIRECT DEBIT

 QUARTERLY  HALF-YEARLY  ANNUALLY

|DATE

Choose your salary range. Select 6 month or 1 year membership. Tick the appropriate box. Pay by cheque, money order or credit card.

Salary range

6 months

12 months

$10,000 & under: $10,001–$20,000: Over $20,000:

 $27.50  $38.50  $55

 $55  $77  $110

 PLEASE ACCEPT MY CHEQUE/MONEY ORDER OR CREDIT CARD:  MASTERCARD  VISA

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

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

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

I INSERT YOUR NAME

SIGNATURE

1. 2. 3. 4.

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

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); 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

WWW.ELITEEDITING.COM.AU

Academic Editing Service

cademic editing ensures the language, style and structure of your writing are flawless. Our attention to detail means you are free to concentrate on those crucial ideas that ensure high quality research. Our full editing service ensures:

COHERENCE: logical flow & articulation of all arguments COMPETENCE: flawless grammar, spelling, punctuation & structure COMPLIANCE: ruthlessly accurate layout, format & referencing CONSISTENCY: absolute uniformity of style, language & key terms

NTEU earrings Silver hook, 15mm diameter, $10 each Buy from www.nteu.org.au/shop

OFFICE: 1800 246 558 DR LISA LINES, HEAD EDITOR: 0402 361 452 ADDRESS: 61 Carrington St Adelaide SA 5000 EMAIL: info@eliteediting.com.au

NTEU Tax Guide 2013: available now! Prepared for NTEU members by Teacher Tax. GUIDE 20 NTEU TAX

Download your free PDF at www.nteu.org.au/tax

or visit your local Branch office for a printout.

g.au/tax www.nteu.or

Witness people’s power in action Join the 2013 Australian solidarity brigade to Venezuela on 4-13 December.

The dream of every worker for a safe, satisfying, democratically run workplace has become a reality for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, whose workplaces now operate under direct workers’ control. Australians will have an opportunity to observe workers’ control and social justice first-hand during the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network’s 15th solidarity brigade. In the last decade, Venezuela’s Government has instituted major reforms to redistribute wealth and control to the majority of the population. Venezuela’s minimum wage has increased five-fold and a new labour law has reduced working hours, and prohibited unfair dismissal and outsourcing. Venezuela now has the world’s thirdlongest maternity leave scheme in the world. Approximately 200,000 workers are now participating in workers’ control and a further 2 million are working in cooperatives. In the many privately owned industries taken over by employees, health and safety has improved, wages have increased, and workers’ satisfaction and pride in their work has dramatically increased. The AVSN brigade will visit some of these workplaces, as well as communal councils, health and education services, ecological programs, community controlled media, and women’s and Indigenous organisations and projects.

For more information, email info@venezuelasolidarity.org or phone Lisa Macdonald on 0413 031 108.

Is your financial future mapped out? UniSuper Advice can help you navigate through the super and financial decisions that may lie on the road ahead.

Whether you need advice on growing your wealth, managed funds or setting up life insurance to protect you in the future, UniSuper Advice can get your financial roadmap on track. Call our Financial Advice Centre on 1300 331 685 to arrange an appointment today.

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.

Find out more www.unisuper.com.au/advice advice@unisuper.com.au 1300 331 685

ADVICE