Advocate, June 2014

Advocate vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295

Budget 2014: Road to ruin A degree shouldn’t cost a mortgage ɓɓThe end of public higher education ɓɓBudget winners and losers ɓɓShocker for Indigenous Australians ɓɓEffect on students & postgrads ɓɓScholarships trashed

ɓɓVictoria’s policy & market failure ɓɓUK: Debt & ‘cashpoint colleges’ ɓɓCollege owner’s access to top Libs ɓɓLocking in fairness at Navitas ɓɓRacial Discrimination Act changes

ɓɓGeneral Staff or Professional? ɓɓThe house casual organising built ɓɓQUTE stands in solidarity ɓɓFears for Thai academics ɓɓ... and much more.

Contents Cover image: NTEU members at the Bust the Budget rally in Melbourne in May. Photo by Chris Clarke.

2

No truth or justice in the American way Editorial, Jeannie Rea

3

Rough seas ahead From the General Secretary

4

Academic freedom under threat from Defence Trade Controls Act

Investor-State Dispute Settlement review

5

Coalition to water down workplace gender equality legislation

Civil/Courage at USC

6

Bargaining update

7

Bargaining State of Play

8

Bluestocking Week 2014: Crossing the Line

10 Votes lost, count won: the WA Senate vote re-run 11 QUTE stands in solidarity UNICASUAL NEWS 12 Reaching out to contingent faculty in the US 13 Uni work becoming more precarious

Survey of casual teaching online

INDIGENOUS NEWS 14 Aloha from WIPC:E 2014 15 18C and the ‘right to be bigots’ COLUMNS 42 Net snares Budget bombs News from the Net, by Pat Wright 43 McDonaldisation of higher education Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, Advocate is printed using vegetable based inks with alcohol free printing initiatives on FSC certified paper under ISO 14001 Environmental Certification.

All text and images © NTEU 2014 unless otherwise stated.

p. 9

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. 16

UPDATE

9 Locking in fairness at Navitas

Environment ISO 14001

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

44 Academic assholes and other jerks Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn 45 Kiwi tertiary staff working in fear Letter from NZ, Lesley Francey, TEU YOUR UNION 46 Organising our Organisers

FEATURES

29 Will a PhD become a bridge too far?

16 Budget 2014: On the road to ruin Australia is reeling from the first Abbott Budget, as our university system takes a body blow.

17 The end of public higher education Australia’s system of public higher education will come to an end if the Abbott Government gets its Budget through the Senate.

20 Winners and losers The ‘budget burden’ is clearly unevenly spread.

21 Slicing and dicing too thin This Budget serves to slice, dice and spread far too thin Australia’s economic and social future.

22 A degree shouldn’t cost a mortgage Join our campaign against the Budget.

24 Case study in policy & market failure The deregulation of vocational education has been an unmitigated failure in Victoria.

26 Commonwealth scholarships trashed The Budget trashes the Liberals’ legacy, and makes things worse for low-income students.

27 Budget a shocker for Indigenous Australia Budget is even worse than imagined for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

28 Students question if uni is worth it NUS says students are fearful of lifetime debt.

p. 22

Students will need to think very carefully about whether a PhD is really worth it.

30 College owner gets amazing access New Matilda reports on the private college owner and Liberal Party donor given access to senior Liberal politicians.

31 Science in the House Members Sivakumar Alagumalai and Reyna Zipf report from Science meets Parliament.

32 CASA: the house that casualisation built Stories of US adjunct organising inspired the formation of CASA (Casual, Adjunct, Sessional staff and Allies in Australian Higher Education).

34 General and/or professional – but definitely not ‘non-academic’ What’s in a name?

36 Hope within horror Most Australians cannot comprehend the persecution that impels refugees to flee their homes.

37 Thai academics suffer in latest coup Concern at academics and students detained by the military junta.

38 Student debt and cashpoint colleges The UK experience with higher education deregulation is a forewarning of Australia’s future.

40 Recent human rights actions p. 38

47 Temporary incapacity and your superannuation 48 Travel to Work insurance 49 Carolyn Allport and Joan Hardy scholarships

Advocate is available online as a PDF at nteu.org.au/advocate and an e-book at www.issuu.com/nteu

UniHealth insurance for members

Vale Jim McAllister

NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification of online copy rather than mailed printed version). Details at nteu.org.au/ softfdelivery

51 New NTEU Shop

50 New NTEU staff

NTEU Tax Guide 2014

Your annual tax statement

Updating your NTEU membership details NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1

Editorial Jeannie Rea, National President

No truth or justice in the American way If any one aspect of Minister for Education Pyne’s plans for Australian higher education sends shivers down the collective spines of university staff, students and ViceChancellors, it is his proclamation that the United States higher education system is his inspiration.

Not surprisingly, the prospect of the Americanisation of our universities also horrifies the general public, as confirmed in the NTEU’s latest polling (see p. 22). People know about the American system from popular culture. Just think about the many plot lines that draw upon the millstone of student loans hanging over young (and not so young) professionals, tales of glorious but also terrible colleges, of the scramble to get into a decent college, abuse of scholarship systems, of university collusion with big pharma and the military industrial complex, of persecution of dissident academics, rip off for-profit outfits, bankrupt colleges and so on.

Blinded by his idolatry of the market, Pyne blithely argues that we need greater competition to improve the higher education system, so not only does he intend to deregulate the fees universities can charge, but also hand over public money to subsidise private providers to give them a boost to compete with public institutions. He reckons that this is how we will create an Australian ‘Harvard’.

The great US universities, public and private, are great because of decades – even centuries – of government, philanthropic and corporate investment and student fees, not cut throat competition.

Interestingly, even Pyne’s reviewers of the demand driven model, David Kemp and Andrew Norton, found that the Australian system is actually of robust quality and has not suffered with the introduction of the new model. (The NTEU is more cautious, consistently advising some enrolment

control because university planning is too important to be left solely to market forces.)

Kemp and Norton still recommended government handouts to private providers arguing that there was some evidence that some students in preparatory courses at private providers were doing quite well when they went onto degree studies. They probably are, but what about the students who enrolled, paid their money and did not go on? The NTEU supports the extension of Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) to sub degrees in higher education courses in public providers, which have the expertise and infrastructure to provide students with a quality and well supported education.

The gross education division by wealth in the US system, along with sloppy regulation and out of control student debt, does not make it a system to emulate.

The NTEU does not support the extension of CSPs to private providers of degree or sub-degree courses. The track record of private, including for-profit, providers is at best niche and patchy, and at worse wrecks students’ dreams. Australia has an internationally envied, comprehensive, regulated higher education system, which has always been public, largely government funded, secular and co-educational.

Dismantling this system through blind faith in market forces will leave students and employers the losers. The contestability experiment in VET in Victoria has done enormous damage to people and their livelihoods and should not be repeated elsewhere (p. 24).

Degrees for the wealthy The US has a much longer history of mass higher education than Australia, but has always been a very inequitable system.

Put simply, your family wealth determines what sort of university or college you can aspire to attend. The expansion of public higher education in Australia over the past few decades has created a sea change in Australian attitudes as ordinary families have presumed that their children could go to the same university as the children of wealthy families.

page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The Abbott Government’s 20% funding cut forcing universities to increase fees at least 30% to cover the cuts plus a market interest rate on HELP debts will just price ordinary people out of university. The only options will be cut price and of dubious quality that may or may not provide sufficient education to get a job.

Up until now, the policy trend in Australia has been towards increasing access with equity. Pyne and his colleagues real agenda is to close down equity in access to good higher education. They do want a return to elite universities, which will bestow a few scholarships to the bright working class kids.

US system failures The gross education division by wealth in the US system, along with sloppy regulation and out of control student debt, does not make it a system to emulate. Indeed, the US is desperately trying to reign in the billions of dollars in loans and grants by proposing an audit of universities and colleges examining student fees, progression rates and graduation outcomes, as it is very clear that there are numerous private, including for-profit colleges just ripping off students and families.

According to Time (28/4/14), ‘far too much of the money ends up going to sub-par institutions with abysmal graduation rates that leave most of their students marooned with no degree or a worthless degree, few job prospects and a load of student debt.’

In the US, the expansion of higher education has not led to better wages and conditions for university staff. Rather, three quarters of staff are now employed precariously (p. 32) and in the two year community colleges and private for-profit colleges over 90% of academic staff are on insecure contracts (p. 12).

In some States there is no legal right to organise and intellectual freedom is a farce. The right to free speech may be in the constitution, but it is not in the universities. Dissenting staff are kept in line by their precarious employment status, and even tenured staff may be sacked if they offend the benefactors or government and commercial partners – in public or private universities.

Jeannie Rea, National President jrea@nteu.org.au

From the General Secretary Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

Rough seas ahead Along with Jeannie Rea (National President) and Matthew McGowan (National Assistant Secretary), I have been re-elected unopposed as your General Secretary.

As part of NTEU Election Rules, candidates are required to submit a statement. Where an election is contested, the Australian Electoral Commission provides candidate statements to Union voters as part of the balloting process. I thought members might be interested in the text of my campaign statement.

The Abbott challenge The quality of university teaching, research and services has been eroded by two decades of funding cuts and commercialisation.

Increased class sizes, less academic research time, more unpaid overtime and rising workloads have occurred under both Labor and Coalition governments.

We have seen creeping managerialism, reduced university autonomy, increased competition and the displacement of teaching and research objectives by commercial imperatives. Intellectual freedom and the right of all university staff to participate in decision-making are directly threatened by these processes.

The Abbott Government plan to deregulate fees, subsidise private providers and cut funding by more than 20% will mean a more unequal market system with deep divisions within and between universities.

Social equity, regional/outer metropolitan universities and less “marketable” discipline areas are at risk. And students will pay much more, with debt of at least $100,000 with interest.

Vice-Chancellors have abrogated their leadership responsibilities by not uniting to defend the sector – instead they have

competed for scarce dollars and even scarcer political favours from Government.

As the only united national voice in the sector NTEU must defend the cultural and social role of tertiary education, as a public good funded by progressive taxation.

And we need to make common cause with others affected by the Abbott agenda – Indigenous organisations, the scientific and research community (including defence of climate science), the ABC and liberal press, human rights organisations (including asylum-seeker support) and other unions.

Leadership in difficult times Along with others, I have helped steer the Union in difficult waters, notably in defeating John Howard’s Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and WorkChoices in the university sector.

This collective leadership capacity is also reflected in a record which includes: • Strong salary growth over the last decade with university salaries outstripping comparable labour markets (CSIRO, school teachers, public servants), inflation and the labour price index. Salaries are at their highest national and international point for more than thirty years.

• High quality Collective Agreements with Indigenous employment targets, a 17% super contribution, peer review and due process protections, parental leave of 26-36 weeks, conversion and severance pay for short-term contract staff, codified general staff classification standards and more than 1000 new permanent jobs for casual academic staff.

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF Industrial Unit Coordinator Linda Gale National Industrial Officers Wayne Cupido,

Susan Kenna, Elizabeth McGrath

Indigenous Member (IPC Chair) Terry Mason

University teaching and research is global with world-wide mobility of staff and students. OECD, World Bank and WTO policies shape the evolution of national university systems. As the only university member of the Executive Board of Education International, I lead a growing network of more than seventy national university unions focused on academic freedom, trade union rights and social justice across the world.

Priorities for a new term Jeannie Rea, Matthew McGowan and I are committed to: • Defend the quality, independence and public role of universities with aggressive public campaigning in Parliaments, the media and other agencies which shape the tertiary education landscape.

• B uild national alliances to promote social justice and protect public goods.

• Enforce Collective Agreement standards including workload caps, managing change protections and fighting to limit rising managerialism across the sector.

• Increase support for NTEU’s growing membership in the Research Institute and VET sectors with new Collective Agreements and more Branch resources.

Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary gmcculloch@nteu.org.au

• Improved membership services including new universal journey insurance

National President Vice-Presidents

General Secretary National Asst Secretary

National Executive: Andrew Bonnell, Stuart Bunt, Linda Cecere, Stephen Darwin, Gabe Gooding, Ryan Hsu, Genevieve Kelly, John Kenny, Margaret Lee, Colin Long, Virginia Mansel Lees, Kevin Rouse, John Sinclair, Jan Sinclair-Jones, Melissa Slee, Michael Thomson, Lolita Wikander

A leading international role

Read all National Officer statements www.nteu.org.au/elections

• Membership growth of 3400 (15%) in the last four years.

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

and more resources for membership grievances.

Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officers

Indigenous Coordinator Indigenous Organiser

Paul Kniest Jen Tsen Kwok, Terri MacDonald Adam Frogley Celeste Liddle

National Organiser National Publications Coordinator Media & Communications Officer National Membership Officer Education & Training Officers

Michael Evans Paul Clifton Courtney Sloane Melinda Valsorda Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou

Executive Manager Peter Summers ICT Network Engineer Tam Vuong Database Programmer/Data Analyst Ray Hoo Payroll Officer Jo Riley Executive Officer (Gen Sec & President) Anastasia Kotaidis Executive Officer (Administration) Tracey Coster Admin Officer (Membership & Campaigns) Julie Ann Veal Administrative Officer (Resources) Renee Veal Receptionist & Administrative Support Leanne Foote Finance Manager Glenn Osmand Senior Finance Officer Gracia Ho Finance Officers Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze,

Lee Powell, Daphne Zhang National Growth Organisers Gaurav Nanda,

Rifai Abdul, Priya Nathan

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3

Update Academic freedom under threat from Defence Trade Controls?

Succumbing to US pressure, the former Labor Government passed legislation that set new challenges in the way university academic and corporate scientific researchers undertake applied and experimental research. By May 2015, we will know if this legislation remains a threat to academic freedom.

They introduced criminal offences for the intangible transfer or ‘supply’ as well as the mere publication of goods and technologies, which would potentially impact anyone involved in research listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List (DSGL).

The difference with other legislation concerned with trade in defence technologies was that this Act intentionally extended to ‘dual use’ technologies that included research not traditionally associated with the Defence Department.

The NTEU acknowledges that during the last twelve months, the Steering Group has made significant progress. The Steering Group is now flagging the likelihood of significant legislative reform to limit the scope of impact and to better protect the interests of Australian scientists and researchers, a change that has been informed by the NTEU’s persistent concern for the professional interests of NTEU members and the principle of defending academic freedom.

At the time, the NTEU was highly concerned about the implications for academic freedom and wrote to parliament and the relevant Ministers drawing attention to a number of concerns. We believed that the stability and probity of any regime that sought to manage these new criminal offences could detrimentally impact upon promising or even well-established academic careers, or could spell the difference in making important large-scale research projects unviable. The legislative compromise in 2012 was that the Chief Scientist would lead a Strengthened Export Controls Steering Group to review and improve the legislation and to establish a permit regime for university academics through a window of 24 months.

In the latter part of 2014, the Department of Industry and the Department of Defence will conduct seminars and workshops with staff at universities to explore the legislation, explore the trial university-based permit regimes and the potential for legislative reform. We are anticipating conducting joint workshops with the Departments in Brisbane and Perth.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement review In 2011, Phillip Morris decided to sue the Australian Government for introducing legislation on the plain packaging of tobacco, and continues to pursue this even after decisively losing a constitutional challenge in the High Court in 2012. Their decision to sue is based upon a little known Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement, and according to a set of clauses that are commonly understood as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. The Phillip Morris challenge is the first ISDS case of its kind in Australia.

Commonly in trade agreements, ISDS provisions provide foreign companies the right to sue and seek compensation from national governments if they think an element of that government’s policy is harming their financial interests. These disputes are not settled in domestic courts but in opaque international tribunals.

ISDS is happening more and more often in Australia. Even though previous Coalition and Labor Governments, and even the Productivity Commission in 2010, have made explicit statements and decisions to prevent being bound by ISDS provisions, the current Australian government is less discerning.

Australia signed a free trade agreement with Korea in March 2014 which included ISDS provisions, in spite of the fact that both countries have robust first-world legal systems, and

page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

NTEU has developed an FAQ as a useful starting point to address members’ potential concerns about Defence Trade Controls.

Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer www.nteu.org.au/defencetradecontrols

legitimate claims of recovery for ‘indirect expropriation’ would appear uncontroversial under either of our domestic laws. Australia is also hoping to sign off on a massive multilateral Asia-Pacific trade pact called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement before the end of 2014, which will include a multilateral ISDS provision.

In this context, Tasmanian Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson introduced a Bill in March that sought to prevent the Commonwealth from entering into trade agreements with any foreign country that included ISDS provisions. The NTEU’s submission was one of 141 to the Senate Committee reviewing the legislation. Over 11,000 emails from individuals were also received.

The NTEU submission argued that there were ‘compelling, interlocking reasons to conclude that Australia should withhold from further negotiation of ISDS provisions in International Investment Agreements and highlighted a range of concerns about the implications of ISDS provisions for the delivery of higher education, and as a fallback argued for the guarantee of higher education exemptions in relation to intellectual property, cross-border services, and human rights including labour and Indigenous rights. Hearings are anticipated for July.

Learn more about the Review: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/ Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Trade_and_ Foreign_Investment_Protecting_the_Public_Interest_ Bill_2014

Update Coalition to water down workplace gender equality legislation The Workplace Gender Equality Act (WGEA) was introduced

by Labor in 2012 following the review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace legislation. It contained reporting requirements for businesses with more than 100 employees, required that a new minimum standard be prescribed by the Minister in 2014, and that additional reporting commence from 1 April 2014.

However, the Abbott Government has made it clear that it believes the WGEA reporting to be needless ‘red tape’ and has set both the Act and the Agency in its sights. Despite being involved in the process to establish the Act and reporting provisions, business lobbyists are now pressuring the Government to water down, or even overturn, the WGEA. The Government has responded by delaying the introduction of the additional gender reporting provisions from 1 April to 1 October 2015, with the Minister, Senator Eric Abetz, announcing there will be a new period of consultation on the additional reporting matters (already set out in the Act).

Abetz also announced that the new minimum standard will only apply to business with more than 500 employees. While originally it was rumoured he wanted the standards to apply to businesses with 1000 or more employees, it is thought that pressure from women’s groups saw this reduced to 500.

That said, the new standard is minimal, requiring employers to put in place only one of the following strategies in order to comply: • Support and improve gender equality in the workplace.

• Advance equal remuneration between male and female employees.

• Implement flexible work arrangements for employees with caring responsibilities, or • Prevent sex-based harassment and discrimination.

The employer does not need to provide evidence or proof that it has met the standard (e.g. the actual policy), just state that it meets the requirement.

Clearly, this Government is intent on watering down the reporting of gender

inequity in the workplace, and in doing so, ignores the continued gender pay equity gap, which in 2013 was 17.5%, equating to women earning $266.20 less in average weekly earnings than men.

The Prime Minister’s hollow claims of his supposedly feminist ideology contradict the actions of this Government, which has done nothing to advance the equal participation, promotion and pay of women in the workplace.

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer www.nteu.org.au/women

Civil/Courage at USC At the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) in late 2013, we launched the Civil/Courage campaign to restore civility, collegiality and the courage of the collective in the workplace.

The campaign was designed to respond to members’ sense of intimidation, harassment and bullying in the workplace.

A wristband, in the Union colours of purple and teal, signifies to others ‘a Union colleague is here in solidarity’ and members are encouraged to wear them or put them in a prominent place in the office.

The campaign emerged following an accumulation of incidents, across several universities over a long period of time. It emerged as a result of there being just one too many instances of work colleagues empathising with another’s predicament, offering to give support, only to revert to self-preservation and step back ‘because I don’t want to jeopardise my situation’. Quite understandable. But why was that necessary?

I identified a common thread in many instances – a misunderstood conversation; a simple comment which spiralled out of control in a stream of emails; a deliberate shunning of another by various means; right through to identifiable physical and verbal acts of harassment and intimidation.

It emerged because our Union membership should be a badge of honour, a sign of solidarity; not a symbol of shame and secret societies. In our ideal world, universities would be exemplars of modern workplace practice. They should be setting the example of what a harassment-free, discrimination-free workplace could look like. In too many cases, I have seen good people break down, become ill, forced to leave a working environment they would otherwise embrace for their working lives.

In inviting members to adopt the Civil/Courage campaign, I encourage our members to remember that civility in the workplace starts with us. We can make the workplace the best it can be and we won’t be intimidated by those who would use intimidation to diminish our sense of being at work. It is an initial response to the hyper-managerialism of our time.

Hannah Arendt pointed to the idea of civil courage in her work. I have on my office door the words of Gloria Steinem ‘Whenever one person stands up and says ‘wait a minute, this is wrong’, it helps other people to do the same’; others say similar things in their own ways. We have within us, in our Union, to stand together and make changes. It begins with Civil/Courage.

Donna Weeks, outgoing President, USC Branch

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5

Update Bargaining update There has been intense activity at several Branches over the last few months, with industrial action reported in the last edition of Advocate at the University of Western Australia and the University of Queensland (UQ) resulting in finalised Agreements. More recently, staff have taken action at University of Technology, Sydney, Macquarie University and Navitas (La Trobe) in pursuit of fair Agreements.

Agreements completed and close Staff at Monash University and UQ were set to be balloted at the time of writing, with the Agreements delivering annual pay rises of 3% and 3.1% respectively.

Other Agreements that have been approved, or are before Fair Work Commission for approval, include the University of New England, Flinders University, University of South Australia, University of Western Sydney, La Trobe University and QUT. The Macquarie University Academic Staff Agreement has also been finalised.

See the Bargaining State of Play table, opposite, for an overview of pay and conditions achieved in all completed Agreements.

Improved pay and conditions Pay rises reach 3.2% per annum at the top end and we continue to have success with key conditions around general staff careers, job security, targets for Indigenous employment and domestic violence leave.

We have also made progress for academic staff on enforceable workload models and limits on teaching and related duties.

Work bans at Newcastle At University of Newcastle bargaining has gathered pace since professional and teaching staff put bans on working past 35 hours per week and have included statements about their action on emails and voicemail.

Industrial action at Macquarie Academics at Macquarie University took industrial action on 11 March 2014 (negotiations for a professional staff Agreement are yet to commence). The action followed months of inertia at the bargaining table and real attempts by management to strip back some key conditions. It was a remarkable effort to get the strike action up as many in the academic community had tired of the protracted industrial action which characterised the previous round of bargaining.

The strike action successfully enabled NTEU negotiators to obtain a settlement which will see no diminution of conditions and important gains achieved in a number of areas, including but not limited to: workloads, Indigenous employment, domestic violence, casual employment, improvements in leave and outside studies arrangements, and commitments to employ a minimum of 24 Scholarly Teaching Fellows during the life of the Agreement.

NTEU estimates that we can achieve 1,000 secure teaching positions to replace work previously performed by casuals as a result of our Scholarly Teaching Fellow claim; we have achieved over 700 so far.

Of the eight Agreements which are shortly to be or have just been approved, general staff have achieved a staff mobility scheme in four, a staff development fund in five of the universities and there are enforceable classifications in each of the eight Agreements.

page 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

La Trobe Navitas After two years of negotiation, staff at Navitas at La Trobe University in Melbourne were forced to take action following a break-down in negotiations. Staff are fighting for an end to casual and fixed term employment becoming the default position even at a time when student enrolments are increasing (see report, p. 9).

Susan Kenna, Industrial Officer www.universitybargaining.org.au

Photos: Strike action at UTS in May.

Update Round 6 Bargaining – State of Play June 2014 Casual academics

Academic workloads

General Staff Claims

Indigenous Employment

Superannuation

University

Expiry Date

Annual wage growth (expiry to expiry)

More secure positions

Hours-based cap on teaching

Enforceable classifications

Development or mobility

Employment strategy / targets

Monitoring Committee

SGC increases

Curtin

30/06/16

4.25%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

CQU

30/06/16

4.30%

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

ECU

30/06/16

4.25%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Sydney

1/03/17

3.20%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Deakin

30/06/16

3.50%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

JCU

30/06/16

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

CSU

31/12/16

2.75%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✘

✘

✔

ANU

30/06/16

3.15%

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UCAN

30/06/15

3.30%

✔

✔

✔

✘

✘

✔

✔

Griffith (Aca)

30/09/16

3.15%

✔

✔

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

Griffith (Gen)

30/09/16

3.15%

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

VU

31/12/17

3.20%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

CDU

30/12/16

3.15%

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UTAS

30/06/16

3.15%

n/a

✔

✔

✘

✔

✔

✔

Melbourne

30/06/17

3.20%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

RMIT

30/06/16

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

ACU

30/06/17

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Murdoch

30/06/16

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UniSA

30/06/18

3.40%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

La Trobe

31/01/17

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

QUT (Aca)

1/03/17

3.00%

✘

✘

n/a

n/a

✘

✔

✔

QUT (Gen)

1/03/17

3.00%

n/a

n/a

✔

✘

✘

✔

✔

UWS (Aca)

31/01/17

3.20%

✔

✔

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

UWS (Gen)

31/01/17

3.20%

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UNE (Gen)

1/10/17

3.25%

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

UWA (Aca)

30/09/16

3.15%

n/a

✔

n/a

n/a

✘

✘

✔

UWA (Gen)

30/09/16

3.15%

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✘

✘

✔

UQ

30/04/17

3.30%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Flinders

30/06/17

3.15%

✔

✔

✔

✔

✘

✔

✔

MQ (Aca)

30/06/17

3.15%

✔

✔

n/a

n/a

✔

✔

✔

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7

Update Bluestocking Week 2014

Crossing the Line This year’s Bluestocking Week theme is ‘Crossing the Line’.

How could it be otherwise? The line has been crossed already, not by us but by the Abbott Coalition Government and their advocates and supporters, who are seeking to wind back the clock as they actively attack prowomen and feminist policies and perspectives. We cannot stand on the sideline, but have to cross the line ourselves.

Last year, we focused on what the future may hold as it looked like the outcome of the federal election would be a neo-conservative Coalition Government.

The National Union of Students (NUS) announced early last year that ‘Our bluestockings are on the line.’ NTEU responded in August arguing that we must ‘hold the line’, defending equity and accessibility in universities, highlighting the value of education in a progressive society, and underlining the need to maintain a quality higher education sector through appropriate levels of public funding.

When the NTEU with NUS reintroduced Bluestocking Week in 2012, we focussed upon celebrating women’s achievements in higher education and using the opportunity to raise current issues.

We recognised that women had been pioneering firsts in higher education for over a century since the first white women graduates to the first Australian Indigenous woman graduate in 1959. Pushing into male dominated disciplines and university hierarchies had been and continues to be an ongoing struggle. Women may have the numbers these days in universities, but we still do not have the power.

Last year we recognised that the gender pay gap, despite all our efforts, still persists in universities. Women graduates still earn less on average than their male counterparts upon graduation and this widens over a lifetime until women retire poorer.

Now we are facing the dismantling of mass higher education as graduates face long term crippling debts, which will par-

www.nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek

ticularly impact upon women who leave the workforce or work part-time while caring for children. Major areas of women’s professional work, including teaching and nursing require university degrees and many women may now have this opportunity closed to them.

We are the women of the university; past, present and future This year, it’s time for action on campuses.

Bluestocking Week should highlight the importance of women speaking out and sharing their stories and views. We want to create a human tapestry that describes the experience of women who work and study in our universities.

One plan is to encourage women to take a picture of themselves or with others and provide a short caption about them and their connection to the university.

The women of our universities have

page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

become very diverse. Let’s break down the stereotypes. This would certainly also put focus upon the budget cuts and deregulation and privatisation agenda, which will clearly close down many women’s access to university to study or work.

Bluestocking Week is an initiative of the NTEU Women’s Action Committee. With events organised in every Division and Branch, it is growing bigger and bolder every year. Contact your local Branch for more details, or visit the website.

Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President www.nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek

Update Locking in fairness at Navitas Staff members at La Trobe Melbourne have been taking industrial action since the breakdown, after two years, of Enterprise Agreement negotiations with Navitas. Staff are fighting for fair working conditions and job security, which Navitas has threatened through abandoning all previously negotiated terms and conditions. Currently, the majority of staff at La Trobe Melbourne are employed on fixed term or casual contracts despite steadily increasing student enrolments.

Locker raffle Staff began industrial action with a 1 hour stop work and BBQ held on Wednesday 21 May, with over 300 staff and students enjoyed a free lunch.

Lockers were raffled off to casual ELICOS members to draw attention to the fact that, since moving to a new building in March, casual ELICOS teachers have been ‘hot desking’ with no access to their own workspace, pigeonholes or lockers.

Within 48 hours of the NTEU installing the lockers, Navitas management had organised for the provision of pigeonholes and secure workspaces for all casual workers.

Further action Staff will soon implement a ban on marking roll attendance and in completing placement day duties.

A postcard campaign is currently being organised for students to show their support for staff through sending postcards to Navitas.

Genevieve Auld, Industrial Officer, Victorian Division www.nteu.org.au/ navitas

Above: Navitas members with the lockers raffled off on 21 May. Right: Student supporters of the #sportstrike.

Below: NTEU strike meeting.

Photos by Toby Cotton.

#sportstrike On Wednesday 28 May, over 40 staff took industrial action by stopping work for the day. As a result of the high union membership amongst ELICOS teachers, all classes were cancelled for the day meaning that 27 classes did not run.

Curiously, La Trobe Melbourne management decided to organise its inaugural ‘Sports Day’ to replace these cancelled classes, so the Union called the day SportStrike. Staff attended the carnival to support their students and many students subsequently supported their teachers through joining them on a march to La Trobe Melbourne.

The NTEU has also organised for students to claim reimbursement for management’s cancellation of classes.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9

Update Votes lost, count won It’s history now, but at the time the debacle that was the WA Senate count lost-votes saga following the 2013 Federal Election was of great concern and interest to the WA Division.

For the first time, the Union had advocated for a particular vote in a Federal Election and members in WA had responded enthusiastically with a turn-out on polling booths to promote the Vote Smart message that was beyond our expectations.

After all that work, to have the outcome hinge on 11 votes and then 1300 missing ones, and be drawn out over several months was excruciating for us as very interested by-standers. One can only imagine what it was like for the actual candidates who found their lives on hold for another five months.

The decision to re-run the election was welcomed by the NTEU WA Division and NTEU members who saw this as another opportunity to promote higher education as an election issue.

Once again we were at polling booths with our Vote Smart materials (recycled from the first-run, of course), this time advocating for a vote for either The Greens or the ALP. Not being entirely enamoured with the ALP’s choice for the number 1 spot on the ballot paper, we made the decision to feature and advocate for a vote for Louise Pratt. In hindsight one of our better decisions!

While Louise Pratt ultimately lost, the huge increase in the votes for Green Senator Scott Ludlum was a great result for NTEU given his strong advocacy for higher education.

Lessons from the campaign We could fill this article with data – how many people on booths, how many leaflets produced and distributed, how many powerpoints used in lectures to encourage students to firstly enrol and then vote – the figures are impressive, but at the end it is what we learned that matters.

We learned a great deal in the WA Division from our participation in these campaigns.

The first is that we can make higher education a key election issue. That seems a little strange to be saying now given the

huge exposure the Pyne Plan has been given by the media, but at the first run of the election, just getting people to engage with the issues around the need for high quality higher education was a win.

Did we do that? Well, given the number of people who recognised our materials at the second run of the election and greeted us with ‘You’re the Vote Smart people’, it clearly did.

The literally thousands of leaflets that we handed-out at student open days and put into letterboxes must also have had some effect. Without the stimulus of the election campaign we would not have done that.

The second is that there are a lot more members out there willing to be active in the Union when we take a strong stand on political matters. We went into this not knowing how it would be received, and at the end, we now know that members will respect a well reasoned argument and support it with political action.

Thirdly, there are a host of alliances that we can make and nurture to promote progressive policies. We made contact with some of them during both the first and second campaigns and we will work now to maintain those new relationships.

Finally, we learnt that we do have the capacity to mount a concerted effort involving a large range of actions and activities in a very short space of time. That is comforting for us as we face the challenges now confronting our sector.

Who knows how the new Senate will behave? The State of WA has contributed Scott Ludlam, Joe Bullock and Dio Wang from the re-run campaign (in addition to the Government Senators), which will guarantee that, from the WA perspective at least, the new Senate will be the continuation of the roller-coaster ride that the twice run campaigns have been.

Gabe Gooding, WA Division Secretary

page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Above: Greens leader Christine Milne with NTEU Organiser Amy Talbot at Mosman Park on polling day.

Below: Gabe Gooding’s daughters re-create the ‘Class sizes have doubled over a generation’ image at the East Victoria Park polling station. Photo by Gabe Gooding.

Update QUTE stands in solidarity

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Attitudes towards issues that affect gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people have changed positively in many parts of the world, but a new campaign by Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE), called Stand in Solidarity, reminds us that there is still a lot of work to be done, and that this work is best achieved collaboratively with our allies.

Since the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was signed into Ugandan law in February 2014, homophobic attacks and harassment have grown across the country. The rising tide of homophobia means that GLBTI people (known as kuchus in Uganda) face increasing harassment, persecution and denigration, with activists reporting attacks, arbitrary arrests, evictions and blackmail.

In partnership with Amnesty International, the campaign aims to highlight issues that affect people of diverse sexualities and genders throughout the world. Told on social media, these narratives provide activists links to action that can make a real difference in the lives of the people featured in the campaign.

Actions include a message of support to the organisers of Belgrade Pride; a petition to the General Prosecutor in Belarus protesting the mistreatment of people of diverse sexualities and genders; and inspiring and supporting isolated activists in Uganda with messages of support.

These narratives will be featured in a short film also being produced by QUTE in collaboration with Amnesty International. Both the social media stories and film will be projected on to a Melbourne building in a campaign launch at the end of June. The film and campaign stories will be available on social media and the QUTE website to stimulate discussion and action.

Dave Willis, Victorian Division Organiser

Being openly gay in Uganda is dangerous. In 2010, GLBTI activist David Kato was murdered in his home after his photo appeared on the front page of a Ugandan tabloid newspaper alongside the headline ‘Hang Them’.

Despite the increasing levels of discrimination and abuse against LGBTI people across Africa, many courageous individuals are fighting back. International solidarity for their continuing efforts provides motivation for many activists during a time of increasing isolation for LGBTI rights activism.

Send a message of support at www.amnesty.org.au/action/action/34574/

Belarus activist attacked Belarus gay activist, Ihar Tsikhanyuk (right) was assaulted for attempting to register a GLBTI organisation. Ihar was dragged from his hospital bed, where he was receiving treatment for a stomach ulcer, and taken to a police station. While in custody he was repeatedly punched in the head and chest, verbally abused for being gay and threatened with more violence.

Ihar bravely reported his attack but no one has yet been held to account. Sign the campaign online petition here:

www.amnesty.org.au/action/action/33542/

Belgrade Pride In 2001, gay and lesbian activists attempted to hold Serbia’s first Pride March in Belgrade. A huge crowd of opponents gathered and attacked the event. The police were not equipped to suppress riots or protect the Pride marchers. In 2009, activists organised a second Pride March but due to the public threats of violence made by extreme right-wing organisations, authorities moved the location of the march on the morning of the event. In 2010, 1000 people participated in Belgrade Pride. Police clashed with 6000 anti-gay protesters, with 147 police and 20 civilians wounded.

Ever since, every attempt to organise the parade has been banned citing ‘security threats’. This ban was ruled unconstitutional in 2011, but the same excuse was given in subsequent years, and Amnesty International feared the excuse would be given for the 2014 Pride March. However, the Pride organisers postponed the event due to the devastating Serbian floods. Messages of support were sent to the organisers, including one from NTEU National Executive declaring Prajd. Normalno! (Pride, of course!). Photo by Toby Cotton.

www.nteu.org.au/qute

Cfacebook.com/qutenteu

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11

Casuals News Reaching out to contingent faculty in the US I was very fortunate to be invited to attend and to present my research on academic casualisation in Australia at the 41st Annual Conference on Collective Bargaining in Higher Education, hosted by the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions (NCSCBHEP) at City University New York in April.

The NCSCBHEP is a joint labour and management centre focussed on the study and promotion of collective bargaining as a means for advancing the working conditions of staff in higher education in the US. The enormous diversity of higher education means that particularly for union representatives the opportunity to exchange ideas about developments in collective arrangements is extremely valuable.

Conference themes The conference was opened by Professors Schuster, Finkelstein and Conley who presented data from their forthcoming book The faculty factor, due out in 2015. They noted that higher education in the US had reached a crisis point with the rapid scale of change in the use of technology, market forces, global dimensions, role specialisation, the diminishing influence of academic staff and the growth in accountability regimes.

In particular, they pointed to the explosion of ‘contingent faculty’ as central to the crisis, and this was a consistent theme during the conference. They highlighted some depressing statistics from their research including that across the whole higher education sector around 75% of academic staff were employed on a contingent (insecure) basis. The situation at two-year community colleges and private for-profit colleges was worse with over 90% of academic teaching staff employed on insecure contracts.

Overall, the sector had faced a 40% decline in state funding since 1980.

Justice for Adjuncts The most interesting and promising development in relation to organising efforts for contingent academics in the US appeared to be those by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), most well known for its long-running ‘Justice for Janitors’ campaign.

Through their public sector division, the SEIU has recently made a push to sign up contingent faculty members in private sector universities. The SEIU took a strategic decision to pursue these staff in private universities as no other union was active in the area due to the intense organising effort required.

The SEIU has approx 20,000 contingent academic members, although larger higher education unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association (and its many state affiliates) have a bigger contingent faculty membership, typically as a result of the extension of bargaining units. Union coverage of staff in higher education in the US is diverse – even the United Auto Workers has membership in the sector – and in some cases there is competition between unions for membership.

The SEIU is growing its contingent academic staff membership due to an active ‘metro strategy’ with a strategic focus on Democrat states, and geographic old-style organising with an emphasis on one-onone conversations and building networks.

The Union currently has campaigns underway in a number of major cities such as Boston, Seattle, LA and Minneapolis-St Paul, and the results are impressive. The SEIU has found that the ‘Justice for Janitors’ campaign has resonance with contingent academic staff who are concerned about the same issues – job security, a living wage and dignity at work.

Contingent academic staff also recognise that the janitors on their campuses enjoy, in many cases, better working conditions than they do, including the fact that many

page 12 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

janitors had access to scholarships for their children at their employing university, a benefit not available to contingent academic staff.

Lessons for Australia During my PhD research I interviewed many casual academic staff in order to understand their experiences of work as a casual academic. I recall one interviewee, at a Go8 university, who, after recently concluding an intense semester of course coordination on a casual basis commenting that he had calculated his hourly rate to be less than that earned by the person who cleaned his office.

In Australia, with rates of casualisation amongst academic staff at around 50%, we are already worrying close to the crisis point that many union activists have pointed to in the US where secure academic employment is now available only to an ever shrinking minority and the returns for PhD study are poor pay and job insecurity.

Whilst the system of higher education in the US, due to its scale and diversity, is very different to Australia and thus making direct comparisons problematic, the outcomes for academic staff, when the ‘market’ is left to rule, offer a salient lesson.

One thing that we can be certain of is that casualisation and other forms of insecure employment will become a persistent and even more prominent feature. Job security for academic staff will become a relic of the past.

Robyn May Robyn May’s PhD research on the casualisation of academic work in Australia was part of a larger ARC Linkage project; Gender and employment equity in Australian Universities, based at Griffith University, led by Professor Glenda Strachan.

NTEU was an industry partner on the project and Robyn is grateful to the NTEU for support to attend the conference in New York.

Casuals News Uni work becoming more precarious

academics are also precariously employed.

Whilst less than 10% are casual, almost 80% are on limited term contracts.

NTEU’s National Conference on Insecure Work is scheduled to be held in Hobart in November 2014. There will be opportunities to connect remotely to the conference sessions. The focus is upon academic casuals, research contractors and soft money contracts, and needlessly casualised positions.

And almost 40% of general/professional FTE positions are contract or casual. Too many staff are on continual slightly changing casual contracts and others on limited term contracts paid against ‘soft money’ projects.

There are researchers who have been on limited term contracts for decades, but alongside more securely employed colleagues. There has been an expansion in ‘research only’ positions over the past decade – but almost exclusively in limited term positions. The consequences for career and research development are dire.

This analysis by the NTEU is based upon the data from the Commonwealth Department of Education. It reveals that the level of precarious work in universities is higher than the Australian workforce average.

And it confirms why the NTEU’s NationSince 2005, only one in four (24%) new al Conference on Insecure Work is so jobs at Australian universities has been an important. Watch the NTEU and Unicasual ongoing or continuing job. Three out of websites for details. four have been contract or casual. Consequently, now only one in two staff (on a Jeannie Rea, National President full time equivalent (FTE) basis) employed www.unicasual.org.au at Australian universities have secure Composition of Total Australian University Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) by Work Contract 2005 to 2012 employment (see Fig. 1).

The level of precarious 2005 14.4% work is further 14.6% 2006 revealed by the type of work 14.7% 2007 (see Fig. 2). Over 15.3% 2008 90% of those employed in 15.8% 2009 ‘teaching only’ 16.2% 2010 positions are casual (80.3%) 16.5% 2011 or limited term contract 15.9% 2012 (10.2%). Over the past few years, the plight of casually employed teaching academics has been exposed along with Teaching the consequences only for the maintenance of quality Research only education and loss of opportunities Teaching for innovation, & Research let alone the squandering of the General next generation of Staff academics’ careers.

However, what is not so well known is that almost 90% of ‘research only’

Total FTE

Actual Casual

Limited Term

Other

Continuing 59.4%

26.0%

57.6%

27.6%

55.7%

29.4%

53.5%

30.9%

52.7%

31.3% 32.1%

51.4%

31.6%

51.6% 52.1%

31.7%

Source: Data supplied by Department of Education

Fig. 1: Composition of total Australian university staff, full time equivalent by work contract, 2005 to 2012 Composition of Australian University Staff

Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Type of Work by Work Contract 2012

Actual Casual

Limited Term

Other

Continuing

80.3%

8.2%

79.8%

25.0%

11.7%

15.9%

10.2%

9.3%

11.9%

73.9%

26.8%

61.3%

31.7%

52.1% Source: Data supplied by Department of Education

Fig. 2: Composition of Australian university staff, full time equivalent type of work by work contract, 2012

Survey of casual teaching online NTEU will soon run a survey to discover more about the conditions of work and views of casual and fixed term contract academics teaching undergraduate or postgraduate subjects delivered partly or fully online. The survey will be posted on our UniCasuals site (www.unicasual.org.au).

More university teaching is moving online as the ‘blended learning’ model is adopted. And more often casual and limited term contract staff are hired to teach in these courses.

The pedagogical value of ‘blended learning’ is still a debate, but there is consensus that an online component is useful for the reinforcement of classroom learning, to reach distant students or those unable to come to class, to conduct assessment that can be checked for plagiarism, to fulfil student expectations of online engagement, and so on. However, the sneaking suspicion is that these valid advantages are a smokescreen for the cheapness of delivery. Similarly, fully online courses are in the end touted for being cheap to run.

In a privatised and deregulated higher education sector, more courses will be substantially – if not completely – online, as there is a rush to take advantage of government subsidies to private providers and there is money to be made. It is at this end of the sector that cheaper courses will be available, but also poorer quality courses for poorer students. In the US (the much favoured model of Minister Pyne), the Coalition on Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL) and the Online Teaching Working Group of the United Association of Labor Education (UALE) recently undertook a survey of contingent academics teaching online. The NTEU is replicating this survey, adding some questions to draw upon the Australian experience, but also to enable international comparisons.

Please distribute the survey widely so we can get a range of experiences.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13

Indigenous News Aloha from WIPC:E 2014 In May, the National Indigenous Unit’s Adam Frogley and Celeste Liddle, with the chair of the Indigenous Policy Committee (IPC), Terry Mason, attended the triennial World Indigenous People’s Conference in Education (WIPC:E).

This year, WIPC:E was held in Honolulu, Hawai’i, in the grounds of the Kapi’olani Community College with approximately 3000 delegates from across the globe in attendance. It was an amazing program of cultural exchange, knowledge transfer and educational activism. Interspersed amongst a number of papers by leading Indigenous education workers across the globe were opportunities to explore Native Hawaiian culture, as well as engage with groups from other Indigenous communities.

NTEU sessions In an extremely well-attended session, the NTEU delivered a paper based on our members’ survey on racism, discrimination, cultural respect and lateral violence in the academy. In this session, we talked about strategies for inclusivity in the academy as well as how unionism has definitely assisted not only a growth in the industry of Indigenous staff, but also a shifting of university practices.

We also touched on the current threats to achieving a more level playing field firstly, in universities which greatly remain bastions for white western patriarchal privilege and secondly, in an environment of cuts and mainstreaming being overseen by a conservative government.

Much discussion followed the session and educational activists from all corners of the globe requested more information of the work we’ve done in this field. We have been able to build many positive working relationships from this experience and look forward to greater engagement in the future.

Challenging opinions On a personal note, I found that attending WIPC:E recharged my batteries and gave me a lot to go on. It is affirming, yet distressing, to see that the issues that our Indigenous staff face in the sector are similar, if not the same, to the issues that Indigenous staff face globally. It reinforces the need to engage more fully with global audiences in order to break down structures that exclude Indigenous peoples, Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous experiences from educational institutions. It was heartening to hear that some institutions were starting to engage better with Indigenous knowledges.

On the whole though, from a global perspective, what we bring to the academy is still seen as ‘niche’ and ‘alternative’ instead of inherently valuable. The nods of assent in our session when we relayed that Indigenous-specific university subjects were seen as ‘Mickey Mouse courses’ by other university staff, or that Indigenous staff are thought to gain degrees and qualifications on a concessional basis rather than through hard work were striking.

Many related to the idea that our cultural business of importance is seen as an inconvenience in the workplace rather than an integral part of engaging with Indigenous workers and facilitating cultural exchange. Simply put, the more time we spend engaging with Indigenous peoples from across the world, the more similarities we can identify with regards to the struggles we face in our homelands.

Threat of the TPP As well as the educational, WIPC:E also provided many opportunities to engage with activists within the social movements across the globe. Whilst there, I went to a particularly inspiring talk by Mana Party candidate Annette Sykes about the threats that the Trans-Pacific Partnership

(TPP) poses to Indigenous peoples – an issue Terry Mason has actively highlighted in a previous issue of Advocate.

Among many poignant points made during this session, Sykes argued that the TPP was yet another front for colonisation via promise of ‘economic development’ and of particular concern should be our intellectual and cultural property, land rights, resources and development.

I came away from this session not only aware of the Mana Party response to the TPP, but also, following further discussions with fellow Aboriginal delegates, that the situation for us is ever more dire when it comes to fighting these threats because, unlike the Maori, our sovereignty is not recognised nationally via a treaty.

Frontier wars Likewise, on attending a session on the Sand Creek massacre and hearing just how long and hard the Cheyenne and Arapaho had to fight to get recognition of the site where this horrific crime took place, it was further highlighted to me the extent colonising powers will go to not acknowledge their own history. In Australia, we will continue to have a long and hard fight to gain recognition for the frontier wars. The only way this will eventually happen will be if more of us enter the education system and have a hand in shaping the opinions of future generations so that more aware citizens, skilled to enact change start coming up through the ranks.

I would like to thank the NTEU for allowing me to attend WIPC:E 2014. The perspective gained from opportunities to exchange on a global level allows us to put the fights we face here in some sort of perspective.

We gained an opportunity to critically analyse the Australian situation through a broader field of vision and saw how things can be done better. Additionally, it also provided the opportunity for solidarity, particularly when we are fighting battles on a regional and global scale.

The feelings of isolation that many Indigenous people experience when struggling to make lives better is lessened through knowing that others are fighting the same battles across the world. Through collaboration, we may even beat them.

Celeste Liddle, National Indigenous Organiser

Left: Elders ceremony. Top: Cree dancer. page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Indigenous News 18C and the ‘right to be bigots’ On 25 March 2014 – a watershed day in the debate of freedom of speech versus the right for all Australian citizens to be protected from acts of racial discrimination – AttorneyGeneral George Brandis announced the Government intended to repeal Sections 18.B, C, D and E from the Racial Discrimination Act (1975), replacing them with a ‘strengthened’ version.

This brought passionate pleas from many community organisations and individuals to immediately withdraw the proposal.

While it would appear that the Government is forging ahead with this move on the basis that they see fault with these sections of the Act, the explanations from the Attorney-General on why his new proposed wording would be beneficial fall far short of the existing protections in the Act.

Offend, insult, humiliate, vilify There are many issues of concern in the ‘exposure draft’ released by Brandis, but of greatest concern was the suggestion to remove the words offend, insult and humiliate and replace those terms with the word vilification. To wider Australian society, the removal of those definitions and the inclusion of the word vilification may seem to be a positive step, but the question must be asked: why is the Government advocating this change?

While the changes are, at best, worrying, the Attorney-General went further. In attempting to support his stance and that of the Government, he clearly outlined his feelings when he said, in response to a question by Senator Nova Peris (NT): People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive, insulting or bigoted.

Nevertheless,... may I point out to Senator Peris that section 18C, in its current form, does not prohibit racial vilification.

George Brandis (24 March 2014) In seeking to raise public support for the amendment, Brandis has shown that there is more to this move to amend the Act

than simply including the word vilification.

Rather than strengthening the argument for legislative change, his comments exemplify the need for why change should not occur, and that this ‘strengthening’ of the Act has purely political motivations.

To unravel the true motives behind this proposal, the difference between the current wording and that proposed is paramount. So what do vilification and vilify actually mean?

The Oxford Dictionary defines vilification as ‘abusively disparaging speech or writing’ and vilify as ‘speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.’ While the Government may attempt to argue that removing offend, insult and humiliate and incorporating the word vilification actually strengthens the Act, what has not been clearly outlined or discussed is Section (4) of the exposure draft: This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.

When the definition of vilification is explored in the context of applying Section (4), it can be seen it will in effect become redundant and un-enforceable. In the real world, the changes to the Act will do no more than render the ability to prosecute individuals and/or groups, on the basis of vilification, null and void.

So why is the Government advocating these changes when the current Act does more to protect instances of racial discrimination?

The Eatock v Bolt case It is clear that the proposal to amend the Racial Discrimination Act has its foundations in the High Court Eatock v Bolt case from 2011. This can be seen from statements made by the Attorney-General: The problem with section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as it is currently worded, is that it goes about the problem of dealing with racial vilification in the wrong way. What it seeks to do is to deal with the problem of racial vilification by political censorship. There should never be political censorship in this country... People like Mr Bolt should be free to express any opinion on a social or a cultural or a political question that they wish to express, just as Mr Bolt would respect your right to express your opinions about social or political or cultural issues.

George Brandis (24 March 2014) It would thus appear that the need to repeal Section 18.C has no fundamental

basis in a failing of the law. The proposal is political and derived from the perception that in some way the Eatock v Bolt case and the finding made by Justice Bromberg was nothing more than an attempt to silence Andrew Bolt, using Section 18.C as the weapon of choice. Justice Bromberg found that Bolt had indeed contravened Section 18.C of the Act, although this was not a deliberate attempt to silence Bolt. Rather, Justice Bromberg gave great weight to the need to balance freedom of speech versus the right to be protected from acts of discrimination.

The finding against Bolt showed that he was not simply expressing a political opinion. It was found he wrote an article that contained factual errors and distortions of the truth, and used inflammatory and provocative language to back his ‘political opinion’. On this basis, Justice Bromberg found it to have not been in the ‘public interest’ that the case against Mr Bolt be exempted under the counterbalancing Section 18.D. This finding only serves to strengthen the need to maintain the current Sections 18.C and 18.D of the Act. In response to the ruling, the Attorney-General determined: I will very soon be bringing forward an amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act which will ensure that that can never happen in Australia again – that is, that never again in Australia will we have a situation in which a person may be taken to court for expressing a political opinion. George Brandis (24 March 2014) It becomes increasingly transparent that, even though the finding against Andrew Bolt has its foundations in law, the statements made by the Attorney-General show either a lack of understanding of the case and its findings, or, at worse, an attempt to reduce the impact of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Rights and responsibilities Freedom of speech is vital, but the responsibilities associated with the ability to speak freely are equally important. To amend a law based on what some may see as an unfavourable finding against an individual creates a dangerous precedent, one that no side of politics should explore, let alone implement.

With the Federal Government and the Attorney-General now fielding a myriad of public opposition to this proposal, it will be interesting to see if they are a government for the people or just a government for a select few.

Adam Frogley, National Indigenous Officer www.nteu.org.au/indigenous

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15

Budget 2014

On the road to ruin With the Federal Budget making a 20% cut to undergraduate funding and a 10% cut to postgraduate funding, giving handouts to private providers to compete with public higher education, and then handballing it to the universities to set tuition fees at whatever they can get away with, the Australian public university system is reeling.

The Abbott Government promised no education and health funding cuts during the election campaign. They lied, and no one should be surprised as the Liberal Party has never denied looking to the UK Conservative Cameron Government and Canadian Harper Government for inspiration. These offspring of Thatcher – but possibly even more hard hearted – have slashed and burned the aspirations of not just the poor and disadvantaged, but also of middle income people (see p. 38). Going to university was starting to be something that Australian parents could expect for their children, but no longer if these fee rises go ahead.

Opposition to the first Abbott- Hockey-Pyne Budget is widespread, and hopefully this will influence the politicians as the Budget makes its way through parliament. The higher education policy changes will also require legislative amendment, and whatever is eventually passed still has to be implemented, which puts the pressure upon the universities.

Illustration by Simon Kneebone. simonkneebone.com. Used with permission.

NTEU National Policy and Research Coordinator Paul Kniest’s modelling of the cost of a degree under Minister of Education Pyne’s regime has been picked up and used by others in assessing the

page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

impact of the changes, and has not been denied by the Government. It is embarrassing them, but their only rebuttal is to keep arguing that students should pay. Everyone else, including from amongst their own ranks, is arguing that the fee increases and the market interest rate are too much.

In this Advocate Budget edition, National Assistant Secretary Matt McGowan outlines the NTEU campaign (p. 22), while Paul Kniest explains the proposed funding and policy changes to higher education (p. 17). Terri MacDonald identifies the Budget’s winners and losers (p. 20), and Celeste Liddle focuses upon the impacts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (p. 27). Mary Kelly does not find any equity in the new ‘Commonwealth scholarships’ (p. 26). Paul Kniest, in describing the tragedy of deregulation and privatisation of the Victoria VET system, sends a clear warning about the consequences of shifting government funding from public to private enterprise (p. 24). Chris Graham and Wendy Bacon expose the close connections between private education enterprises and the Liberal Party (p. 30).

Deanna Taylor (p. 28) provides the NUS perspective as students organise on campus and in the streets, while Emmaline Bexley questions if our brightest students will bother with the cost of getting a PhD (p. 29). The students of today will cop the interest fee rise on HELP debts, but it should be remembered that these students are mobilising in support of the opportunity to go to university for their younger brothers and sisters – and parents who need to re-qualify as their working lives stretch out longer.

My editorial (p. 2) focuses upon the Americanisation of the Australian university system, which no one seems to want, except Minister Pyne. Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe condemns government dishonesty and the marketisation of higher education (p. 43), and Pat Wright thanks the internet for helping us maintain our rage against the Budget (p. 42).

Jeannie Rea, National President

Students protesting in Melbourne, 21 May 2014. Photo by Louisa Billeter, www.flickr.com/photos/louisa_catlover. Used with permission.

The end of public higher education in Australia Paul Kniest Policy & Research Coordinator

Australia’s system of public higher education will come to end if Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott are successful in getting their proposed changes to higher education regulation and funding through both houses of Parliament.

No longer will entry into a public university be determined on the basis of a student’s academic ability but on their ability to pay. In the new privatised higher education sector merit will no longer matter, money will. continued overpage...

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17

The end of public higher education in Australia cont.

Changes to Government Discipline Funding Rates (2014 Values) Maths/Stats $2,458 Humanities

{ }

number available in previous years, it was a welcome extension of this program.

Clinical Psyc/ Foreign Languages/ Allied Health $602 $255 -$146 Law/Acc/Bus

-$554

-$941 Education

Architecture/ Behavourial Sci/ IT/Other Health

There was also a $150 million grant in 2015–16 for National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS).

Funding beyond 2015–16 is yet to be determined.

-$1,118 Nursing -$2,120 -$2,757 Visual & Performing Arts -$3,206 Agriculture/Dentistry/ -$3,567 Medicine/Vet Sci Social Studies

-$4,717 Engineering/ Science/Surveying

Fig. 1: Changes to Government Discipline Funding Rates (2014 Values) Cuts to funding for CSPs

Other higher education cuts

In a series of policies euphemistically referred to in the Budget papers under the broad heading of ‘expanding opportunity’, the Government will:

Other cuts to higher education announced in the Budget include:

• C ut funding for Commonwealth supported places (CSPs) on average by 20%.

• Open up CSPs to non-university higher education providers, including for-profit providers, and • Expand CSP funding to sub-bachelor higher education qualifications.

In aggregate, these measures are forecast to increase total CSP enrolments by 80,000 full time equivalent students, and save the Commonwealth in the order of $1.1 billion.

As Figure 1 shows (overpage), the cuts to Government funding vary considerably from discipline to discipline. While the average cut of 20% represents an average cut of $2,120 per CSP, funding for engineering, surveying and science will be cut by $4,717 per student (-28.1%). social studies by $,567 per student (-37.2%). On the other hand funding per mathematics and/or statistics student will increase by $2,458 (+25.6%).

The critical point about these changes to funding is that with the exception of mathematics and statistics universities have little or no capacity to reduce fees assuming they will need at least the current level of resourcing to provide a quality education. Indeed in the vast majority of cases universities will be forced to increase fees, and in the case of engineering, surveying, science and social studies by over 50% simply to maintain the same level of resourcing as they currently receive.

Therefore, it is highly disingenuous for the Minister to say that it is entirely up to universities to set their fees and it has nothing to do with the Government.

• 1 0% reduction in government funding to Research Training Scheme places (saving $171 million over four years) and the consequent introduction of tuition fees (capped at $3,900 per year) for higher degree research students to make up the gap.

• $ 51 million of savings over four years by cutting participation grants under Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program (HEPPP), and • $121 million of savings over four years by ceasing reward funding.

• $87 million of savings over four years by abolishing HELP benefits scheme which provided a discount on HECS repayments for graduates who take up related occupations or work in specified locations.

The Commonwealth forecasts savings of more than $200 million over 4 years by indexing all higher education grants to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2016, which in the vast majority of cases will be far less generous than the current Higher Education Grants Index (HEFGI).

While this measure might only save relatively small amounts of money in the short term, over the longer term it will be a significant loss of funding to the sector.

For example, the Government’s forward estimates show while it will save only $24 million in 2015–16 that will have risen to $109 million by 2017–18 and will grow exponentially from there.

While the Australian Research Council had a 3.25% efficiency dividend imposed upon it (saving $75 million over four years), the Government found an additional $140 million over four years for 100 mid-career Future Fellows. While this is only half the

page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Cuts to science and research agencies The Budget also included significant cuts to a number of major science and research agencies. Totalling about $880 million over four years, they include: • $111.4 million cut from CSIRO. • $120 million cut from the Defence Science & Technology Organisation (DSTO).

• $27.6 million cut from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

• $ 7.8 million cut from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS).

Money raised by the Medicare and other health co-payments is supposed to be invested into the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) until it reaches $20 billion in about 2020. Dividends from the MRFF (expected to be $1 billion by 2023) will be used to support medical research, although there is already scepticism about this.

Changes to student scholarships Two of the largest cuts in the Budget were to student scholarships. The Government will save over $800 million by abolishing existing student start-up scholarships and cutting out relocation scholarships for students moving between or within capital cities. Despite these dramatic cuts the Minister for Education has continually referred to a massive increase in scholarships for disadvantaged students.

What the Minister is referring to are his new ‘Commonwealth’ scholarships which will be funded from $1 out of every $5 of increased student fees. As Mary Kelly points out (see p. 26) these scholarships are highly inequitable on a number of different levels

Changes to student fees In an attempt to allow the market to work its magic in relation to higher education the Government has decided to completely deregulate university fees and open up public funding to non-university providers including for-profit private providers. As the article on the similar policy framework for VET in Victoria shows (see p. 24) the market is more likely to weave mayhem than it is magic. As the evidence shows the contestable market model in Victoria is an example of policy and market failure.

Estimated Income, HELP Repayments and Outstanding HELP Debt Student completing a 3-year Accounting Degree who takes career break

$100,000 Current HELP

Outstanding HELP Debt

Income ($p/a)

$90,000

$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0

Current HELP (2014 values) Tuition fee $30,255 Time to repay 20 years Total repayments $30,255 Real interest paid $0

$76,500 $77,040 $76,442 $75,397 $74,174 $72,471 $70,240 $67,818 $69,174 $70,558 $71,969 $73,408 $74,876 $76,374 $77,901 $79,459 $81,049 $81,739 $82,433 $80,338 $76,749 $73,036 $68,789 $64,428 $59,952 $55,357 $50,641 $45,801 $40,836 $35,742 $30,516 $25,157 $19,660 $14,023 $8,244 $2,318 $46

$80,000

New HELP (2014 values) Tuition fee $75,000 Time to repay 36 years Total repayments $120,000 Real interest paid $45,000

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 AGE

Fig. 2: Estimated income, HELP repayments & outstanding HELP debt for a student completing a 3-yr Accounting degree, who takes a career break From 2016 universities and other providers can charge Commonwealth supported students whatever they think the market will bear. While it is impossible to know the full impact of unregulated prices and competition, educated estimates can be made based on factors like: • The relative popularity of different degrees – the more popular, the higher the price.

• The levels of income students expect to earn from different types of qualifications – the higher expected income, the higher the price.

• T he likely level of competition from non-university providers (based on the costs of delivering a degree and the need to obtain professional accreditation) – the greater the level of competition, the lower the increase in price.

There will be substantial increases in fees and in the majority of cases this is likely to be in the range of 30 to 100%. There will however be examples of massive increases in fees in some disciplines. According to Professor Ross Milbourne, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, the deregulation of university fees will see the cost of some degrees rise to as much as $100,000 or $200,000. Modelling by Universities Australia, following that by the NTEU, comes to similar conclusions. This is not denied by the Minister.

Changes to HELP The Budget changes to HELP will mean that the costs students face in servicing their HELP debts will increase considerably. The HELP repayment thresholds will be lowered and students will be charged market interest rates on outstanding HELP loans by

indexing them to the 10 year government bond rate, not CPI as is currently the case.

To offset these, administrative fees of 20% and 25%, which currently apply to some HELP loans, will be abolished at a cost of $23 million over the forward estimates.

These changes will not only dramatically increase the cost of servicing student debt ($2.1 billion over 4 years), but are highly inequitable. Students whose families are in a position to pay their fees up-front will avoid having to pay real interest on HELP loans.

In order to understand the impacts of fee increases and the changes to HELP; the NTEU has undertaken a comparative analysis which demonstrates the impact of the proposed changes using the example of a student undertaking a three year accounting degree under conditions which applied before Budget night, and anyone undertaking a similar degree under the new arrangements.

The analysis (which is undertaken in current 2014 values and assumes a real interest rate above the inflation rate of 2%) shows that if the student was enrolled before the Budget they would have a HELP debt of $30,255 which would take about 10 years to repay. If however, that student enrolled after Budget night that student might graduate with a debt of $75,000 (as a result of fee deregulation), take 23 years to repay it and end up paying a total of $99,000 including $24,000 in interest.

While these changes are worrying in themselves, when the analysis is undertaken for someone taking a career break to care for family members for example, it shows they will suffer from cumulative outstanding debt and interest payments mounting up over time. Figure 2 shows

that if a student undertaking a three year $75,000 accounting degree takes a six year career break, they would end up taking 36 years to repay a total of $120,000 which includes $45,000 in interest payments, in 2014 dollars. It also shows how compounding interest impacts with the level of outstanding debt being higher when they return from their career break.

Conclusion There is little doubt that the changes to higher education funding and regulation announced as the first Abbott Budget will have profound and radical implications for our universities, their students and the communities they serve. The removal of the upper limit on university fees together with cuts to government funding will result in higher fees for students. No longer will access to a public university place be solely determined by your academic ability but also on how much you can afford or are willing to pay.

For the first time higher degree research students will be asked to pay tuition fees of up to $3,900 per year. It is yet to be determined what impact this will have on the number of students prepared to undertake a PhD (see p.29).

Higher fees together with the imposition on real interest rates on student debts will also increase the cost of servicing student debt. As the analysis shows this is highly inequitable especially for students taking a career break who are predominantly women.

For more detail, analysis and updates: www.nteu.org.au/degreemortgage

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19

Budget 2014

Winners & losers The fine print of the Federal Government’s 2014 Budget has now been reviewed and it is clear that the ‘Budget burden’ is quite unevenly spread, with clear winners and losers emerging.

However, while we are told that the ‘Budget pain’ is necessary in order to both repair and safeguard the economy, does it really do that? Or is the Government’s economic approach fundamentally flawed, paying heed more to the big end of town than Australia’s long term economic future?

First, it is important to see who wins and who loses in the Budget.

Winners are grinners – who benefits from the Budget?

Defence $1.5 billion in spending has been brought forward and, unlike other areas of government, the 2% departmental efficiency savings will be reinvested back into defence.

Medical research The money raised by the GP and other health co-payments will be invested into the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) until it reaches $20 billion(in about 2020).

Dividends from the MRFF (expected to be $1 billion by 2023) will be used to support medical research.

However, there is some scepticism in the medical research fraternity as to where this money will be channelled and what projects will receive funding.

Infrastructure & mining $11.6 billion in funding for new projects. $100 million over 4 years for minerals exploration, as well as the abolition of Minerals Rent Tax and exemption from petrol fuel excise.

A lucky escape – where the Budget will have neutral impact High income earners While people earning over $180,000 will be impacted by a 2% Debt levy, this will only apply for 3 years. Safeguarding of major tax minimisation schemes, such as negative gearing and superannuation concessions, offsets any real cuts.

Private sector Overall, the private sector escapes most of the Budget pain - the 1.5% cut in the company tax rate offsets the yet to be introduced 1.5% Paid Parental Leave levy for big business. Support for the automotive industry is cut, but a new Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program ( $484.2 million) is introduced.

Bitten by the Budget – those who lose out Unemployed people (under 30) Leaving aside the higher education changes, school leavers will be expected to ‘earn or learn’, with the age of eligibility for Newstart to be raised from 22 to 25 years. Young people under 30 years will be ineligible for any kind of welfare benefits for 6 months and will only be able to claim it for six months before the benefit is cut for another six months. They will also have to work 25 hours per week on work for the dole programs while receiving benefits.

Foreign Aid Australia’s foreign aid commitment bears the brunt of the cuts with $7.6 billion slashed – effectively a third of the Budget’s savings.

Families Family Tax Benefit B is reduced to $100,000 from $150,000 and will cease when the youngest child turns 6yrs. Other family payments are frozen until 2016-17. Additionally, families will be hit by fuel excise, GP tax, hospital emergency fees, pharma-

page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

ceutical benefits scheme (PBS) increases, and be expected to support adult children for longer with changes to Newstart.

Seniors In addition to pushing the retirement age to 70 and cuts to state based concessions, seniors will be hit by the fuel excise, hospital emergency fees, PBS increases and the GP tax (which will be waived after 10 visits for concession card holders). However, the biggest immediate impact is the cutting of the Seniors supplement, which currently sits at $876.20 per year for singles and $1,320.80 for couples.

Health In addition to the GP tax and changes to the PBS, the former Labor Government’s hospitals funding agreements will be wound back, cutting $50 billion from state health budgets. Medicare changes including rebate cuts and freezing Medicare benefits schedule (saving $1.7 billion) and changes to the Medicare levy surcharge and the private health insurance rebate.

Labor’s multi-million-dollar dental program is to be put on hold.

Research Cuts to major science and research agencies of about $880m, including $420m to five science agencies including: • $74.9 million cut from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

• $111.4 million cut from the CSIRO. • $120 million cut from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

• $27.6 million cut from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

• $7.8 million cut from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS).

Schools Gonski model school funding to be axed, saving around $30 billion.

Public Service As well as imposing an extra 0.25% on existing cuts to departments, 16,500 Commonwealth public servants are to lose their jobs, 70 federal agencies have been dumped with others on notice, numerous government departments will be merged,

Budget 2014 7645 1267

Cuts to funding 4 year totals ($ million)

Foreign Aid Health Increase co-payments & safety net threshold for PBS

1675

Health Pause indexation Medicare benefits & private insurance rebates

1744

Health Cuts to Commonwealth hospital funding 3467

Health Co-payments for GP, pathology, x-rays

3145

Family Limit Family Tax Benefit B

3808

Family Freeze FTB Benefits for 2 yr, tighten eligibility, end supplement

1247

Unemployed Cut Newstart for under 30s

1477

Welfare Freeze eligibility thresholds for 3 years

653

Seniors Stop aged care payroll supplement

2341

Seniors Cut concessions, end supplement

915 534 925

Apprentices Stop tools allowance Indigenous Rationalise programs Local Govt Pause indexation for 3 years

569

Government Increase efficiency dividend by 0.25%

4282

Higher Education Changes to HELP & expand demand driven

and Defence Housing Australia and the National Mint will be sold.

People with a disability Criteria for receiving the disability pension to be tightened along with a regime of rolling eligibility checks. Recipients under 35 will also face tougher criteria to remain on the pension, with the focus on ‘integration’ into the workforce.

Low income earners In addition to other changes noted already, low income earners will be impacted by the decision to freeze thresholds of eligibility for welfare payments as well as the payments themselves. Previously the thresholds were indexed to CPI and so the eligibility would increase as inflation increased. Similarly, payments will decrease in real terms as they no longer account for increases in inflation.

The axing of the Low Income Superannuation Contributions Scheme, when the mining tax is repealed, will see low income earners lose their annual $500 government co-contribution. This will impact on women in particular, as 50% of women receive this benefit, contributing an $20,000 extra to their final superannuation.

Indigenous programs $534 million to be cut from Indigenous funding, more than 150 programs, grants and activities to be replaced with five broad-based programs under the Government’s new Indigenous Advancement Strategy. More than $160 million of the cuts will come out of Indigenous health programs, with health savings to be redirected to the Medical Research Future

Fund. Other cuts include $3.5 million cut to the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples will not get its earmarked $15 million. Funding for Indigenous language support announced in the last Budget will also be cut by $9.5 million over five years.

Environment Australian Renewable Energy Agency abolished ($1.3 billion). Government’s $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (direct action policy) to be spread out over 10 years, not the four years previously promised.

Labor’s Carbon Capture and Storage program to lose $460 million over 3 years and $525 million to fund the Green Army offset by $438 million loss to Landcare, whose community groups currently do a similar job to what the Green Army will do.

Public broadcasters ABC and SBS will lose 1% of annual funding (over 4 years), Australia Network to be dumped (saving $196 billion).

Sparing the big end of town It is clear that, far from sharing the ‘Budget pain’, this Budget has been crafted to appease the big end of town, with mining and corporations not only spared from the Budget cuts, but actually profiting from it.

It also not so subtly inserts the Coalition’s neo-conservative, market driven agenda, which seeks to reduce both the role of government and the social welfare safety net. Put simply, this Budget is a neo-liberal Trojan horse, seeking to move public policy even further to the extreme right.

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer

Slicing and dicing too thin This Budget must be opposed, not only because it is inherently unfair, but because it serves to slice, dice and spread far too thinly Australia’s economic and social future.

Despite the rhetoric of the Treasurer, it is clear the Budget will not encourage growth (indeed, consumer confidence has already started to fall on the back on the Budget announcements). In what can be seen as a 1980s ‘trickle down’ approach to economic management, the Budget contradicts both broad economic research and advice from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has raised concerns over the impact of austerity budgets in a post-GFC world contributing not only to inequality but also acting as a major brake on sustainable economic growth. The view of the IMF has been picked up elsewhere, with the Financial Times’ super-dry economic commentator, Martin Wolf, writing that ‘not only does inequality damage growth but efforts to remedy it are, on the whole, not harmful’. The World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Risk Report goes further, stating that ‘the chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is seen as the risk that is most likely to cause serious damage globally in the coming decade’.

It would appear that this Budget is specifically designed to increase inequity, giving handouts to the big end of town, while adversely impacting the lives of everyday Australians. The Government is aware that the pain is unevenly spread, and that their proposed measures target those who can least afford it. It knows that these decisions will be detrimental to many thousands of Australians (it was revealed in Senate Estimates the Government is allocating millions in emergency food and shelter funding for people under 30 prevented from accessing Newstart allowance for 6 months – money ironically taken from the ‘savings’ made in preventing their access). It cannot be argued that the Government is doing this blindly; they are strategically redesigning our social fabric.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21

Budget 2014

A degree shouldn’t cost a mortgage The Federal Budget has seen a very strong reaction from across the Australian community on many fronts, but particularly on the Medicare co-payment, the age of access to pensions, and higher education.

Almost as extraordinary as the proposed changes to university funding has been the public outcry about the changes. It has often been presumed by most commentators that, while people care about universities in a general sense, funding issues in the sector would never be a vote changer. Bt all that has changed.

NTEU polling results Recent polling by the NTEU (and confirmed in other polls) shows that the changes to higher education in the Budget are as unpopular as any Budget measure.

Even amongst Coalition voters, the prospect of significantly higher fees and debt

is opposed by as many people as support it. Overall, 70% of voters have indicated opposition to these measures. A summary of the key outcomes of the research is available at www.nteu.org.au/degreemortgage/news.

port. Other universities have been more critical, but in order to maintain a semblance of cohesion Universities Australia seems destined once again to seek small concessions from the Government rather than advocate a principled position.

The NTEU has been at the centre of the opposition to the changes. Our analysis of the cost of a degree and the inequities in the higher education measures in the Budget have been used and repeated in the media and by politicians. Universities Australia and professional associations have also picked upon our analyses.

Once again, it is left up to the NTEU to advocate for a properly funded higher education sector that values equity, access and a quality student experience. Most public contributions by Go8 universities seem more about market positioning rather than statements on the values the sector should be standing for.

NTEU Branches have been organising meetings on campuses calling upon Vice-Chancellors and student unions to speak on a platform with the Union.

National President, Jeannie Rea has been providing a national perspective and the forums have examined the local impacts.

The focus is upon resistance and not just waiting for the axe to fall.

Join the campaign

With the overwhelming outcry about the harshness of the Budget, the Union has been heavily involved in organising strong NTEU participation at all relevant events, with a strong presence at ‘Bust the Budget’ and Medicare protests, NUS rallies and other related activities.

Campaign material is currently being prepared and distributed around the country. And our social media and general media exposure has been very high with Labor and the Greens appropriating and adapting our materials and analysis for their own campaigns.

VCs fall short In contrast, the Vice-Chancellors seem incapable of providing a single coherent voice. At first, the Go8 enthusiastically embraced the changes that they originally advocated for, before qualifying their sup-

The NTEU campaign from here will maintain two foci. We will continue to fight to block the enabling legislation in the Senate.

Participation in public demonstrations, public meetings, and related activities all contribute to maintaining pressure on the political process. Branches and individual members are encouraged to visit their local politicians to pass on the message. We need to agitate for dissent in the Coalition party rooms! Materials to help with that effort are on our campaign website. Our polling, media and related activities are also designed to support this effort.

Regardless of the actions of the Senate, the NTEU will be campaigning on issues of higher education funding for the next two years right up to the next federal election.

To effectively do this we need members to be involved right up to election day and beyond.

Once upon a time it was held that universities and their funding would never be a vote changing issue. Once upon a time…

That was then. This is now. Join the campaign.

Matthew McGowan, National Assistant Secretary

For detailed analysis and up-to-date information

www.nteu.org.au/degreemortgage page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Budget 2014

$100,000 DEGREES? I DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS.

Key things to do to help the campaign Visit your local Federal MP Our website features fact sheets and resources useful for meeting with your local MP.

Visit our website and sign up as a supporter We will send you updates on the campaign, including informatin on actions happening near you.

Share materials on social media Follow us on Facebook, or visit our campaign website for a gallery of our memes and infographics.

Attend public rallies and Union meetings Put posters up in your workplace The posters on this page, and more, are available as A4 PDF downloads on our campaign website. Feel free to paste them around your workplace!

Get your friends and family involved

www.nteu.org.au/1stdegree2ndmortgage

This is an issue the affects all Australians, not just NTEU members. Encourage your friends and family to get involved in our campaign.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23

Deregulation of Victorian vocational education

A case study in policy and market failure As we all wait with anticipation for the market to ‘waive’ its magic in the deregulated higher education market, we might ask why such an approach has been such an unmitigated failure in relation to Vocational Education and Training (VET) in Victoria. The Brumby Labor Government’s 2008 Securing Jobs for Your Future policy introduced a student-demand driven system in which public funding was fully contestable between public TAFE institutes and private providers for the delivery of VET, not dissimilar to the approach Christopher Pyne wants to impose on higher education. The primary objective of the Victorian policy was to increase the number of people undertaking training in areas and at levels where skills are needed for the Victorian economy.

The only problem is that this did not happen.

Above: Caïn by Henri Vidal (1896), Tuileries Garden, Paris. Wikipedia Commons.

Opposite: NTEU members protesting against the Victorian Government’s TAFE funding cuts in 2012.

Photo by Justin Westgate. page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Impact on students and skills According to the latest data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), the total number of students enrolled in VET in Victoria increased by 31.8% between 2008 and 2012 compared to 7.3% for the rest of Australia over the same period. Virtually all of this expansion was a result of increased enrolments in non-TAFE providers whose market share increased from 10% to almost 40% over the same period. For the rest of Australia the non-TAFE share rose from 16% to 23%.

The 2014 Productivity Commission Report on Government Services shows that between 2008 and 2012 recurrent government VET expenditure in Victoria grew by 79.6% which was more than three times higher than for the rest of Australia (26%). The vast bulk of this additional expenditure in Victoria went to non-TAFE providers, who accounted for almost 80% of the $863 million increase in expenditure between 2008 and 2012. This resulted in an unexpected budget blow-out on tertiary education of some $400 million in 2011-12.

The fundamental problem with the Victorian experiment was that record student enrolments and levels of expenditure on VET did not reduce the skills shortage gap. The Vocational and Education Training Market 2013 report produced by the Department

of Education and Early Childhood Development perhaps summarises the failures of this strategy best when it says: The significant growth in government subsidised training activity up to 2012 was not always in areas of industry and economic need.

Or as a Per Capita report entitled Training Day summarises, the extent of market failure in relation to VET policies in Victoria says it all: ... while market design in the VET sector has met one of its primary policy objectives – increased training completions – it is now getting poor value for its public investment as funds are directed to private providers in areas of skills surplus.

The failure of the Victorian Government’s policy does not stop at budget blowouts associated with public funding going to non-TAFE providers that are delivering qualifications that are not needed.

Two recent reports from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) show that the VET participation gap between metropolitan and rural Victorian students has widened since 2008 (Access to Education for Rural Students) and there are currently no more people undertaking apprenticeships and traineeships than there were 10 years ago (Apprenticeship and Traineeship Completions).

Impact on TAFEs The budget blow-out associated with this rapid increase in non-TAFE enrolments promoted a policy response from the Baillieu Government which in 2012 with a $300 million per annum funding cut to TAFE. The immediate impact of these cuts included: • Significant increases in student fees.

• The loss of at least 2,500 TAFE jobs.

• The closure of many campuses and cessation of many courses.

According to the front page of The Age of Tuesday 8 April (TAFE Funding in crisis), a leaked Victorian Auditor General’s report showed that half of Victoria’s 14 TAFE institutes made an operating loss in 2013 and that at least were considered to be in doubt ‘as a going concern’.

nue, namely teaching funds. The result has been massive cuts to library and student support services. In some regional institutes, more than half the library staff have been made redundant and many closed.

Reducing library and student support staff numbers directly impacts student retention and completion rates. Library staff play a significant role in student retention through provision of information literacy training and general support. Information literacy skills including critical thinking are essential for a positive student outcome.

Although many students are at ease with technology, this doesn’t mean they are capable of finding, analysing and using information. In other words, the quality of the educational experience being delivered is under severe threat.

Impact on communities In addressing a public meeting of the Sunraysia Education Forum held on the 22nd of August 2012, Professor Tony Vinson was highly critical of the TAFE cuts and that: ... throughout Victoria the effects of the cuts go beyond the career ambitions and training pathways of individuals, important though those things are.

They have major implications for the wellbeing of communities.

Market dynamics A Victorian Essential Services Commission report published in 2012 (VET Fee and Funding Review; Volume II Technical Analysis) neatly captures the dynamics of a fully contestable demand driven model as it has evolved in Victoria in observing that: ... it is the student who ultimately decides what (if any) training they will undertake. If students’ training choices do not align with the skills needed by the economy, there will be an under- or over-supply of skills in particular sectors. (p. 49) In other words, as you would expect, training (predominantly from non-TAFE

providers) are responding buy offering courses with high levels of student demand which can be offered at reasonably low costs. Non-TAFE providers are cherry picking the market and leaving it up TAFEs to continue to offer less popular high cost or unprofitable courses.

Research undertaken by the Australian Skills Quality Agency in 2013 (Marketing and advertising practices of Australia’s registered training organisations(RTOs)) also questions the marketing practices of private VET providers. They conclude that up to half of the RTOs it examined are potentially misleading consumers, including numerous examples of: • Students being guaranteed a qualification without any need for assessment.

• Claims that qualifications could be achieved in unrealistically short time frames and in contraction to the Australian Qualifications Framework on volume of study.

• S tudents being guaranteed a job on completion where the RTO was not in a position to do so.

• Websites advertising superseded qualifications.

• Online upfront payment of fees in contravention of national standards.

Conclusion It would be a brave person to suggest that the experience of deregulating VET education in Victoria has been anything short of absolute policy and market failure.

Victoria’s failed experiment has resulted in budget blow-outs, massive increase in student fees, cuts to funding for TAFEs which has undermined their viability without making a contribution to closing Victoria’s skills gap. If similar results are replicated in higher education no one can be surprised, least of all the Federal Government.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

In other words, the policy has not only delivered substantial resources to private providers to deliver courses that student want rather than courses the economy needs, but it has also resulted in funding cuts that are undermining the financial viability of many of Victoria’s TAFEs. The funding cuts have had a disproportionate impact on TAFE support and technical staff and on regional communities. The removal of the full service (which included community services for TAFE institutes) funding means that TAFE institutes have to fully fund library and student support services from other reve-

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25

Budget 2014

Commonwealth scholarships trashed The Federal Budget claims to create a new ‘Commonwealth Scholarship’ scheme but, in reality it cuts $800 million from the existing scheme, trashes the Liberal legacy of Menzies and Nelson, and makes things worse for low-income students.

Before Whitlam abolished fees, Menzies had in place a widespread system of Commonwealth Scholarships (CS) which paid for tuition fees and provided a living allowance.

In 2004, Brendan Nelson re-introduced far more modest Commonwealth Learning Scholarships (CLS) for education/living costs, which universities themselves allocated to low-income students under Government guidelines.

By 2010, re-named Start-up and Relocation scholarships, they were moved to Centrelink and became an automatic topup for those on the means-tested Youth Allowance, Austudy or Abstudy. Currently these scholarships are an integral part of how thousands of low-income students make ends meet.

Poor students to pay more The Budget cuts $800 million from these existing Commonwealth Scholarships over five years by restricting who can get the Relocation scholarship, and converting the Start-up scholarship to a loan. This loan means that Australia’s poorest students (who are the only ones who get the Startup) will leave university with more debt than their high-income counterparts in the same courses.

It is one of the worst public policy ideas ever, and deserves to be strongly rejected by the Parliament.

Not only does it lock in higher debt for our poorest students, it sets an alarming precedent about what Government should, or shouldn’t, be paying for. If the Start-up can become a loan, then why not the Relocation scholarship? And, if these Centrelink-administered scholarships can be loans, then why not Youth Allowance itself?

1-in-5 formula The Budget’s new idea – that one dollar in every five of higher student fees must be used for scholarships or other supports – cannot be used as a defence for this demolition. And, actually creates the need for a new type of scholarship, for fee exemptions or discounts, not currently provided by the Government.

The 1-in-5 formula would have to generate enough money to cover two types of scholarship: those for education/living costs, plus those for fee exemptions/discounts. Initial modelling suggests this is unlikely, as 20% of any higher fees charged is only enough to provide exemptions from that fee for 1 in 6 (16%) of that student cohort.

It is unclear what amounts the 1-in-5 formula will apply to, suggesting that higher prices will kick in straight away, but the compensatory ‘scholarships’ could remain elusive and unpredictable for many years.

The grinding weight of debt Budget decisions on student debt just compound the situation. Applying a commercial interest rate means those who can’t pay back quickly (poor people and women) will have growing debt, regardless of their income at the time, or even if they are in the paid workforce. More reason to have the sort of fee exemption/ discount scholarships that help low-income people avoid accruing debt in the first place.

The absurdity of the Government’s policy position is that putting up fees and debt actually generates the need for the new type of scholarship, a need that cannot be met by their proposed formulation.

page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

And the scheme to meet existing needs, for living/educational costs, is being demolished.

Their proposal creates a problem without a solution, while eliminating a solution to an existing problem.

Cost shifting by levy And, calling their new scheme ‘Commonwealth scholarships’ just adds salt to the wound. Without a single Commonwealth dollar being used, and with the money raised able to be used for purposes other than scholarships, this is the biggest misnomer since ‘friendly fire’.

Even if the numbers stacked up, the 1-in-5 formulation amounts to a compulsory 25% levy on students to fund something that governments have paid for since the days of Menzies. It is cost-shifting by levy.

Much of our current outreach work with low-income people is designed to counter myths like ‘uni is too expensive’. We tell low-income prospective students that it is quite possible to get by at university by doing three things – accessing income support such as Youth Allowance (with its attached CS); working part-time, and accessing institutional equity scholarships (if family support is not available). We also tell them not to worry about HECS debts as they will be able to pay them off slowly.

That sound you can hear is not just equity practitioners muttering about what the hell we are going to tell them now, it’s the sound of Robert Menzies turning in his grave as his own party dismantles his legacy.

Mary Kelly, Equity Director, QUT

Photo: Robert Menzies in 1960, National Archives of Australia

Budget 2014

Budget a shocker for Indigenous people The Federal Budget contained a number of nasty surprises for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Cuts were expected, and preempted to a certain degree, but when the news came through that a total of $500 million had been cut from essential Indigenous services, the shock in the community was apparent.

In particular, equity measures within Indigenous education, health and legal services have been the hardest hit and there seems little opportunity for response. In short, we have a huge fight ahead in a hostile environment.

Of particular concern is how the remaining funds have been funnelled. Through its decision to only focus on remote area allocations, the Abbott Government not only sends a message that Indigenous peoples anywhere else in the country are not in need of assistance, but that the remote areas are in need only of programs based around punitive measures, rather than core infrastructure investment and promotion of autonomous decision-making bodies. In short, the remote areas are being underfunded, under-resourced and infantilised and all other areas are being barely funded at all.

cutting key legal support programs will have dire consequences.

Likewise, the cutting of funding to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is a move to negate decision-making and democratically elected representation within our communities. It follows a sinister trend of Coalition governments.

The abolishment of ATSIC by the prior Coalition Government also removed countless community-run services and democratically elected leadership.

Captain’s choices When examining education, it’s telling that two of the main educational programs the Federal Government feels are worth funding are School Attendance Officers in remote communities and the Clontarf Sports Academy programs.

School attendance is, of course, incredibly important should we wish for the next generation to have more employment and educational opportunities. The problem is, though, in so many of the areas where Attendance Officers have been installed, the infrastructure is severely lacking. School buildings are in disrepair, under-staffing is common, and turnover rates are high.

Should students wish to continue beyond the mid-years of high school, many are required to leave community to attend boarding schools in regional centres.

Additionally, while it’s fantastic that a program such as Clontarf has been guaranteed some stability, it should be noted that this is a program mainly geared around nurturing Indigenous Australian Rules footballers and therefore we should be asking what the Government plans to support when it comes to less sporty kids, or young Indigenous women.

Reducing democracy

Fee increases

The writing was on the wall when it was announced, prior to the Budget, that funding was being cut to National Aboriginal Legal Services. In a country where Aboriginal people are still being jailed at a rate higher than that of black people in the final years of apartheid South Africa,

The flagged increase in student fees is not going to serve Indigenous students well, due to the increased likelihood of low-SES status.

The cutting of the start-up scholarships has already increased the amount of debt

Indigenous students will accumulate after graduation, so an increase in fees is merely going to serve as another deterrent to entering studies. This will therefore impact the Indigenous staffing numbers both immediately, and in the future as students will be less likely to take on RHDs then move into the sector as academic staff.

Health impacts Health is another key area where Indigenous people will be adversely affected by the Budget. The Medicare co-payment of $7 will be prohibitive to many Indigenous people, particularly those on low incomes with young families.

In addition, whilst the life expectancy gap has yet to be closed, the increase in age to be eligible for the pension does not appear to have taken this into consideration. As the current life expectancy for Aboriginal men is 69.1 years, it is fair to assume that over half of our men will never become eligible for benefits that apply to all other Australian citizens. When it comes to government commitment to Indigenous health measures, things just seem to be going backwards.

Most hated man in Australia There is, however, a silver lining. With the chair of Tony Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC), Warren Mundine, stating not only that he is prepared to be ‘the most hated person in Australia’ over his support of these disastrous cuts to Indigenous programs (and then claiming that there are possibly a further $600 million worth of cuts) a split in the IAC has occurred with the deputy chair, Ngiare Brown, making her dissension clear. There is a possibility that this will lead to a more robust IAC. Community action on these measures is inevitable because people are tired of the attacks and it is clear that the ‘Prime Minister for Aboriginal Affairs’ is not taking his self-appointed role seriously.

Celeste Liddle, National Indigenous Organiser

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27

Budget 2014

Students question if university is worth it The decision to attend university is a big thing for young Australians. Even in a context where young job-seekers feel employers are increasingly expecting they hold a tertiary qualification, university is justifiably seen as a big undertaking.

(NUS) has been contacted by many students wanting to participate in the campaign against the higher education changes. We’ve had no shortage of reports from students that if they had been making decisions about their post-high school study under the new system, they would have made very different decisions. Some would have only studied a Bachelor of Arts degree, instead of an Arts/Law double degree. Some would have studied at La Trobe University, instead of the University of Melbourne. Some, especially low-SES students, rural and regional students and Indigenous students, would not have studied at all.

With the changes to higher education and Newstart arrangements, what is now seen as a big undertaking will soon be seen as a big risk. Young people will be forced to ask themselves a number of questions:

Despite the Government’s insistence that the changes will not affect people’s willingness to attend university, their rhetoric about the benefits of increased competition acknowledges that debt aversion is a very real issue.

• How much will this degree cost me?

Fallacy of deregulation

• What interest rate will be applied to my loan?

If the Government believes a deregulated market means universities will have to keep fees low to compete for and attract students, it follows that they recognise that fees factor into the decision-making of prospective students. Their suggestions otherwise are dishonest, and mislead the broader public into believing that young people are without qualms and willing to incur astronomical levels of debt.

• What will my final debt ultimately amount to?

• How long will it take me to pay that debt back? Will I ever pay it back?

• Will this debt jeopardise my capacity to buy a home?

• Am I likely to find employment in my field of study? Will it pay a liveable wage from which I can afford my repayments?

• If I find myself unemployed, will I be able to survive without Newstart for 6 months?

And finally, based on the answers to all of those questions, young people will ask themselves: is it worth it? It is worth being saddled with debt for potentially the rest of my life, in hope that I will be able to find work in an increasingly competitive job market?

Many young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, will decide in the negative. Over the last few weeks, the National Union of Students

We are facing the very real prospect of astronomical student debt, never-before

VIDEO

Student debt: a horror story Watch NTEU’s latest video highlighting the lifetime debt facing the next generation of Australian university graduates.

vimeo.com/nteutv/help-debt

page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

seen in Australia. The modelling available to us from a variety of sources indicates students will be burdened with debts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much like the rest of the Budget, it will hit low-income earners hardest: their interest repayments will be so high they will never repay their debt.

Contrary to the Government’s suggestions, there is a tipping point at which young people will have major hesitations about attending university. Fee deregulation, massive interest rate hikes and the lowering of the repayment threshold, in conjunction with the reprehensible changes to Newstart and an increasingly difficult job market are that tipping point.

For many, university will be ruled out as an option.

Australia currently has the sixth lowest government investment in higher education in the OECD, and has a long way to go in increasing the accessibility of higher education for our most disadvantaged Australians. In this context, and in a time when investing in a smart economy should be seen as a national priority, it is a major indictment on this Government that they are pursuing an agenda that will see university increasingly privatised, undervalued and out of reach for all but the most privileged.

Deanna Taylor, President National Union of Students M@NUS_President www.unistudent.com.au

Budget 2014

Will a PhD become a bridge too far?

The announcement in the Budget that fees will apply to postgraduate research for the first time has so far flown under the radar.

But the effects will be significant. Coupled with the effect of compound interest on undergraduate fees while a postgraduate is studying, a PhD could cost upwards of $30,000.

Under the Budget, changes to higher education fees have been extended to research Masters and PhDs. Until now, the vast majority of these researchers did not pay fees, in recognition of the central role they play in growing Australia’s capacity in research and innovation across the disciplines.

Postgraduate study is integral to research Postgraduate researchers undertake much of the day-to-day research conducted in our universities. Because the PhD often provides the opportunity to pursue self-directed research, research at this level is an important source of new and unexpected discovery. And, of course, when these students graduate they become the research workforce on which Australia depends for further discoveries, innovations and applications of ideas.

It is important that potential PhDs and Masters by research students are not dissuaded from undertaking study at this level by the regressive nature of the proposed changes to higher education fee arrangements. The 2008 House of Representatives Standing Committee inquiry, Building Australia’s Research Capacity, raised concerns that postgraduate

research already faced strong competition from the workforce due to the wages forgone while postgraduates studied.

Researchers won’t be able to afford the research From 2016, postgraduate research places will be subject to HECS fees of between $1,700 and $3,900 per year. As with the deregulation of undergraduate fees, this is an about-face in the way the public benefit of higher education – in this case the highest form of education – is valued and funded.

Last week’s Budget also introduced real interest on HECS debts from 2016 – for both new HECS debts and for current graduates who still carry a HECS debt.

Many questions have arisen about the introduction of real interest on HECS: is it fair to apply it to graduates who entered into HECS arrangements with no knowledge that interest would be introduced after the fact? Is it reasonable that the new lowest repayment rate (2%) is below the interest rate, so that even graduates making repayments through the tax system will be falling behind as cumulative interest grows their debt?

uate fees – a four-year PhD would cost an additional $10,000 in interest on the undergraduate debt alone. And that’s at today’s 10-year bond rate – the rate to which interest on HECS is pegged. If the bond rate rose to or above 6%, at which the new interest rate on HECS is capped, accumulated interest would be more than $15,000 over four years.

Add to this the $7,000 to $16,000 that getting a PhD will cost in fees, and our brightest students will need to think very carefully about whether a PhD is really worth it.

People with higher degree qualifications go into a variety of areas of employment, but the PhD is no guarantee of high income. Indeed, if the graduate pursues a career in academia they will be likely to undertake further, postdoctoral research work, at a pay rate that is unlikely to be far above the median wage.

A question vital to the future of Australian research and innovation has been missed.

How will the changes to undergraduate higher education fees affect participation in postgraduate research education?

Further, research undertaken by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education in 2011 showed very high levels of job insecurity among early career academics, particularly in research-only roles.

The majority of postgraduate researchers will have an undergraduate HECS debt.

Taking four years out of the workforce to do a PhD will mean that debt will quietly accumulate compound interest as research candidates study (it is presently adjusted each year for CPI only).

Our brightest students will need to ask themselves if an extra $30,000 for a PhD is a bridge too far.

On an undergraduate debt of, say, $60,000 – which may be modest as the majority of postgraduate researchers are at Group of Eight institutions, and these institutions are likely to have the highest undergrad-

Emmaline Bexley, Lecturer in Higher Education at University of Melbourne M@EmmalineBexley This article first appeared in the Conversation. Reprinted with permission. theconversation.com/raising-the-costof-a-phd-26912

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29

Private providers

College owner gets amazing Lib access The owner of a private ‘for profit’ college who’s donated almost $100,000 to the Liberal Party and stands to make millions from Abbott Government changes to the tertiary education sector was given amazing access to senior members of the federal Liberal Opposition, New Matilda inquiries have revealed.

And while he was there, he mislead parliamentarians about Gillard Government higher education policies, and how they impact on the private tertiary sector.

Alan Manly, owner of Group Colleges Australia was invited to present to a forum of more than two dozen senior federal Liberal parliamentarians, organised by the Liberal-Party linked Menzies Research Centre at the Radisson Plaza Hotel in Sydney on 13 and 14 April 2011.

Present at the forum was the ‘who’s who’ of senior Liberals in Australia, according to (then) Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who opened proceedings.

‘As well as my very distinguished senior colleagues Julie Bishop, George Brandis and Eric Abetz, I should also mention frontbenchers who are either here in this room or who will shortly be here,’ Mr Abbott said.

He then reeled off the names of senior politicians at the event – Joe Hockey, Kevin Andrews, Bruce Billson, Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Simon Birmingham, Mathias Cormann, Mitch Fifield, Brett Mason, Marise Payne, Scott Ryan, Michaelia Cash, Tony Smith, Sue Boyce, John Alexander, Jamie Briggs, Steve Ciobo, Mark Coulton,

Paul Fletcher, Alex Hawke, Zed Seselja and Alan Tudge.

You can watch Mr Manly’s presentation to senior Liberals on the YouTube link at the bottom of this page. He used the occasion to lobby the Opposition for major changes to the tertiary education sector, and the freeing up of public monies into private institutions.

Fast forward two years, and last month’s Federal Budget delivered exactly that – an end to the regulation on course fees in the tertiary sector, and an estimated $820 million boost to private college funding from public coffers.

Mr Manly told attendees that the current system of higher education funding ‘discriminates’ against smaller privately-owned colleges.

He complained that students accessing public universities only had to pay half the cost of course fees (a claim which is wildly inaccurate – see below), with the rest stumped up by government.

At the same time, argued Manly, students at private ‘for profit’ universities had to pay 100% of the course fees, plus 25% additional charges for accessing a government-supplied student loan scheme.

icant federal government assistance, with more than 60% of tuition costs paid by the government (with the remaining portion paid back by students through the HECS loan scheme).

But Mr Manly’s comments grossly mislead parliamentarians because they suggest that half the cost of the degrees provided at GCA would otherwise be subsidised by government if he were a public university.

The claim is wildly inaccurate. Business degrees at public universities – which are the sorts of degrees provided by GCA – currently see the federal government contribute around 15% of the tuition fees, with the student left to pay the remaining 85%.

Mr Manly remains unavailable for comment, and has ignored repeated requests for an interview, in addition to questions forwarded by New Matilda.

Recently, Group Colleges Australia was referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon over its links to former Liberal Party fundraiser Paul Nicolaou, himself under investigation by ICAC for alleged illegal fundraising on behalf of the NSW Liberals. Mr Nicolaou is currently listed as a non-executive director of GCA.

‘My suggestion is all students should have freedom of choice and be treated equally,’ Mr Manly told attendees.

Chris Graham and Wendy Bacon M@chrisgatlarge M@Wendy_Bacon

‘Further, students should not be discriminated against based on their chosen education institution.

This article first printed in New Matilda, 10 June 2014. It is the latest in New Matilda’s ongoing investigation of private ‘for profit’ colleges, and federal government changes to the tertiary education sector.

Reprinted with permission. newmatilda.com/2014/06/10/privatecollege-owner-and-donor-getsamazing-lib-access

‘To end this discrimination, the funding should be the same for all students; not to mention the obvious productivity gains to be made within the education sector by allowing the private education sector to build facilities and have students choose them of the own free will.’

In reality, the federal government does not pay ‘half the tuition fees’ of students at publicly funded universities. Specific courses, such as nursing and teaching, which provide a public benefit and are identified areas of need, do attract signif-

page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Additional reporting by Max Chalmers.

Watch Alan Manly’s presentation to senior Liberals: www.youtube.com/ watch?v=CzOgvISXcj4

Science meets Parliament

Science in the House The 14th Science meets Parliament (SmP) event (17–18 March 2014) provided the platform and opportunities for scientists, government, parliamentarians, industry and community representatives to engage and interact with the sole aim to advance the role and impact of science and technology in Australia.

The central theme at SmP2014 was Australia’s success in the 21st century and the engagement of scientists (and students keen in science) to enable the nation to flourish socially and economically.

Research, innovation and communication were enabling concepts for this theme.

The two-day program covered various aspects of science communication, including science, research and social change, engaging with parliamentarians, how journalists work, policy and policy makers, priming communication, preparing a presentation, addresses by senior politicians, researchers and directors of various government and NGOs, and meeting parliamentarians and stakeholders.

SmP2014 was unique in having two science teacher-educators participate in the forum. The teacher-educators added an important facet through highlighting that teachers are fundamental in generating interests in science and science education, and pertinently in laying the foundation for future scientists. In interacting with scientists and parliamentarians, the notion that teaching is the first profession a child engages with, and the centrality of a teacher’s role in promoting and facilitating scientific literacy and thinking was emphasised.

A number of presentations and readings provided the base for reflection and discourse. Presenters emphasised the dynamic nature of ‘logic of decision’ and its

constant evolution set against temporal, geographical and cultural parameters. Five questions are to be considered in guiding the ‘logic of decision’: 1. What is the problem?

2. Why does it matter and how much does it matter?

3. What are the options?

4. Which one is the best?

5. Can we afford it?

Participants were cautioned that objectives, data and contexts may shift and change, and this may confound both ‘logic’ and ‘decision’. The need for concise and vivid reporting was emphasised as opposed to ideology-based polemics.

Speakers highlighted that science communication has to transcend these subjective nuances and seek to advance beyond short-term imperatives. Governments want solutions that help deliver growth, supported by empirical evidence.

As advanced by one speaker, initiatives proposed need to have ‘game changing elements’ with explicit ‘breakthroughs’.

For these proposals to be even considered, advocacy through a single-voice is needed.

The interactions with SmP2014 participants reinforced the importance of science education in formal schooling levels. If students in these levels do not appreciate or are motivated to study the sciences, there will be dire consequences for Australia’s science in the 21st century.

Importantly, the SmP2014 highlighted the urgent need for including science education as an important facet in rethinking and reshaping Australia’s science policy.

Hence, science communication is fundamental to SmP and in promoting science to all Australians.

Thus, SmP holds promise for a holistic approach to enabling and empowering science, and through not just making ‘every Australian count’ but in the provision of scientific literacy for all. As highlighted in a number of presentations, science and science education needs to have a strategic position through ‘science being a national political priority and thus essential for prosperity’.

On reflection, a pertinent starting point is to support our students better through teachers who are passionate about the discipline and ‘ready and available’ to engage in the above exciting developments (contents and processes) in science.

Science Curriculum & Methodology and Professional Learning courses offered in teacher education programs need to include modules on science communication, as teachers are pivotal to the uptake of science in the formative years.

We recommend strongly for the organisers of SmP2015 and beyond to include science educators and practitioners in this enabling event to leverage and advance the role and impact of science and technology in Australia. Science education and passion starts in the classroom and teachers transform students to valued scientists.

Sivakumar Alagumalai, School of Education, University of Adelaide Reyna Zipf, School of Education and Arts, Central Queensland University We thank NTEU for providing support and sponsorship to SmP2014, and are grateful to Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator and Kelvin Michael, NTEU Vice-President (Academic) for sharing their knowledge and wisdom.

Above: Reyna Zipf, Kelvin Michael and Sivakumar Alagumalai at SmP 2014. Photo by Paul Kniest.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31

-

US adjunct staff organising inspires Australian academic casual activists

CASA: the house that casualisation built Early in 2014, Kate Bowles and Karina Luzia formed CASA (Casual, Adjunct, Sessional staff and Allies in Australian Higher Education). They share here with Advocate how and why they’re building CASA. We’re hearing quite a bit at the moment about US higher education as a model for deregulation in Australia.

We look at their leafy college towns and ivy-covered campuses, their deep philanthropic pockets, their Silicon Valley entrepreneurialism, their MOOCs and, above all, their higher education rankings, and ask: why can’t we have what they’re having? There are a couple of reasons why Australia should think twice about following America’s lead. One is the $1.3 trillion owed by Americans in student loans, second only to home mortgages. The other is the state of the academic profession.

Karina Luzia Macquarie University M@acahacker

Kate Bowles University of Wollongong M@KateMfd

page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

In its annual report on the staffing of American higher education, Here’s the News: Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2012-2013, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reported that only 24% of faculty were employed in continuing positions, either tenured or on the tenure track. This leaves three-quarters of America’s faculty in different kinds of insecure employment: part-time and full-time untenured, or working as graduate student employees or teaching assistants.

While full-time tenure and tenure track employment have increased 23% since 1975, the expansion of the American higher education system over the last forty years has been carried on the shoulders of the rest: part-time faculty have increased by 286%, full-time faculty without tenure by 259%, and graduate student employees by 123% (AAUP, Losing Focus: Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2013-2014). It’s hard to avoid the impression that the creation of this large adjunct workforce is the studied consequence of the overproduction of PhDs across the disciplines, especially in the Humanities.

This is the background to the adjunct activism that is now such a visible part of academic social media. Adjunct bloggers are backed up by higher education outlets like Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher

Education, who have recruited adjunct columnists, and given prominent coverage to adjunct issues. Now American adjuncts are working nationally to share data on their wages, conditions, and on unionisation campaigns at specific campuses (see The Adjunct Project, hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Robyn May’s article on the SEIU, p. 14).

Margaret Mary’s tragic story This has triggered sympathetic mainstream media attention to the realities of college staffing, particularly in high profile cases where adjunct working conditions and human interest collide. In August 2013, an 83-year-old adjunct French professor at Duquesne University, Margaret Mary Votjko, died in apparent poverty shortly after being told she would not be offered any further work; in May 2014, homeless adjunct Mary-Faith Cerasoli began a hunger strike to draw attention to college professors working without healthcare, depending on food stamps, and not just holding office hours in their cars, but living in them too.

Adjuncts took to Twitter and Facebook with protest campaigns: #IamMaryMargaret and #IamMaryFaith. Testy exchanges (#notyouradjunctsidekick) between adjuncts and tenured faculty online exposed the gulf of privilege between those with careers, offices and research support, and the ‘freeway flyers’ making up hours of work across institutions, hoping not to get sick, and trying to stay competitive in research on their own time.

Salon des Refusés?

Earlier this year, we were both watching this painful dispute from the sidelines of global academic Twitter, wondering why Australian casual and sessional academics had a less visibly organised presence.

At the same moment, we both noticed that yet another major sector conference was canvassing the future of our system without admitting to its dependency on university teachers hired by the semester and paid by the hour.

‘Wouldn’t it be great to mobilise a shadow Twitter conference for/by casuals, following the UA schedule? Salon des Refusés.’

‘I’m in. Those session names alone are crying out for some kind of (gentle ‘non-violent’) takedown.’

So that’s how we were irritated into CASA, by fantasising about an Australian version of the first ever Modern Language Association (MLA) SubConference that elbowed its way to the side of the mighty MLA conference this year, bringing adjuncts together to share experiences and information on the academic career realities the MLA chooses to overlook. To us it seemed that our own sector leaders similarly wanted to hear from students, IT vendors, MOOC spruikers and librarians, before they would invite input from their sessional staff colleagues.

We’ve both been circling this issue for a while. Kate had been writing online about casualisation and other academic work issues in her Music for Deckchairs blog.

Karina was fresh from involvement in an Office for Learning and Teaching project on sessional staff, and prior to that, had worked for eight years as a casual-sessional academic in teaching and research, across universities, faculties and centres.

Both of us are interested in understanding the affective dimension to casual work: the practices of belonging, protest, resilience and place-making by those pushed to the margins of their workplaces. So we decided to go beyond online snarking about an executive conference, to create instead a new space for a more difficult conversation about change coming from below.

Mia casa é sua casa CASA became an opportunity to invite academic workers without job security into a safe and neutral platform, to speak candidly about the realities of their working lives and put forward ideas for change, without feeling that they were being asked yet again to fix up the problems of a broken system in their own, uncompensated time.

Five months later, we have been joined by a small community of writers and subscribers, and we’ve received warm support and encouragement at many levels. Group blogging is something Australians do well.

It’s been a bit like barn-raising, as we’ve worked together to put up the frame for an online open house for casuals, adjuncts, sessionals and their allies.

Our first aim was to offer a platform to anyone who wanted to write about their experience of working casually, so that these stories would be valued at the level of the individual, and not absorbed into data. Secondly, we wanted to make it harder for senior decision-makers in the future to airbrush casualisation from their agendas, or to treat it only as a marginal reporting issue – and in so doing, to fail completely to support the wellbeing of their casual staff.

We also wanted to learn more about how what’s happening in Australia connects to the experience of adjuncts in the US and Canada, and fractional or hourly-paid staff in the UK. We’ve been working with the organisers of the weekly US #AdjunctChat on Twitter to expand this into a more international discussion, and we’ve been joined by the Canadian Association of Contingent Academic Workers and the UCU Anti-Casualisation committee from the UK. And finally, we wanted to invite a more inclusive conversation about casualisation data, taking a critical look at the evidence the sector itself uses. We know that casual staff in universities don’t see internal data, and don’t attend the meetings where this data is discussed. Many also don’t know where to begin looking for information on their work entitlements and conditions,

despite the best efforts of local NTEU branches. This makes it hard to counter arguments about casualisation as necessary, unexceptional and fair.

Casual generalisations As it happens, the full-time equivalent (FTE) formula for calculating ‘actual casuals’ teaching is an exercise in frustration that only serves to disguise both the actual numbers of individuals working casually across many roles, and the actual proportion of undergraduate teaching covered by sessional staff. This is what’s made it possible for peak bodies in our sector to dismiss casual academic work as an inconsequential or subsidiary career phase, rather than an essential part of the structure of university staffing or the substance of an individual’s academic career.

So we’ve heard a lot about portfolio professionals: people dedicated to careers elsewhere and either looking to make some pocket money, or to dabble in university teaching as some kind of hobby.

We’ve also heard that casuals focused on an academic career are simply engaging in a teaching apprenticeship as part of a well-rounded PhD, to improve their chances of full-time work later. And we’ve heard that casuals don’t (or shouldn’t) care about money because they teach for satisfaction and for the valuable experience—otherwise, why would they show up?

These generalisations aren’t evidence-based. They’re used to gloss over the reality that people end up taking on casual university work for all sorts of reasons, and experience it in many different ways.

At CASA, we don’t assume anything except that casualisation is a serious factor in the operation of Australian universities, and we don’t know enough about it.

Casual and sessional staff are the face of university teaching; casual and fixedterm researchers have made significant contributions to Australian research and development. University administration and service divisions are propped up by casuals. And they’re all doing it backwards in heels, while being ignored or marginalised or denied resources to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

Join us!

We think it’s time to ask how this situation can change. If you’d like to join us, come on over to CASA and subscribe, or email us at casualcasa@gmail.com if you’d like to suggest topics we should cover, and especially if you’d like to write about your experience. Everyone is welcome!

CASA actualcasuals.wordpress.com MLA SubConference mlasubconference.org Adjunct Project adjunct.chronicle.com AAUP www.aaup.org

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33

What’s in a name?

General and/or professional – but definitely not ‘non-academic’ How often do you hear NTEU representatives mumble ‘General – oh and/or Professional staff’? For our first two decades, the NTEU had two major sections of membership – academic and general. Academics are easily identified as members of that profession and classified as such. Two unions covering academic staff in universities and colleges were part of the original merger to form the NTEU. There were also three General Staff unions covering university and associated staff, and Victorian TAFE staff who were called PACCT staff. Over time, allied sections of other unions in universities joined us along with research and other allied institutions’ staff.

Describing staff who cover many occupations with many qualifications has become more complex. Universities are favouring the term ‘Professional’, but not everyone has a professional position. There is a ‘third space’ but this is of concern to academics particularly as there is more talk of ‘unbundling’ the academic role. We asked three leading General Staff members to comment.

It was not so long ago that many in the sector referred to General or Professional Staff as ‘non-academic’ staff, defining our work by what it is not, rather than what it is.

Matthew McGowan, National Assistant Secretary Language matters. The way we and others talk about our work contributes to the value and recognition that we expect. This can be seen most starkly in the Union’s persistent struggle with media who feel it necessary to describe the NTEU as the ‘academics’ union’ despite our repeated declarations of representing all staff in tertiary education.

It was not so long ago that many in the sector referred to General or Professional Staff as ‘non-academic’ staff, defining our work by what it is not, rather than what it is. So what is it we do? We are technical staff, telephonists, librarians, instructional designers, cleaners, security staff, policy analysts, designers, receptionists, architects, engineers, computer technicians and many more.

While on one level the title we give ourselves may seem trivial, it relates to

page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

What’s in a name? self-identity and can therefore generate significant debate.

On an international level, Education International (EI) has an even more complicated set of equations. Its affiliates are dominated by unions covering schools staff who, depending on the country and level of education, see themselves in a very different way than we do in Australia. Schools also employ a smaller range of skills directly as many of the work we contend with would be done through a central government bureaucracy. Add to this, the complication of finding a term that translates across languages and retains the same meaning.

following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain; any vocation, occupation; [or interestingly] the body of persons engaged in an occupation, or calling.

...a total of 68% of the sector’s current Enterprise Agreements that use the term Professional in their title and defined coverage.

As for EI, what did they settle on? Education Support Personnel.

As a comparator, I looked at what one of the State Government Public sectors calls its staff. In Queensland, there are ‘streams’ for jobs/roles/tasks: administrative; technical; operational; and professional – which is used only for those jobs that require a degree as part of their selection criteria.

Lynda Davies, National Vice-President (General Staff)

In our sector, there is evidence to show the intensified professionalisation of General Staff roles and of the staff as a group. According to research conducted about general and professional staff in the UK, USA and Australia our HRM, finance, student support, marketing, planning and statistics staff are highly qualified with 80% of them holding masters degrees (or higher) and 60% holding doctorates.

In overseas universities, terms also vary widely. Support staff, non-teaching staff, administrative ataff are all used.

Asking me to declare whether I prefer the term Professional or General Staff to identify the group of employees in universities who do not hold an academic position is not a clear cut ‘question-to-answer’ journey. To help inform that journey I have consulted dictionary definitions; research on the make-up and proportion of the General and Professional staff who are required to hold qualifications; types of experience and expertise required of us to successfully undertake our jobs; and finally what term is used in our Enterprise Agreements to identify us.

My long-standing curiosity over why we have been called General Staff has been partially resolved through looking at the definitions of general and professional/ profession.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary, the term general pertains to, affects, includes, or is participated in by all members of a class or group; it is not partial or particular.

General is common to many, or most, of a community. Neither is it restricted to one class or field; it is miscellaneous.

Professional on the other hand is defined as pertaining, or appropriate, to a profession; engaged in one of the learned professions (theology, law or medicine); and relates to a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning.

Conversely, it can also mean more broadly:

If we adopt the Queensland public sector approach and look at which HEW level jobs require degree qualifications (and hence intimate which jobs should be classified professional), then data from 2010 shows that 54% of the general and professional staff sit within the HEW 4– HEW 6 bands; a further 31% sit within the Hew 7–HEW 9 bands and about 7% are higher than HEW 9. Given the fact that Level 4 requires an associate diploma and Level 5 and above require either a bachelors or postgraduate degree (or equivalent experience and expertise), then clearly our staffing profile indicates that classifications and employer requirements suggest the majority of roles should be thought of as professional in nature.

There is a strong argument, however, that the term General Staff still, in its pure form, most accurately describes us as a group.

The term General Staff refers to us a community and collective, whereas the term professional excludes as well as includes.

Nevertheless a scan of the sector’s Agreements now shows that 50% refer to Professional staff only; a further 10.5% use a combination of ‘professional and general’ staff; and another 7.9% use Professional as part of the title. There is, therefore, a total of 68% of the sector’s current Enterprise Agreements that use the term Professional in their title and defined coverage.

There are staff who passionately want to be called Professional and those who equally want to be called General Staff.

There are those who recognise that some roles within the General and Professional staff cohort naturally fit the definition of professional. Don’t forget, though, that there is also a confounding discussion occurring when people confuse the term professional as a function with the way in which a job is done. So as a group, what identity should we adopt as we move forward?

Personally, I am comfortable with the term General Staff, but can see a valid argument for Professional and on the weight of existing Agreements, I suspect there will be some pressure for those 39% of us who are still called General Staff to change.

Michael Thomson, University of Sydney Branch President General Staff describes the many and varied tasks and jobs we do. General Staff is an inclusive term. General Staff are admin officers, admin assistants, plumbers, security guards, librarians, computer programmers, glassware cleaners, technicians, drivers, cleaners, managers, payroll officers, human resource clerks, child care workers, personal assistants, IT advisors, records officers, accountants, technical officers, research officers and a whole lot more.

Professional Staff is an exclusive term and doesn’t describe the different work we do, it’s a snob’s term Professional Staff is an exclusive term and doesn’t describe the different work we do, it’s a snob’s term. University managements like the term because it pretends they treat as ‘special’. Instead of paying us properly, ensuring our work flow is manageable, providing appropriate staff development opportunities and proper healthy work spaces they believe a fancy term will keep us in line.

The term Professional Staff excludes drivers, NTEU members who move cartons of books, cleaners, many admin staff who sit looking at their monitor all day and many other General Staff. www.nteu.org.au/general

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35

Refugee policy

Hope within horror Most Australians are confused about refugees.

A recent opinion poll revealed that 60% of Australians see them as migrants and think they come to Australia for a better life. Most Australians cannot comprehend the intolerable persecution that impels refugees to leave their countries, and fail to understand the different ways they arrive in Australia.

This confusion is understandable as over the past twenty years, both major political parties have referred to asylum seekers as ‘queue jumpers’ or ‘illegals’. The current Government’s military-led Operation Sovereign Borders now employs the rhetoric of warfare. As the difference between government-assisted refugees and undocumented boat arrivals is not observable, this impacts on the public’s perception of all refugees.

What is a refugee?

Let’s unpick this tangled web. The term ‘refugee’ was first defined by the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, ratified by Australia in 1954. It defines a refugee as a person with a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of their race, nationality, religion, political views or membership of a particular social group, who is unable to be protected by his or her country and has fled to another.

Since Federation, 800,000 refugees have found a new life in Australia, most since the Second World War. Immigration Department officers were sent to the countries to which they first fled to process their claims for protection with the aid of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International

Organisation for Migration. These were the lucky ones. Few refugees are ever resettled. In 2010, only 0.8% of the world’s 10.4 million refugees were resettled. The vast majority either return to their homelands when it becomes safe to do so, or live precariously in neighbouring third-world countries indefinitely.

Arrivals in Australia Asylum seekers are refugees who arrive in Australia in one of two ways. Those able to obtain a temporary visa fly to Australia and request protection on arrival.

Under Refugee Convention, Australia is obliged to consider their request. In many countries of first asylum, however, there is no way for refugees to apply for a visa. In desperation some engage smugglers to bring them to Australia by boat.

Although the 1958 Migration Act requires all entering Australia to have a visa, the Convention requires signatory nations not to penalise refugees arriving illegally, to treat them humanely and consider to their claims for protection sympathetically.

More than 90% of undocumented refugees are found to be genuine refugees.

In the past, few refugees arrived by boat.

Only 2,000 Indochinese refugees arrived in Australia by boat in the ten years following the end of the Vietnam War. This is because Australia collaborated in international efforts to process refugees in countries of first asylum. Those arriving by boat were not punished, but helped to resettle.

Australia continues to select refugees from camps offshore and provides them with excellent on-arrival services to help them become productive members of the community. Three out of four Australians support this.

The hard line Our current treatment of boat arrivals, however, has divided Australians and risks damaging our reputation as a good international citizen as it contravenes our obligations under a number of international conventions. Over the past ten years opinion polls have revealed that 25% of Australians consistently oppose the harsh treatment of detained asylum seekers and a similar per centage think it is appropriate, or should be made even

page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

harsher, although the Government goes to great lengths to prevent the public from learning the true extent of their suffering in detention centres.

Australia ‘s mandatory, arbitrary and time unlimited detention policy is one of the most restrictive in the world. Over 6,500 people were in closed immigration detention in Australia in September 2013 and almost 22% of them were children.

Another 1,200 detainees are on Manus Island and Nauru in conditions conducive to mental illness and self-harm. This has been condemned by the UNHCR as below international standards and possibly in breach of a number of human rights.

Mandatory detention has clearly failed to deter unauthorised boat arrivals since its introduction in 1989. It is economically unsustainable re-traumatises the victims of persecution.

I wrote my book Hope. Refugees and their supporters in Australia since 1947 to help Australians today better understand the unbearable pressures that force refugees and asylum seekers to flee their homes to seek refuge in an alien land, and the long history of support ordinary Australians have provided to help such new arrivals to integrate into their communities. This is a history we have every right to feel very proud of.

Ann-Mari Jordens M@JamjordAM Ann-Mari Jordens’ book Hope. Refugees and their supporters in Australia since 1947 is available via Halstead Press at a reduced price for NTEU members.

International

Thai academics suffer in latest coup In a statement issued on 2 June, the NTEU condemned the 22 May military coup d’etat in Thailand and called for the immediate restoration of constitutional rule and for the release of all academics and students detained by the military junta.

As the union representing the staff of Australian universities, the NTEU is specifically concerned with the round-up of academics and students calling for democracy and civilian rule.

The statement continued to say: ‘NTEU, joins with other unions, NGOs and governments in calling upon the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army to immediately release politicians, activists, journalists and academics who have been harassed and imprisoned following the military summons to cease any political criticism or face prosecution.

‘The NTEU notes the Australian Government has expressed grave concerns about the actions of the military in Thailand and supports the continuing ‘call on the military to set a pathway for a return to democracy and the rule of law as soon as possible, to refrain from arbitrary detentions, to release those detained for political reasons and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.’

The NTEU applauds the open letter of 23 May from an international group of 26 Thai scholars, to General Prayuth Chan-ocha, which observes that none of the previous eleven coups in Thailand since 1932 has achieved its objectives, but every time has damaged the development of law, democracy and human rights.

The Thai scholars also noted that the speed and severity of the imposition of restrictions and arrests of political leaders and activists makes Thailand ‘notorious worldwide’ and the ‘international community cannot tolerate such actions.’

We are appalled to read that universities have been ordered to monitor political activities on campuses, and further that some universities responded by issuing orders to staff and students to desist from making any political comment in the media.

Academics and students who have been critics of the lèse majesté law have been summonsed and we understand that, quite sensibly, some academics and students have gone into hiding and reportedly face house raids by the military.

The lèse majesté law is also being used to charge activists since the declaration of martial law.

NTEU calls for the abolition of the lèse majesté law, which is interpreted liberally to not just persecute critics of the monarchy, but also of the State.

The NTEU supports and admires the courage of university staff and students who continue to gather at Thammasat University and other protest sites. Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental tenets of a civilised and democratic society.’

The statement was translated into Thai and circulated amongst the brave Thai academics and students. It was also picked up in the Bangkok Post on 2 June.

The Guardian (UK) published a similar statement from a group of British academics on 9 June. Thai academics and students have passed on their appreciation of international solidarity. However, the situation on the ground is worsening and remains very dangerous for dissenters.

Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President Follow Thai scholars monitoring the coup: asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala

Above: Soldiers in Bangkok, May 2014. Photo by Saptawee Puthom. Used with permission.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37

UK experience signposts Australia’s future

Photos: Demonstrations against UK higher education changes. Charlie Owen, www.flickr.com/photos/sonniesedge.

Student debt and cashpoint colleges At the University & Colleges Union (UCU) we have been following recent events in Australia closely. Your government’s plans to increase student fees and to open up the sector to for-profit providers are depressingly familiar to staff and students in English higher education. On a more positive note, it has been fantastic to see the level of protests in Australia at the proposed fee changes and budget cuts!

The UK experience What has been happening in England regarding fees, debt and the overall sustainability of the loan system? Since 2012-13 universities in England have been able to charge up to £9000 a year for new full-time undergraduates. As in Australia students don’t pay upfront fees but are required to take up a government-backed loan, which is paid back after graduation.

Graduates must repay 9% of their gross income above a certain level of annual income (the current threshold is £25,000).

Interest rates on loans vary from 0–3% above the inflation rate.

So far, the impact on full-time undergraduate numbers has been less negative than one might have feared (one of the reasons for this has been a difficult labour market for young people). At the same time, we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of part-time students in higher education. For example, the number of part-time students in English universities now stands at 139,000 – nearly half the 2010 total of 259,000 students.

Rob Copeland Policy Officer University & Colleges Union M@AcademicsAnon

page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

A recent report, Pressure from all sides: Economic and policy influences on part-time higher education, argues the axing of government funding for people returning to study, as well as reduced employer sponsorship during the recession, are the main reasons for this substantial drop.

Student debt skyrockets Of course, our new tuition fee regime will lead to increased levels of student debt.

A recent study by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that a typical student in England would now leave university with ‘much higher debts than before’, averaging more than £44,000.

This compares to just under £25,000 if the pre-2012 system (i.e. roughly £3000 annual fees) had remained in operation.

In previous years most graduates hoped to pay off all their debts by their late thirties, whereas future students will continue paying back their student loans until their early fifties. This is likely to coincide with a period of one’s life when family and mortgage costs remain relatively high.

Despite these worrying scenarios, the authors of the IFS report estimate that almost three quarters of these graduates would not repay their loans in full, more than double their projected rate under the old system.

One of the reasons for this is the higher repayment threshold (£25,000 compared to £15,000 under the old system). Consequently, a second IFS report found that the new English fee regime will do little to reduce the overall taxpayer contribution per student. For example, the authors estimate that it will be just 5% less than it was under the old system (around £1,250 per student in 2014 prices).

Of course, these calculations depend heavily on what happens to graduate earnings over the coming decades and so the figures may shift accordingly. However, what it undeniable is that this radical shift towards greater cost sharing has led to increased financial uncertainty in the system.

Cashpoint colleges One of the reasons for the greater level of financial uncertainty has been the unchecked expansion of for-profit provision under the UK Coalition Government.

UCU has long argued for-profit providers threaten the quality of the sector as a

VIDEO

Cashpoint colleges: how the student loan system is open to abuse In a four-month investigation, the Guardian heard from lecturers and students at one of Britain’s biggest private colleges. What they reveal are allegations of serious abuse of the student finance system, with money lent to students regardless of attendance or suitability for courses in order to pay fees to profit-making colleges. The investigation exposes flaws in a government policy intended to widen access to further education. www.theguardian.com/education/video/2014/may/21/cashpoint-collegestudent-loans-video

whole. Recent high-profile stories about ‘cashpoint colleges’ have highlighted how our current loans system is being abused by unscrupulous companies. These examples, as well as a series of high-profile scandals in the USA, should serve as a warning to Christopher Pyne about the dangers of expanding for-profit higher education.

In England, the rising cost of the student loan system has led to renewed speculation that a future government will need to look again at the current system. Arguably this issue will become more pressing from 2015-16 when the current cap on funded student places ends (i.e. England will have a broadly similar policy to Australia’s demand-led system). Possible changes to the current system might include the introduction of less favourable repayment terms (e.g. lowering the income threshold) and/or raising the level of interest rates.

A future privatisation of the student loan book also remains on the cards.

a set of six questions against which we will judge all new education funding policies, asking whether proposals would: • Make it easier for people to reach their potential.

• Make it less costly for individuals to study.

• Increase our academic capacity and research base.

• Make the UK more attractive to academic staff.

• Broaden the range of subjects available for study.

• Heighten quality and reduce fragmentation in the sector.

Although designed for a UK policy framework (including increasingly divergent funding policies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), these tests may be useful in judging tertiary funding policies in other jurisdictions.

Finally, the Labour Party opposition has talked about a graduate tax as a long-term policy objective, although their sole concrete pledge is to reduce tuition fees from £9000 to £6000.

And given the common challenges faced

by NTEU and UCU, it is important that we continue to share information and experience on future funding developments in our respective countries.

Future funding policies

www.ucu.org.uk

The next general election will take place in May 2015. In May this year UCU launched

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39

Human Rights Recent actions by NTEU NTEU National Office regularly sends letters to foreign governments and companies in support of imprisoned or victimised educators and workers, upon the request of education and human rights organisations.

Date

Action Requested By

20 January University and 2014 College Union (UK) Justice for Colombia

Country

Addressee/s

Issue & Action Taken

Colombia

Colombian Attorney-General

Letter re arrest of academic Francisco Toloza on 4 January 2014. As well as being a leader of the Patriotic March, Mr Toloza is a respected political scientist from the National University in Bogota, and a popular educator and social activist. As a peace activist and academic Mr Toloza was recently involved in the organisation of the ‘Roundtables for Peace’ held in Bogota to support the ongoing peace talks in Havana between the FARC guerrillas and the Colombian Government. His arrest is part of a Government strategy to persecute and discredit critical academics and the Patriotic March.

Francisco Toloza

Anthony Doyle

Prof Amr Hamzawy

30 January, 2014

Amnesty International

Iraq

Prime Minister

Letter calling for a stop to the planned executions of Abdullah ‘Azzam Saleh Musfer al-Qahtani and Safa Ahmad ‘Abul’aziz ‘Abdullah, and the overturning of their sentences. Also calling for an official moratorium on executions and the abolition of the death penalty.

4 March 2014

Amnesty International

Mozambique

President

Letter re proposed new legislation which will enable rapists to escape prosecution by marrying their victims.

5 March 2014

Amnesty International

Iran

Leader of the Islamic Letter calling for the bodies of two executed teachers Republic of Iran (who were members of Iran’s Ahwazi minority) to be returned to their families, and calling for a stop to the execution of three others and retrial.

11 March 2014

Amnesty International

USA

Letter to Board of Pardons/Paroles, Austin Texas

Letter conveying opposition to scheduled execution (27 March 2014) of Anthony Doyle for crime committed in 2003 when he was 18-years-old, and calling for his death sentence to be commuted.

Response received from US Embassy on 12 March: Thank you for your letter dated March 11, 2014 in reference to Anthony Doyle. The death penalty is an issue that many Americans, like many Australians, have strong feelings about, and it remains a subject of robust debate. Indeed, some U.S. states prohibit it while others permit its application in limited circumstances. Where disputes exist, the death penalty is imposed only after a case receives multiple rounds of judicial reviews. Ultimately, though, judgments about individual cases are based on the specific facts and findings in those cases, as determined by the courts. The debate surrounding the use of the death penalty will continue in the United States and around the world, and we appreciate the letters and thoughts that people have shared with us on this subject.

13 March 2014

Scholars at Risk

Egypt

Prime Minister

page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Letter re prosecution of Professor Amr Hamzawy on charges relating to his academic profession. He is professor of political science at Cairo University and public policy at the American University of Cairo.

Human Rights Date

Action Requested By

Country

Addressee/s

Issue & Action Taken

18 March 2014

Education International

Ukraine

President and International Secretary of STESU

Message of solidarity to Union of Education and Science Employees of Ukraine (STESU) whose headquarters were burned down in Kiev during recent political turmoil.

Response received 19 March 2014: Dear friends, Recently we’ve received a lot of letters of solidarity from our colleagues from different corners of Europe and the world. We are very grateful to all of you for your support so much needed today by the whole Ukraine. Members of the Trade Union of Education and Science Employees of Ukraine together with all Ukrainian citizens honour all those who died during the conflict from both sides. Many of them were students and teachers. There is a huge piece of work ahead: to preserve unity and integrity of the country, to build a new system of government, to ensure the return to the sustainable development of the economy.

The Trade Union of Education and Science Employees of Ukraine together with other unions will do its best to protect members’ rights and interests in this difficult time.

Hamid Babaei

Dr Meriam Yehya Ibrahim

Peter Greste

3 April 2014

Scholars at Risk

Iran

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Letter re six year prison sentence imposed against Hamid Babaei, an Iranian doctoral student, for allegedly acting against national security by communicating with a hostile government. It is reported that the sole evidence for the charges against Mr Babaei is that he received scholarship funding from the University of Liege, Belgium.

11 April 2014

Amnesty International

Egypt

Interim President and Public Prosecutor

Letter re detention and trial of Al Jazeera staff Mohamed Fahmy, Peter Greste and Baher Mohamed charged with broadcasting false news; and detention and ill-treatment of five students.

23 May 2014

Amnesty International

Sudan

Minister of the Interior, Minister for Justice

Letters re scheduled hanging of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim (a 27-year-old doctor). Prisoner of conscience convicted for her refusal to renounce her Christian faith. Note: She is heavily pregnant and cannot be executed before giving birth and nursing the child for two years.

29 May 2014

Amnesty International

Thailand

Leader of the National Peace and Order Council, General Prayuth Chan-ocha

Letter re arbitrary detention of numerous politicians, activists, journalists academics and demonstrators following the declaration of martial law on 20 May. Follow up letter also sent on 5 June.

5 June, 2014

Amnesty International

Russian Federation

Prosecutor General

Letter re abduction of asylum seekers from Uzbekistan (Dilshodbek Nazarov and Davronbek Mamazhonov) and their forcible return, and risk of torture and other ill-treatment.

5 June 2014

Amnesty International

Colombia

President Santos

Letter re concerns for safety of human rights defenders Doris Valenzuela, Christian David Aragon and Jose Miller Sinisterra following threats from paramilitaries.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41

News from the Net Pat Wright

Net snares Budget bombs The 2014 Abbott Debt and Hockey Deficit (ADHD) Budget has been the most unpopular in living memory. Usually, the shock-horror aspects of an austerity Budget are hosed down after a few weeks with a bit of smooth talking by the Government, but this Budget has so many destructive aspects buried in the detail or hidden from first sight, and has been so poorly ‘sold’ (with Ministers contradicting each other and getting stuff just plain wrong), that the unpopularity of the Budget has escalated, rather than subsided, over the past several weeks.

Much of this mounting disillusionment, if not anger, can be ascribed to the uncertainty about how much of the Budget will get through the Senate, anyway, so people are reluctant to accept the nasties that they might not have to. However, some of the unpopularity is due to greater access to Budget information and enhanced exchange of information, analysis and commentary – thanks to the internet.

Since the then Labor Government’s commitment to Open Government in 2010, Budget papers have been made available online under a Creative Commons (CC) licence. This year, the Budget papers and the entire Budget website are covered by a CC licence, and, for the first time, all Budget tables and data have been made available in csv format, readable by Excel or other spreadsheet software, on the Government’s data.gov.au portal. This has meant that researchers and commentators

have been able to access accurate information more readily, much to the chagrin of various Government Ministers.

Consequently, the Treasurer’s withholding certain information which is usually published – such as the impact of tax changes on different household income groups, and the women’s Budget – were quickly rectified by researchers and the Opposition. This goldmine of information has fuelled a gusher of analysis and commentary disseminated through email, listservs and blogs to an unprecedented extent.

More people have been better-informed about the Budget more quickly than ever before and have therefore become increasingly sceptical about the need or wisdom of such austerity.

Many reports released online in recent weeks have further undermined the Government’s case for austerity. Terms of trade data indicated a lowest monthly deficit since 1980, due, said the Murdoch press, to a surge in mining exports rather than the economic settings left by the previous Government. The World Bank found that 39 countries and 23 States or Provinces within countries have adopted either emissions trading or a carbon tax. The Dec 2013 Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory found that the carbon tax had helped drive the biggest fall in greenhouse gas emissions in 24 years. The Business Spectator rediscovered 2004 research by Jeff Borland and YiPing Tseng of Melbourne University which found quite large significant adverse effects of participation in Work for the Dole schemes. The report of the Jan 2014 roundtable convened by Australia 21, ANU and the Australia Institute, and Oxfam’s Still the Lucky Country? report both showed an increasing tendency towards wealth inequality in Australia. The Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia report from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research showed that working-age Australians have become far less reliant upon welfare payments, contrary to Government claims of increasing welfare dependency.

The flow of Budget-related commentary through the internet has been strategically reticulated through various websites, email listservs, and blogs. Foremost among these services has been The Conversation (theconversation.com), which has a Budget 2014 tab linking to a compilation of more than 120 articles by university-affiliated researchers and commentators.

page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

For the Budget’s implications for tertiary education, The Scan (the-scan.com) has been an invaluable resource. This website and email listserv provides tertiary sector news and views from the government, non-government organisations, unions, employer associations and the commercial media, all archived and machine-searchable by keyword. Within hours of the Budget speech, The Scan had distributed via email the Government papers and first reactions from the NTEU, Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the Australian Technology Network, Innovative Research Universities, Regional Universities Network, TAFE Directors Australia, Australian Council for Private Education and Training etc. The compilation of comments from organisations with a particular interest in higher education is much more insightful than the generalised comments we get in the commercial media.

Such online services quickly revealed the hidden nasties in the Budget, often buried under a mass of more spectacular details, such as the average 20% (some much higher) cut in the Government subsidy of higher education places (and a lower indexation rate on those subsidies) under the deregulation of university fees; the availability of higher education subsidies to 174 providers (rather than 39 universities) under the expected 80,000 additional places; the much higher interest rate on HECS and HELP debts incurred in the past under the extension of HELP income-contingent loans to more students and apprentices in the future; the lower-level (if not lower-quality) higher education qualifications from non-university providers under the promised lower prices of a higher education qualification; the probable transfer of places for low-SES students from average-priced Universities to scholarship places for low-SES students at higher-priced universities, funded by 20% of their additional fee income; and the domesticating influence of indebtedness for all students and apprentices under the ‘No Upfront Fees’ slogan.

The net has helped unmask the neo-liberal ideologues who seek to remake the next generation of young Australians in their own image – those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing beyond money.

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

McDonaldisation of higher education We all knew what to expect from the Budget: a whole heap of preelection assurances turn out to have been ‘non-core promises’, that outrageous phrase the Coalition introduced to politics. Tony Abbott famously explained his past barefaced lies to Kerry O’Brien by saying that only his written statements could be ‘taken as gospel’, so we should not have been surprised when his pre-election promises turned out to be dishonest.

It takes real chutzpah to look straight at the camera and give the sort of assurances Abbott gave before the election about education, health care, pensions and funding of the ABC. As Woody Allen said, ‘The most important things in politics are sincerity and integrity. Once you can fake those, you’ve got it made!’

Shameless dishonesty The usual excuse for having lied before the election is that things turned out to be worse than the new government expected. The Coalition can’t run that line, since Joe Hockey was saying last year that the budget outlook was really awful in order to accuse the Rudd Government of irresponsibility.

a drunken sailor: billions for new roads to a mythical new airport that will probably never be built, even more to prop up the US military-industrial complex by buying 58 fighter jets to defend ourselves against possible invasion by penguins or refugees in leaking fishing boats.

We are asked to believe the budget is in crisis and spending must be cut, when the Government is trying to abolish the carbon price, scrap the embarrassingly inadequate mining tax rather than strengthen it, continue the ridiculously generous treatment of high-income individuals, subsidise the mining industry with fuel tax exemptions, prop up the luxury vehicle industry by reversing the ALP crackdown on fringe benefits and generously reward well-paid women for having children.

Opening up university study to ‘the market’ is likely to lead to the McDonaldisation of higher education ...

Those of us who live in Queensland see similar dishonesty from our State Government. They are inviting voters to go to their Strong Choices website, which pushes the Coalition line that public assets funded by taxpayers must be flogged off to their mates at the big end of town to balance the budget. I found that I could easily solve the problem and provide more resources for education by attacking the generous treatment of the minerals industry, but the site is set up to discourage this approach to increasing revenue.

Free market approach doesn’t work in education

The ‘Commission of Audit’ was a shameless political exercise to portray the ideological attacks as essential measures to tackle a ’budget emergency’; the same nonsense Peter Costello trotted out when he became Treasurer in 1996.

We should be particularly concerned by the attacks on education. The Coalition ideology is that higher education should not be seen as a public investment in the capacity of the community, but as cynical individual attempts to increase their earning capacity. This blinkered view justifies saying that students should pay more, since they are only studying so they can become more wealthy.

The Coalition line is obviously dishonest: Joe Hockey was solemnly saying that the pain had to be shared and everybody had to help with the ‘heavy lifting’ while his leader was throwing money around like

It also justifies a market approach to setting fees, charging more for courses that effectively give graduates a licence to print money. That in turn encourages universities to steer away from genuine education

and the empowerment of critical citizens, phasing out such ‘luxury’ courses in favour of narrow professional accreditation.

As well as being fundamentally unsound, there are two practical problems with this approach. One is that students’ time is a limited resource. Jacking up fees increases the need for them to do paid work to make ends meet, reducing their ability to put time into their study. The weekly allowance for full-time students is just above half the income level that is regarded as the official poverty line. So more and more students are forced to neglect their study to do mindless paid work.

The second practical problem is that market choices only work, even in principle, in areas where it is possible to learn from our mistakes. The market works for coffee or bread, since we buy them often enough to shift our patronage away from vendors who offer over-priced or sub-standard goods. But most people only decide once to undertake higher education. Having chosen to study field x at university A, they can hardly then compare the first year of their degree with the equivalent first year at universities B, C and D to determine which is the best value. Nor can they go back to square one and compare fields y and z at university A. Independent evaluations show that there is little correlation between community perceptions of the standing of a particular university and the quality of its undergraduate offerings. Most universities have strengths and weaknesses; our most prestigious universities have some degree offerings that are not as up-to-date as those at neighbouring institutions, while our newest and smallest universities have some outstanding academics and some wonderfully innovative degree programs.

But the school leaver is rarely in a position to evaluate the options. Opening up university study to ‘the market’ is likely to lead to the McDonaldisation of higher education: just as the punters can be persuaded to pay more for an inferior hamburger by a huge marketing budget, it will prove equally cost-effective for universities to invest in slick marketing rather than improving the quality of education.

Everyone loses.

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University.

M@AusConservation

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43

The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn

Academic assholes and other jerks About a year ago, I wrote a post on my blog called ‘Academic assholes and the circle of niceness’. In it I asked ‘do academics get further in their career if they act like jerks?’ I wrote the post after reading The No Asshole Rule by Bob Sutton, which included research suggesting we tend to assume mean people are cleverer than nice people. My contention was, since cleverness is so valued in academia, it might be advantageous to be an asshole.

If this is true, people who play nice would tend to be under-valued, even pushed out, which, over the long term, would feed an increasingly nasty and unhappy workplace. I suggested one way to counter this problem was to consciously cultivate what my friend Rachael Pitt calls ‘the circle of niceness’. Inside a circle of niceness we know and trust that colleagues will be generous and supportive of each other.

As it turned out, this post really struck a nerve. It’s one of the few posts I’ve written to truly go viral. To date it has been read by over 90,000 people and has sparked a lot of follow up blog posts, newspaper articles and commentary (even from Sutton himself ), which has been very pleasing.

Recently, the excellent Occam’s Typewriter blog maintained by Professor Athene Donald of Cambridge University devoted two posts to the concept of academic jerkiness in a way that made me think more about the problem. I encourage you to read the posts, but what struck me was this statement in the second one: Many academics simply don’t care about the big, departmental picture, they only want to solve their pet problem, get their experiment to work

or write up their Big Idea. And that is where jerkish attributes can start to creep in, whether or not with conscious or malicious intent.

Athene goes on to highlight the selfish behaviour that results from these self-focussed drives, such as leaving all the teaching to junior academics and not doing a fair share of the ‘invisible work’ of the department: serving on committees, sitting on selection panels and so on. Some staff members, Athene claims, become particularly adept at appearing ‘useless’ at routine chores unless they have something at stake, like paperwork to ensure a grant application is put through, or ensuring their favourite student gets a scholarship.

Selfish academics?

Are many academics selfish? Google defines the word ‘selfish’ as ‘… lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure’. I’m not sure about you, but I’ve encountered my fair share of these creatures during my travels through academia. How much does selfishness play a role in building and reinforcing academic hierarchies?

It’s pretty convenient, isn’t it, that the selfish behaviour by senior members of staff which enables them to ‘focus on their research’ also results in junior faculty members having less time on their hands?

If those enthusiastic level A and B lecturers are managing huge first year classes, or representing the department at central committees, they have way less time to be doing research.

And it just so happens that having time to do research might make these youngsters competitive in future grant rounds.

Eventually we see an entrenched hierarchy where, as Athene puts it: … the worst offenders hold too much power, too much money and have been securely established as the departmental golden boys (or girls). They have achieved this by virtue of the fact that they get their way in the world by their brutish behaviour and so acquire the resources necessary in order to make yet further progress.

Bullying and intimidation The potential for bullying and intimidation increases when those who are empowered within this system do not speak back

page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

to power. There are many reasons why people stay silent. Junior academics are often on time-limited contracts and fear rocking the boat in case they are left out to sea when it comes time for contract renewal. I see the same behaviour in PhD students who are too afraid to hold their ‘star supervisors’ to account for lack of time and care reading and providing feedback on their theses. While doing research about administrative procedures a couple of years ago I was shocked by how often I heard the similar sentiments expressed by professional staff too.

It’s pretty convenient, isn’t it, that the selfish behaviour by senior members of staff which enables them to ‘focus on their research’ also results in junior faculty members having less time on their hands?

People clearly hesitate to formally ‘out’ those who under-function, but senior management would be well advised to listen to the silence because it really is the most powerful form of communication. If you are reading this think about next time you are tempted to avoid filling in a form, sit on a selection panel or provide advice to a curriculum design working party in order to ‘concentrate on research’. Who is really benefiting – and who is stuck with your dirty dishes?

Dr Inger Mewburn does research on research and blogs about it, too. www.thesiswhisperer.com

M@thesiswhisperer ‘Academic assholes and the circle of niceness’ thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/ academic-assholes/ Occam’s Typewriter occamstypewriter.org

Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Lesley Francey

Kiwi tertiary staff working in fear Underfunding.

Reviews. Restructures.

Redundancies. It’s a familiar pattern, and one you’ll be experiencing more and more with the first Abbott budget set to take the knife to tertiary education in Australia after years of luke-warm support from Labor. Across the ditch, here in New Zealand, a similar cycle of cutbacks continues to count its victims and near-victims.

During March and April alone our union dealt with 59 reviews and restructures, across 16 different tertiary institutions, affecting over 350 employees.

And what is the impact of a sector treading water? Of all those reviews and savings targets? It is the staff that cop it and dread it.

Our recent ‘State of the Sector’ survey reveals that three out of five tertiary education workers believe that their job will be restructured within the next two years, and 30% believe they will be made redundant.

Many commentators in the media still think of the tertiary education sector as being filled with secure, plum jobs with degrees of autonomy.

In 2014, the reality could not be more different; 43% of staff feel that there has been an erosion in their working conditions while a majority have seen deterioration in the recognition of their contribution. In reality, its reviews, restructures and redundancies which reign.

Commercialisation and job insecurity The squeeze in our universities and polytechnics has been so marked that countless staff are living under a cloud of job insecurity. They fear for themselves and their families. With mortgages, rent and ever-increasing bills to meet, our members need certainty again. But our governments in Canberra and Wellington aren’t listening; in fact they’re driving the squeeze for their own purposes.

Your Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, has championed his reforms as the building blocks for achieving an Australian Harvard. But at what cost? And why? The Anzac spirit is one of egalitarianism. The idea that Jack is as good as his master, and that come hell or high water we all work towards a society that is better, fairer and more just than the places many of our ancestors left in Europe. Deregulation of fees and cuts to research funds will not achieve that society. His low-income scholarships are a cruel joke for working class kids who will cough up for up to 60% higher fees.

In a similar fashion, the New Zealand Government, which is spending half a billion dollars less on tertiary education than it did six years ago, is busy pushing our demoralised and underfunded sector to pursue its own ideological goal of total commercialisation of the sector. Predictably, the Government’s messages are being heard loud and clear by managers at the coalface.

Just last month, the University of Auckland doled out three Vice Chancellor’s ‘Commercialisation Medals’. While I say good on the researchers who were awarded them, I am concerned when 67% of the staff in our survey say that the commercialisation agenda has negatively affected their working life. One staff member said in our survey that ‘the emphasis on the commercialisation of education, where money-orientated decisions are eroding the intrinsic value of education...it has damaged collegiality and mutual support.’

Many are beginning to see how these issues are deeply connected.

For-the-few agenda It is becoming clear that for our governments and their ideological allies to achieve their commercialised, for-the-few agenda, they need insecure workforces.

They need staff that work away in fear and have little or no capacity to challenge their

crooked ideas. As unionists and members of the public who believe in collaborative, accessible institutions, we must fight that agenda. We need to wake up to the changes being done to our sector that make it unrecognisable, but for more than ourselves. This is a battle for the heart of the tertiary education sector. It’s about whether tertiary education this century will be about congeniality, debate and cooperation; or division, dictation and competition.

One staff member said in our survey ‘the emphasis on the commercialisation of education, where moneyorientated decisions are eroding the intrinsic value of education... has damaged collegiality and mutual support.’

Hope for the future Our sector is supposed to be the critic and conscience of our societies. How can we fulfil that role when we work in fear of our livelihoods? With the number of reviews, restructurings and redundancies rife within the New Zealand tertiary education sector how can our comrades be expected to be that critical, leading voice under a cloud of fear, let alone be certain they have a job come Monday.

The answer is they can’t. But it can be different. The insecurity juggernaut can be halted. With no Coalition majority in the Senate, there is a real chance for stopping the Abbott Government’s nasty cuts in Australia. With New Zealand’s general election taking place in a few short months, there is equal cause for hope that we can put an end to this madness. But we will only get there through our own work and organising.

Let’s part that cloud of fear, and amplify our calls for a sector that champions the best in humanity and community. Let’s bust the budget and all budgets like it.

Let’s put an end to this awful cycle on both sides of the Tasman.

Lesley Francey is National President/ Te Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa www.teu.ac.nz M@nzteu

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45

My Union Organising our Organisers NTEU organising staff from around the country gathered for a three day residential conference in March in the picturesque surroundings of the Yarra Ranges, just outside Melbourne.

The first national conference for organisers in nearly four years, the theme for the gathering was to examine the obstacles at different levels of the Union to effective organising work, and to start developing strategies for improving our work.

It was a great opportunity for organisers to simply talk with each other about their experiences. Many NTEU organisers work day-to-day from a single person office on a university campus, and it was reassuring for them to understand that the challenges they face in doing their jobs are similar for many organisers elsewhere.

The conference involved a series of workshop discussions where staff were able to drill down to the nitty-gritty about the positive and negatives of NTEU organising; the way we communicate with ourselves and members; our collective approaches to planning and co-ordination; the range of tasks that organisers perform.

Ultimately, good organising is about engaging with members and other university staff; developing and supporting workplace activists and delegates; working to implement the Union’s policies and initiatives, and providing inspiration and leadership during the hard times as well as the good.

Guest speaker Tim Kennedy from the National Union of Workers spoke about his experiences of grappling with organising work in other sectors of the workforce, where it was clear that good organising skills are common regardless of the industry or sector in which you are working.

It can be a tough and sometimes thankless job, but the rewards can also be high when members are empowered to achieve good collective outcomes for themselves, through the organising work we do.

ACTU Educator/Organiser Jane Clarke spoke about the research done on the crucial role of organisers in developing effective delegates networks in active workplaces, and some strategies around how we can better focus on this.

The final session of the conference produced a statement broadly covering the range of issues identified by the participants for further work. This has since resulted in an action plan developed by the National President Jeannie Rea, which the senior organising staff group and Union Education staff will take responsibility for working through over the next six to twelve months.

page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The overwhelmingly positive feedback from participants at the Conference means that this initiative was a big step towards being able to provide more cohesive and effective organising strategies for NTEU members in the future.

Michael Evans, National Organiser

Below left: Celeste Liddle (Indigenous Organiser), Jeannie Rea (National President) and Adam Frogley (Indigenous Coordinator) with Aunty Dot Peters who performed the Welcome to Land. Below right: NSW Senior State Organiser, Jo Kowalczyk addressing the group. Bottom: The full conference group. Photos by Paul Clifton.

My Union Temporary incapacity & your super If you are a member of UniSuper in either the Defined Benefits Division (DBD) or Accumulation 2, then it is in your interest to take a couple of minutes to read this article.

If you are experiencing, or ever do experience, chronic or significant health issues, then this may be one of the most important pieces of information you need to know.

UniSuper provide an informative fact sheet about temporary incapacity and the facts quoted in this article are set out in more detail on their website.

What is temporary incapacity?

Fact 1 Temporary incapacity benefits are an inbuilt feature of your membership.

In other words, as a member of either DBD or Accumulation 2, you have been automatically contributing to the scheme as part of your normal superannuation contribution.

Fact 2 If you are temporarily unable to work due to injury or illness, you may be eligible to claim a temporary incapacity benefit.

On a number of occasions over the years, I have seen members who are on the point of resigning because they have used up all or almost all of their available leave trying to deal with their health issues.

The good news for members in DBD or Accumulation 2 is that there is an alternative to resignation and that is applying for temporary incapacity. In the cases I have been involved in, all members who applied were subsequently accepted for temporary incapacity.

Fact 3 Temporary incapacity is defined as: A state of health which, in the opinion of the Trustee, renders a member

unable to perform their own duties or any other duties for which they are reasonably qualified by training and experience and which are available at the member’s employer where: • The member has been absent from employment through injury or illness for three months within a period of twelve consecutive months immediately prior to the date of making a claim for a benefit on the grounds of temporary incapacity, and • The Trustee is satisfied that the state of health is not due to or induced by any wilful action on the part of a member to obtain a benefit.

Unlike workers’ compensation, the question (apart from the ‘wilful action’ exception) is not how did you become sick, but are you sick as per the temporary incapacity definition. Providing you have the medical evidence to support the claim and meet the eligibility criteria for application, then your chances of being accepted into the Scheme are very good.

Fact 4 A temporary incapacity benefit will generally be paid for a period of up to six months, as determined by the Trustee. The Trustee may approve additional periods up to a maximum of two years if the claim is in relation to the same or related injury or illness.

Under the terms of Clause 40.6 of the UniSuper Consolidated Trust Deed, employers are required to keep a suitable position available for the member on temporary incapacity for the duration of the period of incapacity. In my experience, this has meant that where health outcomes have improved for members on temporary incapacity, they have been able to return to their positions.

Fact 5 The maximum monthly benefit payable is determined according to the following formula: Benefit Salary x 60% x Average Service Fraction (ASF)

The fact sheet contains detailed advice about how ASF is calculated and other particulars about the way the benefit salary is derived.

In considering a member’s overall financial position when receiving the temporary incapacity benefit, it is important to note that during such periods, UniSuper continues to pay both the 14% employer contribution and the 7% standard member contributions to the superannuation scheme.

Fact 6 Your temporary incapacity benefit will cease if: ...

• you qualify for a disablement benefit or terminal medical condition...

In the event that a member’s health does not improve after the maximum time on temporary incapacity or deteriorates significantly while on incapacity, then a member can apply for a permanent disablement benefit.

More information about permanent disablement can be found on the UniSuper website.

How can I find out more about temporary incapacity?

If you want to find out more about temporary incapacity, you can access the UniSuper website, contact your NTEU Branch or Division Office or contact your local university superannuation officer.

If you know of a colleague who is experiencing significant health issues, please refer them to this article or the other listed sources of information.

Finally, as a staff member who has seen many members accepted into the temporary incapacity scheme, I express my appreciation and thanks to the original architects of this scheme which has proven to be so beneficial for staff experiencing major health issues.

Kathy Harrington, Industrial Officer, SA Division www.unisuper.com.au

12

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47

My Union Introducing journey injury insurance for all NTEU members. www.nteu.org.au/traveltowork

Travel To Work Insurance Free travel to work insurance for members The NTEU believes our members should not be put at risk of financial hardship as a result of simply travelling to and from work. That is why, from 1 April 2014, all NTEU members will be automatically covered for journey injury insurance.

As an individual you could be paying hundreds of dollars per year to get this valuable insurance cover, but as a financial member of the NTEU, it is absolutely free!

The insurance covers all NTEU financial members for injuries sustained during direct travel between their usual place of residence and place of employment or place of training for work.

• Coverage for 85% of your weekly salary, up to a maximum of $1,500 gross per week.

• Waiting period of 14 calendar days where sick or annual leave can be used.

page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

• Maximum 104 week benefit period.

• Death and capital benefits of up to $100,000.

• Covers members up to age of 75 (some restrictions for members aged over 70).

• Covers any difference which may exist between the compensation payable under motor accident legislation and the benefits specified under the policy.

For more information, contact IFS Insurance via email nteu@ifsinsurance.com.au or call 1300 768 118. www.nteu.org.au/traveltowork

My Union NTEU scholarships Entries are now being accepted for the 2015 Joan Hardy Scholarship for postgraduate nursing research, and the inaugural Carolyn Allport Scholarship for postgraduate feminist studies, by research.

Joan Hardy NTEU established the $5000 Joan Hardy Scholarship for postgraduate nursing research in memory of the late Joan Hardy, who died in 2003.

Joan Hardy was active in higher education unionism for over 30 years, during which time she held many positions at local and state levels. She was the first woman President of UACA (one of the predecessors to NTEU) a position she occupied for five years.

Joan was a tireless advocate for union amalgamation and was a key negotiator in the formation of NTEU, becoming Vice-President when the Union was formed in 1993.

The Scholarship is available for any student undertaking a study of nurses, nursing culture or practices, or historical aspects of nursing as a lay or professional practice. The student need not therefore be or have been a nurse and can be undertaking the study in disciplines/schools other than nursing.

Payment will be in two instalments; half on the awarding of the Scholarship and the remainder on evidence of submission of the thesis.

Carolyn Allport The Carolyn Allport Scholarship for postgraduate feminist studies, by research, is worth $5000 per year for a maximum of 3 years.

The NTEU has established the scholarship in recognition of Dr Carolyn Allport’s contribution to the leadership and development of the Union in her 16 years as National President from 1994 to 2010.

Carolyn became a prominent lobbyist at both the national and international levels including as a consultant for UNESCO, through Education International. Described as a ‘warrior for women’, Carolyn was tenacious in advocating for women’s rights to employment equity. She was particularly influential in the struggle for paid parental leave, establishing the NTEU as the leader in setting high benchmarks for other unions and employers to match.

Carolyn is also recognised as a leading advocate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, employment and social justice.

Carolyn worked as an academic for over 20 years at Macquarie University. Her teaching and research publications were in the areas of economic history, urban politics, public housing and women’s history.

Applications Applicants for both scholarships must be currently enrolled in an academic award of an Australian public university, and be a member of a union. Applications close on Thursday 31 July. A decision will be made in late August 2014. Visit the link below for full information.

Helena Spyrou, Education & Training Officer www.nteu.org.au/myunion/ scholarships

Affordable health insurance NTEU members now have access to UniHealth – a new health insurance provided to union members and their families.

UniHealth has been developed in consultation with the Teachers Health Fund. The fund offers some of Australia’s lowest premiums and is only available to union members and their families. In difficult times, the NTEU is always there to look out for our members. unihealthinsurance.com.au

Vale Jim McAllister NTEU CQU Branch lost an inspiring friend and colleague when Jim McAllister passed away on 29 March after a short illness. Jim, a proud life member of the NTEU, was a strong advocate on social justice issues.

Jim was a lecturer in Sociology respected by colleagues and students for his humility, humour, sense of fairness and what is right. He worked at CQU from 1992 until his retirement in 2008. Although Jim was pleased that he had earned a PhD, he did not like the use of any honorific and almost never allowed himself to be referred to as ‘doctor’.

Although Jim was a dyed-in-thewool atheist, his personal philosophy was informed by his exploration of religions when he was a young man.

He was profoundly influenced by the Quakers (Society of Friends) and their commitment to non-violence, refusal to participate in war, refusal to swear oaths and opposition to slavery. Jim epitomised these beliefs and they served to further shape his commitment to social justice, equity and an abhorrence of any system that artificially determined a person’s worth – thus their access to basic human rights – according to wealth or power over others, preferring the power of joining with ordinary people to achieve change.

Jim was a selfless worker for the union movement. Whether it was helping to organise the local Labour Day march or manning the picket lines, Jim was always present with his pithy advice and gems of wisdom pasted to a placard or his homemade cardboard A-frame.

Jim will be fondly remembered by his friends, colleagues and comrades for his ‘good life’. Farewell for now, Jim. Bill Blayney, NTEU CQU Branch President

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 49

My Union New NTEU staff Please welcome new staff in NTEU Branches and Divisions.

Amber has spent the last decade working on community and election campaigns, as a political staffer at both state and federal levels and for a fleeting moment in 2013 as an Organiser at Southern Cross University.

Amber enjoys formulating plans, sticking to them, talking with members and long walks on the beach.

Glenn Walsh Industrial Organiser, WA Glenn joined the WA Division in February, having previously been employed as a Lead Organiser with the CPSU/CSA.

Phil Mairu, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organising & Recruitment Officer, Qld Phil is a Torres Strait Islander, from Badu Island on his mother’s side and Seisia on Cape York on his father’s. He grew up in Townsville before moving to Brisbane, where he began studying Politics and International Relations at Griffith.

Phil began working in the Careers and Employment Service, supporting Indigenous cadetships and graduates for three years.

His interest in Indigenous employment led him to gain a role in the NTEU National Growth team in 2013. This has evolved into the Walking to a Different Drum Project, with Phil recruiting and organising Indigenous staff in Queensland universities.

Ryan Costello Branch Organiser, Curtin Ryan joined the NTEU in May after working at the CPSU as a Field Organiser empowering Department of Human Services (Medicare, Centrelink and Child Support) staff to maintain and improve their conditions.

Ryan brings a vast range of experience with particular strengths in campaigning and recruitment.

Recently, Ryan acquired experience helping to recruit and mentor 500 Volunteer Organisers in Senator Scott Ludlam’s campaign team for Scott’s re-election.

Matthew Partridge Branch Organiser, ACU Matthew has recently taken up the newly created position of Australian Catholic University Branch Organiser, based in Sydney.

He is very excited to work with members from all seven ACU campuses in each of the five States where they are based.

Matthew joins the NTEU from the UK where he worked for the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the Trades Union Congress.

Prior to his career as a Union Organiser, Matthew worked in public relations in Westminster, and has been an active campaigner for the British Labour Movement for many years.

Matthew has a BA Hons in Politics and International Relations from the University of Kent and a Diploma in Trade Union Organising from Ruskin College, Oxford.

Noeline Rudland Industrial Officer, Qld Noeline has been a union and community activist since 1971. In 1996 she was awarded Life Membership of the Australian Services Union (ASU). Noeline has worked in a number of areas, predominantly in social and community services, health and law including as National Secretary of the Australian Social Welfare Union and Assistant National Secretary of the ASU for 8 years, until called to the Bar in 1995.

Amber Jacobus Branch Organiser, UWS

Noeline practised as a barrister until her appointment to the NTEU Queensland Division. She has taken a sabbatical from the Bar to work for the Union.

In 2003, the course Amber was studying at the University of Western Sydney was cut under the Nelson reforms, spurring her into action, activism and organising. She has never looked back.

Since 1988, Noeline has worked in many jurisdictions but predominantly in industrial, professional disciplinary and discrimination jurisdictions in most States and Territories.

page 50 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Employed as a school teacher for 17 years, Glenn has since been a business owner, and a Business Development Manager working with labour market services throughout Australia and abroad. He views his new role as an advocate for Union members as an opportunity to assist people who are experiencing difficulties in the workplace on an individual basis.

Emily McMillan Industrial Officer, NSW Having worked on a number of union campaigns with members from industries as diverse as cleaning, nursing and the public sector, Emily joins the NTEU with over 12 years’ experience in campaigning, industrial work and organising.

Emily completed her double Arts/Law degree at UOW and has most recently studied community organising under Marshall Ganz at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Whilst Emily is involved in some community organising projects outside of work, in her spare time you will find her on a beach somewhere with a good (or not so good) book.

Christian O’Callaghan Industrial Officer, NSW Christian is a solicitor and joins the Union from the Transport Workers’ Union of New South Wales, where he led the legal team as the Senior Legal Officer.

Christian is looking forward to working with the NTEU team and achieving results for our members. He recently immigrated to Australia from the UK with his partner Diana. Shortly after arriving they had a baby girl, Aoife, who has just celebrated her first birthday.

My Union Now open: shop.nteu.org.au NTEU’s revamped online store is now open and stocked with heaps of new merchandise for members.

The annual NTEU Tax Guide, published with Teacher Tax, will be available online from 1 July.

We have new ‘Proud Union Member’ t-shirts, ecoproducts, Unionbranded pens, mugs and iPhone covers, beanies, hoodies and brollies to keep you warm and dry this winter, and even NTEU jewellery to really show off your union solidarity.

Paying fees via direct debit, credit card or invoice Statement can be accessed from your online Member Tools page. Login in at www.nteu.org.au/members and click on Print Tax Statements in the Payments box. Statements will not be mailed out.

NTEU Tax Guide 2014

nteu.org.au/tax Finding your annual NTEU Tax Statement Paying fees via payroll deduction

TAFE members and ex-members

Membership fees will appear on the PAYG summary supplied by your employer. Contact your Payroll Department for any inquiries regarding this.

Tax statements will be sent to your home address in early July.

Your NTEU membership details When and how to update them Have your workplace address details (office, building, campus) changed?

Have you moved house?

Required if your home address is your nominated contact address.

Has your Department/ School changed its name or merged?

Update online:

Has your name changed?

Go to ‘My Home’

Go to www.nteu.org.au Click on ‘Member Login’ ID = Your NTEU membership number Password = Your surname in CAPITALS Select ‘Your Profile’ then ‘View Details’

Have you moved to a different institution?

Have your employment details changed?

Please contact:

Have your credit card or direct debit account details changed?

Are you leaving university employment?

Please contact:

Transfer of membership between institutions is not automatic.

Please notify us to ensure you are paying the correct fees.

Deductions will continue until the National Office is notified.

Have your payroll deductions stopped without your authority?

Melinda Valsorda, Membership Officer (03) 9254 1910 mvalsorda@nteu.org.au

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

Contact your institution’s Payroll Department urgently

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 21 no. 2 • June 2014 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 51

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

Member Benefits

Save with your NTEU benefits Save on thousands of lifestyle experiences

Save up to 20% on new vehicle purchases

Free international money transfers2

Even a small break from the hustle

Enjoy up to 20% off the price of

Need to pay an international invoice

and bustle can improve your sense

a new vehicle with our free car

or send money to family overseas?

of well-being. Your NTEU benefits

buying service (normally costs $178)

Ozforex allows you to transfer

offer a 12% discount on Adrenalin,

available as part of your NTEU

money worldwide at better rates

and a $30 discount on RedBalloon

benefits. Save time and money with

than the banks. NTEU members

experiences ; giving you thousands

quotes available on all makes and

enjoy free transfers3 as part of

of different ways to unwind.

models Australia wide.

their benefits.

1

For more information: 1300 853 352 | memberadvantage.com.au/nteu 1) RedBalloon discount of $30 is available when you spend over $129. 2) Offer includes free transfers under $10,000 and 10 free transfers over $10,000.

You’re in the right place with UniSuper Since 1983, we’ve been Australia’s only superannuation fund dedicated to higher education and research sector professionals. We offer competitive fees, high quality products and services and a diverse range of investment options to fulfil the unique superannuation and retirement needs of more than 450,000 members.

www.unisuper.com.au

enquiry@unisuper.com.au

1800 331 685

Figures quoted are at 30 June 2013. Issued by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799, AFSL 235907) on behalf of UniSuper Limited, ABN 54 006 027 121 the trustee of UniSuper (ABN 91 385 943 850). Level 35, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.

@UniSuperNews