Advocate vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295
UWA’s 300 sackings: Round 1 to NTEU ɓɓGetting ready for Round 7 bargaining ɓɓChallenging the privatised university ɓɓA&TSI staff numbers drop ɓɓVictorian Insecure Work Inquiry ɓɓScientists beware!
ɓɓFixed term employment: the gig is up ɓɓUniversity Councils ɓɓUni’s & the innovation agenda ɓɓNTEU alumni in Parliament ɓɓWGEA dishonest reporting
ɓɓInternational Womens Day ɓɓ#LetThemStay ɓɓACTU Leaders Forum ɓɓSafe Schools Coalition ɓɓ... and much more.
Contents Cover image: Staff and students at UWA show what they think of the VC’s decision to axe 300 jobs Photo: Marty Braithwaite
2
NTEU to divest fossil fuel investments by April From the General Secretary
3
Year begins with both trepidation and relief Editorial, Jeannie Rea
4
NTEU UNE Branch President accused of ‘conflict of interest’
Science & Technology Australia celebrates 30 years
5
Get ready for Round 7 bargaining!
TURC final report
NTEU seeks improvements to the Award safety net
6
UWA: Round 1 to NTEU
7
Scientists beware! Defence Trade Controls penalties coming
Unions at Pride: a celebration and a protest
8
NTEU Budget submission calls for a coherent funding & regulatory framework
Academics declare support for Safe Schools Coalition
UNICASUAL NEWS 10 NTEU at the Victorian Labour Hire and Insecure Work Inquiry A&TSI NEWS 11 Vic Govt consults on Treaty, Sovereignty & Recognition
NTEU enforces A&TSI targets at JCU
12 A&TSI staff numbers drop for first time in 10 years 13 NTEU supports the provision of A&TSI-specific services FEATURES
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.
14 Universities expected to drag business out of the innovation dark ages
Advocate is available online as a PDF at nteu.org.au/advocate and an e-book at www.issuu.com/nteu
18 Challenging the privatised university
NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification of online copy rather than mailed printed version). Details at nteu.org.au/ softfdelivery
All text and images © NTEU 2016 unless otherwise stated.
p. 10
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. 14
UPDATE
9 ACOLA’s Research Training Review
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
NISA changes the focus of the Coalition’s higher education policy away from the funding and regulation to research and research training.
16 When is an interest a conflict? Despite news from Victoria of the restoration of staff and students onto university councils, participation of staff and students continues to be challenged by some chancellors and vice-chancellors and their allies in government.
20 Living the ‘student experience’ The ‘Challenging the Privatised University’ conference noted how the character and purpose of universities had altered almost beyond recognition.
21 The tipping point What is the tipping point for exploitation of international students working in Australia?
22 Deborah O’Neil and Robert Simms Senator Deborah O’Neill (ALP) and Senator Robert Simms (Greens) know first hand the value of union membership, having both been NTEU members.
24 Fixed term employment: the gig is up Universities’ obsession with flexibility has become a mantra that is blind to the impact of its impact on staff, and to the long term interests of high quality teaching and research.
26 Universities’ dishonest & misleading reporting University managements’ workplace gender equity reports reveal a sector dangerously reliant on insecure employment, as well as some figures designed to deliberately mislead the public.
28 Agitating for control over our own lives Why do we need to celebrate International Women’s Day?
30 After Paris, where to now? The outcome of COP21 was better than expected, but the lack of enforceability, provision of funds and inadequacy of commitments are disappointing.
32 Uni staff supporting asylum seekers Unionists and university staff join the call to ‘Let them Stay’.
33 TPP heats up in May 34 Leading – because no one else will do it NTEU National President Jeannie Rea reports from the recent ACTU Leaders Forum.
36 Turkey: Academics’ freedom under attack Concern mounts over reports of widespread victimisation of members of Turkey’s higher education and research community.
37 United States: Higher education an election battleground Those concerned about the future of higher education should be pleased that it is much talked about in the US presidential election.
COLUMNS 38 Is Twitter dying? News from the Net, by Pat Wright 39 Slash and burn, baby, burn at CSIRO Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe 40 The addiction Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn 41 The undercovering VC controversy Letter from NZ, Sandra Grey, TEU YOUR UNION 42 Victorian Division Delegate Awards 43 Crime thriller set in a university undergoing restructure 43 WAC ready for action in 2016 45 NTEU Lecture 2016 46 New NTEU staff 47 Obituary: Liz Cheligoy
p. 32
The colonisation of universities by neoliberalism and corporate influence represents a major challenge to the essential role of universities.
19 Pearson infiltrating NAPLAN & visas Multinational education corporation Pearson’s contracts with the Victorian and NSW Governments to run parts of the NAPLAN alerted the AEU’s attention to potential conflicts of interest.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1
From the General Secretary Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary
NTEU to divest fossil fuel investments by April Ethical investment was discussed at the Union’s National Council Meeting in October 2015. The discussion followed the adoption of a comprehensive NTEU Ethical Investment policy by the National Executive in June 2015. Ethical investment principles NTEU now generates annual revenues of more $21 million, holds financial assets of over $4 million, and adds a further recurrent contribution of $400,000 p.a. to its financial asset base (before allowing for investment returns). The Union has therefore taken care to approach the task of ethical investment and associated divestment initiatives methodically. We have three guiding principles: • T he need to ensure that investment is ethical and sustainable, with a particular focus on environmental standards, labour standards and human rights. This involves a mix of negative screening (e.g. companies which invest in tobacco, armaments, alcohol, uranium, animal testing, gambling and fossil fuels, or which breach human rights, labour or environmental standards) and positive investment measures (e.g. renewable energy, energy efficiency, mass public transport, sustainable agriculture and public housing).
• The need for good investment returns. A traditional investment strategy usually involves setting a benchmark return against bond yield and inflation assumptions, but the current low inflation and ultra low interest rate environment makes this a difficult task. Medium term Government cash or bonds are only yielding around 2 per cent p.a. while Australian corporate bonds are yielding just over 4 per cent p.a. In contrast, typical balanced portfolio options were yielding between 10 per cent and 12 per cent p.a. before the recent market correction. On a five year basis balanced portfolios have outperformed cash and bonds by at least 5–6 per cent p.a. Against this backdrop we have set a conservative post-inflation investment return target of 4–5 per cent p.a. • The need for a diversified portfolio with an appropriate balance of sectors and stocks. Until recently an environmentally and socially sustainable investment portfolio might typically have had a large exposure to Government bonds and securities with reasonable rates of return, and a smaller growth oriented component exposed to markets. Today’s economic conditions require us to have a larger market component linked to ethical growth. Stock and sector diversification
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF
National President Jeannie Rea Vice-President (Academic) Andrew Bonnell Vice-President (General Staff) Michael Thomson
Industrial Unit Coordinator Sarah Roberts National Industrial Officers Linda Gale, Wayne Cupido, Susan Kenna, Elizabeth McGrath
General Secretary Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary Matthew McGowan
Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officers
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) Policy Committee Chair Terry Mason National Executive: Stuart Bunt, Carolyn Cope, Gabe Gooding, Genevieve Kelly, Colin Long, Virginia Mansel Lees, Kelvin Michael, Michael McNally, Anne Price, Kevin Rouse, Cathy Rytmeister, John Sinclair, Ron Slee, Mel Slee, Lolita Wikander
National A&TSI Coordinator National A&TSI Organiser
Paul Kniest Jen Tsen Kwok, Terri MacDonald Adam Frogley Celeste Liddle
National Organiser Michael Evans National Publications Coordinator Paul Clifton Media & Communications Officer Andrew MacDonald National Membership Officer Melinda Valsorda Education & Training Officers Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou
page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
are important means of smoothing risk and market volatility.
Implementation steps In accordance with these policy principles, the National Office invited Australian Ethical Managed Funds, Ethical Investment Advisors, BT Ethical/Socially Responsible Team and our current investment advisors Pitcher Partners to submit expressions of interest to manage the NTEU portfolio on an ethical basis. After an assessment of the respective briefs, we decided to retain our existing advisors and to take direct responsibility for screening our portfolio. The larger ethical managed fund options limit the Union’s flexibility to vary ethical screens to take account of our particular circumstances – e.g. a typical ethically managed fund will have substantial exposure to the lucrative private education market. NTEU needs to be able to screen out such investments. On this basis, we met with Pitcher Partners in late February to fix a timetable for divestment of all fossil fuel stocks currently held in our portfolio. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Santos, Woodside and South 32 will be sold down by the end of April 2016 with an appropriate re-balancing of our portfolio. The Union will keep you posted. Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary gmcculloch@nteu.org.au
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
Editorial Jeannie Rea, National President
Year begins with both trepidation & relief Early election speculation is rife and Coalition Government policy is still to deregulate fees, cut university grants and hand over public money to private, including for-profit, providers. The next round of university enterprise bargaining has begun in Western Australia and the employers association, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA), recently released a report on the future of the higher education workforce which concludes that Enterprise Agreements are an impediment to change.
confronting universities is, to put it simply, there just are not enough staff to do all the work expected of them.
It is little wonder that staff and students commence the 2016 university year with some trepidation, but also some relief as we are as yet not facing the funding cuts and fee deregulation of the 2014 Federal Budget which were due to start in 2016. Record numbers of students (including international students) have enrolled, but university managements are more focused on getting rid of staff than ensuring students get the education they need and are paying for.
With four out of five research-only staff on fixed term contracts and four out of five teaching-only positions (EFTs) casualised, and less than one per cent of new positions created between 2005 and 2014 tenured teaching and research jobs, the logical conclusion is that tenured teaching and research academics are becoming an endangered species. The academic profession is facing serious challenges. The nexus between teaching and research is broken.
Fortunately, the NTEU successfully challenged the University of Western Australia’s claim they could just go ahead and sack 300 staff as they announced in December (see report p. 6). The NTEU has also successfully challenged James Cook University’s attempts to breach their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment clauses (see p. 11), as well as the University of Sydney on their tardiness in filling new teaching jobs for academic casuals won in the last EBA. Universities have been found at fault, but it is indicative of the attitudes of many university managements that the Union has to keep dragging them to the Commission. While we negotiated Enterprise Agreements in good faith, local NTEU Branches’ faith in management preparedness to stick by the Agreements is fast dissipating. The NTEU’s State of the Uni survey last year revealed that across Australia university staff are contributing around 27 million hours of uncompensated work each year. The most fundamental workforce issue
The latest Department of Education employment data confirms that over the past fifteen years precarious work has overwhelmed the university sector and now almost every second job is insecure. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) amplifies some of the detail hidden in the Education Department data because WGEA counts people rather than EFTs (effective full time). Accordingly, WGEA reports that Australian universities employed a total of about 202,000 employees of which about 85,000 were employed on a casual basis across general and professional as well as academic work (see report p. 26).
This Education Department and WGEA data analysis was recently done by the NTEU Policy & Research Unit (report available at www.unicasual.org.au/rising-tide). Such analysis does not appear to have been considered in the review undertaken by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) for the AHEIA. The issues and the profound questions which concern the NTEU were raised with the PwC consultants, but unfortunately do not form a part of their analysis of the present trends nor recommendations for future workforce planning. Indeed their only reference to the NTEU notes that we think there should be better workforce planning. The AHEIA review was a lost opportunity to actually listen to stakeholders, investigate what is happening on the ground, and even fly some kites with new ideas. However, the lack of imagination meant that all they could reveal was that technology, industry expectations, competition, student expectations and the policy and funding environment would impact upon the sector over the next fifteen years! They endorsed universities operating more like
businesses, and recognised that there would be competition from other sectors and internationally for staff. All they could come up with was that the workforce needed to be more professional and specialised and, surprise, surprise, more agile. For this, the AHEIA paid $350,000? PwC also recommended that managements have to deal with their historically sceptical and change resistant environment. I think we can safely assume that means legally enforceable industrial instruments and unionists who keep harking back to the University’s own mission statement and policy commitments. In an environment where we had the stunning scenario of all but one vice-chancellor supporting government policy that sought to cut their funding and hand those savings over to private competitors, we are right to be sceptical of the leadership of our universities until they prove themselves. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen any sign of this. There has been no robust critique of the latest Coalition Government pronouncements on the academic profession and upon the equity and integrity of Australia’s research effort, where the Prime Minister himself has reportedly declared that research careers are no longer about ‘publish or perish’, but ‘collaborate or crumble’. ‘Collaborate’, in this context, means privileging the agendas of industry over the integrity of research to gain public funding (see report p. 16). The NTEU held an expert seminar on ‘Undue Influence: What the innovation agenda will mean for university research’ on 8 March. Watch the video at www.nteu.org.au/seminars/2016/ undue_influence. The Turnbull Government has yet to show their colours in a Federal Budget, but if they intend to head off to a federal election with their current higher education and research policies, focussed upon privatisation and commercialisation of our public universities, the NTEU will be far from alone in calling for their defeat. Jeannie Rea, National President jrea@nteu.org.au
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3
Update NTEU UNE Branch President accused of ‘conflict of interest’ In February 2015, Professor Margaret Sims, NTEU Branch President at the University of New England (UNE) and elected academic staff member on the UNE Council, was accused by the Chancellor of having a standing conflict of interest in holding both positions and was invited to resign from Council. Professor Sims’ access to Council documents where the University apprehended
a conflict was restricted, and she was asked to leave Council meetings when those matters were discussed. She was not permitted to know even the general subject matter of the material she was excluded from. The University of New England Act, like most university acts, provides a clear code for the management of apprehended conflicts, involving the person conflicted bringing their conflict to the Council’s attention, and accordingly recusing themselves from relevant decision-making. In UNE’s case, the University took the initiative to exclude Professor Sims without her agreement – and importantly applied no such treatment to the other members of staff on the Council who were not NTEU office holders. Professor Sims and NTEU now have an application in the Federal Court seeking a declaration on the operation of the UNE Act and for breach of the general protections and discrimination provisions of the Fair Work Act. UNE has also lodged a cross-claim against Professor Sims, stating that she breached her fiduciary duty to the University by allowing herself to be put in a situation where she could experience a conflict of interest. In their cross-claim, the University gave a
Science & Technology Australia celebrates 30 yrs In November 2015, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) marked its 30th anniversary, although under its new identity adopted in 2011 of Science and Technology Australia (STA). The occasion was celebrated at a gala dinner in the Great Hall of University House, ANU on the evening before the STA Annual General Meeting. The dinner was attended by Karen Andrews (Assistant Minister for Science), Senator Kim Carr (Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Industry) and Senator Jan McLucas. Short speeches were provided by STA President Ross Smith and STA CEO Catriona Jackson, under the guidance of MC Emma Johnston (STA Vice-President). Robin Williams from the ABC’s Science Show took to the stage to reminisce with two past presidents, Frank Larkins (President #2) and Cathy Foley (President #13) on the history of the formation of STA/FASTS and the importance of scientific advocacy. NTEU National President Jeannie Rea and Tasmanian Division Secretary Kelvin Michael (NTEU observer on the STA Board) attended the dinner, and joined with others in reminiscing about STA/FASTS’s adventures and victories in public advocacy for science and scientists.
hint on their thinking by stating that effectively all matters relating to staff, including all conditions of employment, workplace rights, academic appeals, workplace injuries or safety incidents and incident notifications under OHS legislation would present a standing conflict of interest for Professor Sims if discussed at Council. This approach on the part of the University is especially galling given the long history of NTEU (and predecessor union) representatives holding elected staff positions on university councils across the country without incident or accusation of conflict; and indeed Professor Sims’ previous six years as a member of University Council. In UNE’s case, the University seems to confuse a conflict of interest with a conflict of ideas or beliefs: i.e. differing views indicates a conflict of interest. This simply reflects the University leadership’s ideological perspective rather than any clear-headed assessment of the existence of a conflict of interest by reference to specific situations. Mediation in the Federal Court is continuing throughout February. Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator See report on University Councils, p. 16.
It was a good opportunity to network, and, in particular, we were able to speak with the President and Secretary of the CSIRO Staff Association, who also have observer status on the STA Board. The AGM dealt with the usual items of business, including elections of a new STA Executive and reporting on the achievements of the last year. One particular initiative was the successful ‘Save NCRIS Funding’ campaign prosecuted by STA, Australian Academy of Science and the National Research Alliance in response to threats issued by then Education Minister Pyne (aka the ‘Fixer’).
Science meets Parliament A key annual event organised by STA is Science meets Parliament (SmP). For a number of years NTEU has participated in this activity which aims to put groups of scientists in conversation with parliamentarians, seeking to increase MPs’ understanding of (and commitment to funding) science. At SmP 2016 in March, NTEU will once again be a Silver sponsor. NTEU delegates are Dr Kelvin Michael (UTAS physicist), Sara Beavis (ANU geologist), Jack Clegg (UQ chemist) and Daniel Mathews (Monash mathematician), accompanied by Paul Kniest (NTEU National Policy & Research Coordinator). STA also organises different forums for the benefit of its membership, namely Science meets Policymakers and Science meets Business. These events don’t have the history of SmP, but will hopefully grow into useful arenas for improving communications between scientists and other groups. Kelvin Michael, Tasmanian Division Secretary scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au
page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Update Get ready for Round 7 bargaining! Preparation for Round 7 bargaining is well under way. In 2015, NTEU National Council determined that the central focus of the next bargaining round should be on job security: stopping abuses of insecure modes of employment such as fixed term and casual contracts, improving security of employment for continuing staff, and raising awareness of the links between employment insecurity and increased workloads. NTEU’s Round 7 strategy at this stage applies to institutions where bargaining will be commencing this year (with expiry dates before October 2016), these being Curtin, CQU, ECU, Deakin, JCU, ANU, Griffith, UTAS, Murdoch and UWA.
Trade Union Royal Commission final report Late last year, Dyson Heydon released the Final Report from the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. His Report included a compendium of recommendations, some of which address corruption in trade unions (e.g. by proposing outlawing employers making payments to unions, and requiring that unions have better financial controls in place), and some of which address other perceived problems with trade union practices. This latter category of recommendations appears to reflect the particular ideological perspective that robust union activity is somehow objectively wrong, and unsurprisingly mirrors WorkChoices and other conservative government attempts to restrict union activity. For instance: • Bolstering secondary boycott liability, for example making it so that unions would be liable for damages even if their ban caused no loss or damage.
NTEU National Executive has met twice to discuss and determine specific bargaining claims and requirements, and a new bargaining kit for those at the bargaining table is being drafted. Preparations have also begun at the Branch level, and in Western Australia bargaining has already commenced, spurred on by the University of Western Australia’s announcement of over 300 job cuts in late 2015. There could hardly be a clearer sign that job security has to be our focus. Watch this space. Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator
NTEU seeks improvements to the Award safety net NTEU has made applications to vary the Higher Education (Academic Staff) Award 2010 and Higher Education (General Staff) Award 2010 as part of the Fair Work Commission’s four-year Review of Modern Awards.
• Higher penalties for unprotected industrial action.
Our applications seek to vary the awards to include:
• Providing that picketing is industrial action.
• A term providing for the determination of ordinary hours for academic staff in order to establish a benchmark for the BOOT (the test for whether or not our Agreements are better off overall than the Award). This should assist with workload provisions whilst maintaining the flexibility academics have to pursue non-allocated work (research etc.).
• Restricting right of entry for health and safety purposes to where a contravention gives rise to a ‘reasonable concern’ of serious health and safety risk, with onus to prove reasonable concern on the Union. • Restricting exercise of Right of Entry to a maximum of two permit holders at the same time. Other recommendations also appear to simply back in the Coalition Government’s ideological bent rather than suggest a remedy for any chronic problem within the union movement, such as the recommendation that legislation ensure choice of superannuation funds trumps a nominated fund in an enterprise agreement. ACTU has been advised that the Government is now in the process of drafting a new Registered Organisations Bill which will likely be based on Dyson Heydon’s recommendations. As with many other Coalition initiatives, the fate of this Bill will likely be in the hands of the crossbenchers. Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator
• A n amendment to ensure that employers make reasonable efforts to ensure that general staff overtime is authorised and therefore compensated. • A professional and discipline currency allowance for casuals; that is, payment for maintaining currency in their discipline and keeping abreast of workplace policies, where they are not otherwise paid for their time. • U pdating the general staff classification descriptors. NTEU is also making claim for an ICT allowance to be paid where staff are required to establish, maintain and use telephone, mobile, email and internet connections. Commission hearings are scheduled for 16 days between 18 July and 3 November 2016.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5
Update UWA: Round 1 to NTEU In one of the great acts of management bastardry, UWA Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul Johnson unexpectedly announced at his Christmas address to staff that he had made a decision to make 300 of their jobs redundant in 2016. He also advised that the UWA Senate had endorsed his decision. This extraordinary announcement, without consultation, left roughly 300 UWA staff in limbo over the Christmas break wondering whether they would have a job by next Christmas.
ing to displace from the top 50 to achieve this end: Oxford, Harvard, MIT? At UWA they talk a lot about Pursuing Impossible, but perhaps the problem is less that they have financial woes and more that they have an impossible strategic goal.
NTEU immediately lodged a dispute in the Fair Work Commission that was heard at two conciliation sessions in February. In a significant win for NTEU the result was a public announcement by UWA that the Vice-Chancellor’s announcement was ‘premature’, that the period for consultation would be extended and that the University would give genuine consideration to proposals that do not involve redundancies.
The Union has no problems with a university management wishing to pursue a strategic goal, neither do we have a problem with sound evidence-based restructures that are conducted according to the provisions of the Collective Agreements with genuine consultation and real efforts to mitigate against redundancy. What we have a problem with is VCs engaging in the sort of rogue behaviour that sacrifices staff on the altar of unbridled institutional ambition.
Crying poor doesn’t add up
What has UWA come to?
The rationale for the loss of 200 professional staff, 100 academic staff, and a concomitant restructuring from 7 faculties into 4 with centralisation of support functions, is that UWA is in dire financial straits and, to quote the Vice Chancellor, ‘we are spending more than we are earning’. Given that UWA had an operating surplus of $90 million last year, that statement is clearly not correct, and neither is UWA in a bad financial position relative to the other Go8’s against which it constantly measures itself. According to LH Martin Institute data, UWA has the highest operating margin of the group at 9.4%, the most diversified revenue base (at 22.2% income not being derived from government or student funds), and the third highest revenue per EFTSL and per academic staff FTE in the Go8. By no-one’s definition is this a university that is in financial trouble.
UWA has suffered a series of unfortunate blows to its reputation during the term of this VC, from the ‘Lomborg Incident’, to the widely lampooned Pursue Impossible branding (that involved expenditure of close to $1 million and included giant peacocks and scantly clad young women at its launch), to this decision and subsequent temporary back-down. Many are asking themselves what has UWA come to? For the answer we probably need to look no further than the University’s recent submission to a State Government enquiry where they describe themselves
Chasing a ranking So we have to ask ourselves what is driving this decision? The clear answer is the pursuit of the goal of being in the top 50 universities. Once again we are seeing ranking systems driving poor decision making in Australian universities. One does wonder which university UWA is gopage 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
as ‘a $1 billion innovation business’ that is seeking to ‘embed’ itself ‘at the core of the innovation ecosystem’. In the same submission, UWA discusses the need for staff and students to become entrepreneurs, for promotion criteria to reflect business activity and for the Federal Government to move away from rewarding universities for academic outputs and focus more on rewarding universities who act as knowledge content providers for business. Indeed, during a dispute meeting the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor declared that she had ‘a business to run here’. We have to wonder just how much this university has lost its way when its own self-description is not as an institution for higher learning, nor as an organisation that supports the pursuit of truth through research, but is instead as a $1 billion business. That probably explains a great deal about the attitude of its current leadership and why its reputation as Perth’s pre-eminent university has suffered. The reputation of the University is not our responsibility, our job is to continue to hold management to account, to advocate for higher education and to do our best to protect the employment of our members which we will continue to do with vigour at UWA. Bring on Round 2. Gabe Gooding, WA Division Secretary
Staff protesting the VC’s announcement of 300 staff losses last Christmas. Photos: Marty Braithwaite
Update Scientists beware! Defence Trade Controls penalties coming On 2 April 2016, criminal offences created under the Defence Trade Controls Act will come into force. Universities are currently establishing compliance programs to satisfy the requirements of the Act. As highlighted previously in Advocate, the Act extends well beyond previous legislation covering the export of military goods and technologies and now attempts to set controls upon research and academic activities not traditionally associated with the Department of Defence. The Act could potentially apply to any research listed on the Defence Strategic Goods List (DSGL), including vast tracts of dual-use research created within the university sector. The amendments passed in March 2015 introduced a handful of positive changes, extending the oversight by the
Strengthened Export Controls Steering Group, and introducing a range of exemptions for specific academic activities. However, the exemptions for academic activities such as ‘verbal supply’ and ‘preparatory to publication’ are poorly defined, and are already the subject of conflicting interpretations according to affected staff. The amendments also introduce an excessive tap-on-theshoulder ‘prohibitions power’ which empowers the Defence Minister to block a ‘supply’, including an academic publication, for up to a year.
permit was issued with a condition that prevented project members from sharing communications and other forms of supply with any other institution, other than a single US research institution. Considering that the regime was conceived not to block or discontinue highly competitive scientific research, but to provide the Defence Department an opportunity to widen their ability to monitor at-risk research, the unwieldy misuse of the defence trade controls regime is an obstruction against Australia’s broader national interests.
There are two immediate, overriding issues emerging about the amended legislation. The Australian defence trade controls regime is clearly inferior to the US ITAR system, exempting only ‘basic’ and ‘basic strategic’ research, compared to all ‘fundamental research’ in the US. It is notable that one of the key reasons why a Steering Group was established in 2012 was to evaluate if Australia was disadvantaged compared to the US. This means Australian scientists are disadvantaged compared to every nation who does not have defence controls over academic research. Ironically this could hamper affected scientists looking to contribute to the Turnbull Government’s new Innovation agenda.
In the meantime, there are many academics in our sector who either require permits or documentation that states that their research is not affected.
It has emerged that permits already provided by Defence Export Controls have prescribed potentially project-ending constraints on the exercise of freedom of intellectual inquiry. In one instance, a
NTEU is looking for feedback from affected members on a range of specific matters listed in our FAQ to inform our public policy advice. Please email us at policy@nteu.org.au
Our colourful union flags together almost made a rainbow. Our placards reminded onlookers ‘True love lasts forever. Homophobic governments will not’.
QUTE is the caucus of Victorian GLBTIQ members and allies. Contact us if you are interested in establishing QUTE in your State, or you would like to be involved in Victoria.
Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer Review whether your research is captured under the legislation with our Defence Trade Controls FAQ: www.nteu.org.au/policy/research/ defence_trade_controls Petition calling for all ‘fundamental research’ to be exempted: www.gopetition.com/petitions/ support-science-and-technology-inaustralia.html
Unions at Pride: a celebration and a protest A protest that disrupted the start of the 21st Melbourne Pride March in February reminded participants, allies and the wider community that gains made in communities of diverse identities have always involved disruption of the status quo and often direct action. Pride March is itself both a celebration and a protest. This year, Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) joined our comrades from numerous other unions, the ACTU and Victorian Trades Hall to celebrate the activism of our unions in challenging prejudice, discrimination and violence of people of diverse sexualities and genders.
Our chants and songs both celebrated worker solidarity and highlighted issues around marriage equality, including rejecting a costly plebiscite.
Dave Willis, Division Organiser, RMIT University Branch www.nteu.org.au/qute
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7
Update NTEU Budget submission calls for a coherent funding & regulatory framework
The NTEU’s 2016-17 Budget submission argues that what Australia needs is a coherent funding and regulatory policy framework which covers both VET and higher education. The policy framework outlined in our submission is not only informed by the obvious failings of existing VET policies, but draws and builds on current higher education policies which have seen Australian universities recognised amongst the most successful in the world.
It’s time to throw away the policy band aids and come with a long term plan for tertiary education.
A healthy and sustainable tertiary education sector must be centred on the understanding that education is a basic human right provided in the public interest where it is the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to a high quality affordable education.
In addition to making PAAs the primary structural and accountability element of any new regulatory and funding framework across both higher education and VET, other critical components of the current higher education framework which should be incorporated include:
A coherent, consistent and sustainable tertiary education sector will only be achieved through better planning and management and a high level of accountability on behalf of all providers.
• Recognising the distinct roles and responsibilities of public tertiary education providers including their community service obligations and the provision of ‘free of charge’ enabling courses for disadvantaged students.
Focus on VET Toward the end of 2015 the Federal Minister for Vocational Education and Skill’s offices must have felt like the triage department of a large hospital as private provider after private provider was shown to be responsible for the haemorrhaging of millions of dollars of public funding. The funding and regulation of vocational education and training (VET) was a train wreck and Minister Luke Hartsuyker was forced to apply an emergency tourniquet to stop the bleeding by freezing the value of VET-FEE HELP loans at their 2015 levels for 2016. While the Minister needed to enact an emergency plan to ensure that his VET funding and regulation patient was in a stable condition before trying to find a longer term remedy, he failed to pay attention to his own political wellbeing and was dumped from the new Turnbull Ministry on 14 February 2016. While the NTEU is not suggesting that Mr Hartsuyker’s demise had anything to do with the tough stance he took on private VET providers we certainly hope that his successor, Senator Scott Ryan, fully understands the complete and utter failure that the experiment with the demand driven fully contestable market model for the funding and regulation of VET has been. Given this devastating experience we also assume that he and the Government now fully appreciate and understand that education is far too important to be left to the market.
Public Accountability Agreements The NTEU is arguing that this would be best achieved through the use of individually negotiated Public Accountability Agreements (PAAs). PAAs also have the advantage of providing the necessary flexibility to allow individual providers to pursue their distinct missions. They would also lessen the opportunity for gaming or manipulation of the system as each PAA also acts as an individual funding agreement. In negotiating a PAA, each provider would be required to nominate the number of students it planned to enrol in different courses. This would allow better planning and management of the allocation of government resources, which would also be informed by labour market forecasting. Critically, from the community’s perspective, PAAs would also require each provider to clearly demonstrate that they have the necessary resources (whether that be infrastructure or qualified staff or student support services or access to practicum placements) to ensure that each and every student they enrol is given a genuine opportunity to successfully complete their course.
page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Other critical components
• Restricting the payment of direct public subsidies for government supported students to public universities and TAFEs. • Retaining the legislated maximum fee that providers can charge government supported students. • Ensuring that no one is prevented from participating in tertiary education because of upfront costs by ensuring the income contingent Higher Education Loans Program (HELP) loans are available to all students enrolled in an approved course. Finally, to emphasise that education is as much about improved social and community welfare as it is about future economic prosperity, future assessments of tertiary education policies must be framed in terms of the accessibility and quality of the educational experience and not restricted to narrow notions of costs and/or efficiencies. Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator NTEU Federal Budget Submissions: www.nteu.org.au/policy/funding/ federal_budget/submissions
Update ACOLA’s Research Training Review In the wake of significant changes to the research block grant (RBG) formula announced with the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) last December, Australian universities can expect a further set of controversial recommendations in relation to Australia’s research training system in the next month. In May 2015, the then Minister for Education Christopher Pyne commissioned the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) to undertake a review of Australia’s research training system. The review was tied to the government’s larger agenda on commercialisation of public research initiated by the former Innovation Minister, Ian Macfarlane. In spite of a wealth of academic experts available to ACOLA to guide such an important project, John McGagh, a former Rio Tinto executive was nominated as chair. The ACOLA review extended beyond the Research Training Scheme (RTS) and looked at the effectiveness of Australian research training as an overall system. The NTEU submission focused upon a ‘student-centred approach’ as a way of reshaping the original discussion paper’s preoccupation with industry needs. While supportive of more work-integrated learning programs, the NTEU emphasised that these programs need to maximise flexibility for the student and the institution running the course, based upon the student’s aspirations in relation to the research degree. The NTEU submission also drew attention to the need for better support for academic supervisors. The review’s final report will be released in March. Public consultations suggest that the final Report is likely to recommend more comprehensive data collection on the experiences and outcomes of research training. It is hoped that it
will also recommend new scholarships for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher degree research students. The report may provide a highly unpopular endorsement for the Department to define and assess Higher Degree Research (HDR) generic or transferable skills. However, the sector may be blind-sided by a recommendation that the distribution of RTS funding should be dependent on a minimum Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) rating of 3. Such a prospective recommendation goes to the real politik of higher education funding in Australia, with a redistribution of $690m in 2015 (the largest single scheme representing approximately 38% of the total RBG allocation) being rejigged to favour research intensive universities. It has been proved again and again that such a recommendation has no demonstrable merit. The same proposal was raised in a Departmental review of research training quality in 2011 but was abandoned because of intense criticism. The NTEU insisted that such a proposal misunderstood what the ERA actually intends to identify, not all research excellence, but sufficient concentrations of research excellence that do not fall beneath a low volume threshold. The proposal has always ignored the fact that a great supervision experience is primarily defined by great supervisors, and that concentrations of research expertise may actually have certain detrimental impacts on the quality of supervision. Even conservative higher education experts highlighted that the ERA was never designed to distribute the RTS and would have unintended outcomes. And finally, it again would illustrate the willingness of government to use funding mechanisms to subjugate institutional autonomy. Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer For more information about our submission www.nteu.org.au/policy/legislation_ submissions/nteu_submissions
Academics declare support for Safe Schools Coalition Hundred of academics have shown public support for the Safe Schools Coalition program by signing their names to an open letter to Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham explaining the need for the program. The letter was signed by nearly 370 academics – including many NTEU members – from almost every Australian university. Two vice-chancellors signed the letter: Professor John Dewar from La Trobe and Professor Jane den Hollander from Deakin. The letter states the ‘program is a direct response to Australian research showing that same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse are subject to high levels of homophobic and transphobic bullying and abuse at school. These experiences are linked with poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes.’ The academics highlight that the ‘Writing Themselves in 3’ report found that 75% of these students reported some sort of homophobic abuse and school is where most of the abuse took place. The group say that the Safe Schools Coalition provides much need positive support to school communities who are able to request professional development for staff, a range of resources, advice and guidance on how to create more inclusive learning environments. ‘This program is important in responding to the specific needs of same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse young people in schools.’ ‘The number of schools who have engaged with the program (almost 500) and the number of staff who have accessed training (over 13,000) shows a clear demand from Principals, teachers, students and families across the education sectors.’ www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9
UniCasual News NTEU at the Victorian Labour Hire and Insecure Work Inquiry Changes to the Australian economy have given rise to an explosion of insecure work over the past 30 years. Today, almost four million workers nationwide are locked in some form of casual, short term, sham contracting or labour hire employment. Nearly a quarter of all workers have no access to sick and paid leave, and are forced to work irregular and unsociable hours. Yet the rise of insecure work is not simply the result of some unforeseen shift in the nature of work in our ‘modern’ globalised economy. Conversely, it is the consequence of a targeted strategy utilised by corporations, businesses and their powerful lobby groups to deregulate the labour market. To be clear, insecure employment arrangements allow employers to wilfully discard their workforce obligations by shifting the risks associated with work to the employee. The Victorian Government Labour Hire and Insecure Work Inquiry is currently investigating these harsh realities and the manner in which employers are avoiding workplace laws and undermining minimum employment standards. The exploitation of insecure and labour hire workers is currently a hot political topic in the wake of two Four Corners exposés that uncovered the gross underpayment of farm workers and casually employed 7-Eleven attendants. NTEU took the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry via a detailed written submission that highlighted the extent of job insecurity at higher education institutions in Victoria. We demonstrated that between 50% and 60% of all staff in the sector are now employed on a casual basis and that these workers are disproportionately younger and more likely to be women. We further noted that as many as half of all non-casual staff are on fixed term contracts. The written submission gave voice to dozens of higher education workers who have experienced first-hand the detrimental impacts of insecure work. It is their personal stories that are most powerful. Many
commented on the financial hardship and stress generated in being unemployed during teaching breaks. Women spoke of being unable to access maternity leave and the associated struggles of finding and affording child care. Others conveyed how the only way to pay for essential items and put food on the table is to max out credit cards. Tragically, these stories are not exceptional but rather represent the new norm as competitive higher education institutions engage in a race to the bottom in the casualisation and insecure work stakes. To arrest the acceleration of insecure work in our sector, the NTEU put a number of recommendations to the Inquiry during the February 2016 public hearing. The primary recommendation is that the Victorian State Government establish a Secure Work Ombudsman with the legislative prerogative to pursue actions which will reduce precarious work and increase secure work. Such an office should be empowered investigate and prosecute employers exploiting precarious workers in Victoria. NTEU also recommends that a Secure Work Ombudsman assist precarious workers and their unions in obtaining more permanent work through securing and enforcing conversion provisions. In the coming months the Victorian Government Labour Hire and Insecure Work Inquiry will release its findings. NTEU hopes that they include strong recommendations in the vein of those we have
page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
presented in our submission. We hope that Premier Daniel Andrews considers for a moment the personal stories of our members trapped in insecure work. It is time that governments across the country take bold action to tackle the scourge of insecure work not only in the higher education sector but through all industries. If nothing is done more workers will be locked in casual, short term, sham contracting or labour hire employment. We will continue to fight. Dustin Halse, Campaigns Officer, Victorian Division www.unicasual.org.au NTEU Submission to Inquiry (Dec 2015) www.unicasual.org.au/publications/ submissions
Above: SuperCasuals Amelia Sully, Lachlan Clohesy, Laura Wagner, Colin Long (Vic Division Secretary) and Belinda Townsend. Below: NTEU and other union members on the steps of Parliament House, Melbourne. Photos: Dustin Halse
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News Vic consults on Treaty, Sovereignty & Recognition A call by the Victorian State Government to discuss Constitutional Recognition, Treaty and Sovereignty with the Victorian Aboriginal community signalled not only the beginning of a new dialogue after two decades, but also brought grass-roots community into the national discussion on Constitutional Recognition for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) peoples. Approximately 500 community members from across Victoria participated in the historic discussion, with communities stating clearly they did not want Constitutional Recognition. In a marked turn-around from the one-sided Recognise campaign, the Victorian Aboriginal community unanimously rejected the notion of support for Constitutional Recognition and stated firmly that beginning a process toward Treaty/ies is the only acceptable outcome. The large and diverse audience made it clear from the beginning that they were suspicious of self-determination talks with Government as they had not delivered any positive results in the past, and trust is clearly an issue. Voices at the meeting were ‘impassioned’ , with ‘strong frustration’ was expressed at a lack of past Government consultation. From the outset, there was no appetite to accept any aspect of Constitutional Recognition. A motion, tabled within half an hour of the commencement of the meeting, universally and unanimously rejected any move toward or support for Constitutional Recognition. Other motions passed at the meeting formalised a process of resourcing and establishing mechanisms to negotiate a Treaty/Treaties with the State Government. Motions passed at the meeting: 1. We as Sovereign People reject Constitutional Recognition. (Passed unanimously) 2. We demand the State resources a treaty process, including a framework for trea-
ties, with complete collaboration with all Sovereign Peoples and Nations, and treaties are finalised and agreed upon by December 2016. (1 vote against) 3. Resource an Elders Council of South Eastern Australia, which is comprised of all Sovereign Peoples. (1 vote against)
Voicing concerns about Constitutional Recognition Following the passing of motions, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Natalie Hutchins addressed the community and their well-founded concerns around Constitutional Recognition. The Minister assured the Victorian Aboriginal community that she would represent the views expressed at the meeting strongly to her colleagues. Interestingly, the Minister also confirmed that the stance expressed at the meeting reflected the discussion and concerns she had been exposed to while visiting communities around the State. This historic meeting and its outcomes are in direct opposition to the views expressed by the federally funded Recognise campaign. As evidence of this, in May 2015 the Recognise campaign stated that polling indicated that 87 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would vote ‘yes’ to be recognised within the Australian Constitution. But this is clearly not the case. A survey undertaken by IndigenousX in 2015, asked A&TSI peoples to respond on their opinions of Constitutional Recognition. This survey found that, if all recommendations from the expert panel on Constitutional Recognition were included into a series of questions as part of a referendum, only 32 per cent of A&TSI respondents would support Constitutional Recognition, with a further 20 per cent being unsure. The State Government process of consultation with the Victorian Aboriginal Community on Constitutional Recognition, Treaty and Sovereignty will continue, with meetings to be conducted in all regional and rural areas of the State in the coming months. How the Recognise campaign will respond to the Victorian Aboriginal communities rejection of Constitutional Recognition is yet to be seen – it can only be hoped that the campaign recognises the communities views and that A&TSI peoples are not ignored in a process that is supposed to be of benefit to us. Adam Frogley, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Coordinator
NTEU enforces A&TSI targets at JCU In mid-February, just days before a hearing into the matter at the Fair Work Commission, James Cook University (JCU) management confirmed with NTEU that all positions within the new JCU Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Centre will be A&TSI identified. This satisfies the JCU Collective Agreement, and so no further industrial action is required. During 2015, the various A&TSI units underwent a large-scale restructure in order to bring them all into the new JCU Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Centre. During this process, members wrote submissions highlighting potential impacts on both staff and students. We lost some good long-term NTEU members and A&TSI staff, which was incredibly disappointing. However, thanks to members on the ground and the NTEU holding the university to account, damage was minimised. With the news that management had failed to designate all of the positions in the new centre, NTEU launched a dispute. We pointed out that the JCU Collective Agreement required all positions in the Centre to be designated. Following a failure to resolve the issue at a mediation session in December, we proceeded to arbitration, which has now been avoided. NTEU looks forward to the growth of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Centre, as well as the growth of employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff over the coming years at JCU. NTEU’s National A&TSI Unit, together with the Policy Committee, also congratulates the Queensland Division and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff on standing strong and pushing for this outcome.
www.nteu.org.au/atsi
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11
The release of the long anticipated university staffing statistics for 2015 has seen the beginnings of what could be a disturbing trend for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) employment across the Australian higher education sector. For the first time since 2006, the number (and full-time equivalence – FTE) of A&TSI staff employed in the sector has declined; this is despite numerous incentives and directives aimed at universities to increase A&TSI staffing. The last time A&TSI staff numbers decreased to any degree, it took four years for universities to recuperate those staffing levels and NTEU hopes that this time a similar trend will not be replicated.
How has this happened? Since 2001, NTEU has instituted an A&TSI employment claim that incorporates an enforceable target to increase A&TSI employment over the life of the Agreement. Along with the enforceable target in Collective Agreements, the Australian Government directs all Australian universities to set a mandated A&TSI employment target through their Mission Based Compact. So with numerous policy levers in play to ensure a growth in A&TSI employment, how have Australian universities turned employment growth into employment decline? The genesis of this employment decline can be traced to 2012 and the release of the Behrendt Review (The Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for A&TSI peoples). The expert panel, comprising Professor Larissa Behrendt, Professor Steven Larkin, Robert Griew and Patricia Kelly recommended: ‘That universities adopt a whole-of-university approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student success so that faculties and mainstream support services have primary responsibility for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, backed up by Indigenous Education Units.’
1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15
A&TSI staff numbers drop for first time in 10 yrs
A&TSI Staff
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News
Headcount/Number
Full-Time Equivalence
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff number in Australian unverisities
Misinterpretation of Recommendation 10 At the time of the release of the Behrendt Review, NTEU expressed great concerned that this particular recommendation (Recommendation 10) would be genuinely or deliberately misinterpreted. The goal of the Recommendation was to ensure the whole university had ownership over and a responsibility to ensure greater outcomes for both A&TSI staff and students. It can be seen from the 2015 staffing statistics that many institutions have simply ignored the final part of the recommendation ‘backed up by Indigenous Education Units’ and it would also appear that university management have only read (or selectively read) other recommendations; including Recommendation 11 where the importance of Indigenous Education Units is espoused. During the last round of bargaining, approximately 900 additional positions were negotiated nationally. This result is, at best, incredibly disappointing. The main findings from the release of the 2015 Staffing Statistics are: • A&TSI General and Professional staffing numbers dropped from 819 to 796 between 2014 and 2015. • While A&TSI Academic staff numbers grew by 2 staff over the same time period, this ‘growth’ is nowhere near enough to create any inroad to increase Indigenous academic employment. While the misinterpretation of Recommendation 10 is one matter, the story behind the statistics indicates that a ‘mainstreaming agenda’ is prevalent at a number of Australian universities. It is these universities that have closed (or attempted to
page 12 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
close) their Aboriginal Education Centres and have absorbed and dispersed the work of the Unit across the rest of the university. This strategy serves only to ensure less employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Of course, the resultant greater levels of insecure employment also equal savings for the bottom line. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff comprise only 1% of the total staffing numbers, approximately 2% under a national parity target. Restructures and the mainstreaming of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Support Units has seen long-term staff members made redundant and replaced with staff, sometimes non-Indigenous staff, employed on reduced time-fractions or in casual employment only. Universities need to ensure that any plans to diversify their mainstream areas adhere to the goal of the Recommendations in the Behrendt Review and go handin-hand with the retention and further engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. The only way to ensure this is the case is to provide proper stable employment opportunities. Adam Frogley, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Coordinator www.nteu.org.au/atsi
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News NTEU supports the provision of A&TSIspecific services NTEU believes we must better educate the public on the worth and need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) places on university campuses. In February 2016, there was a lot of media coverage regarding a former Aboriginal employee of QUT who has chosen to take legal action under the Racial Discrimination Act with regards to racism and discrimination she experienced whilst an employee. The purposes of this article is not to revisit her case, hoping that due process will be followed and a satisfactory agreement will be reached.
Reviews favour A&TSI centres The 2012 Behrendt Review into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education, as well as the Bradley Review and the A Fair Chance for All (AFCFA) paper all spoke in support of the provision of Indigenous centres and the services they provide to students. Behrendt and AFCFA in particular called for the strengthening and establishment of these centres. All three of these reports were endorsed by the Federal Government (indeed, AFCFA was written by the Government following the Dawkins Reforms). The Behrendt Review went one step further by highlighting the importance of having Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space on campus complemented by a ‘whole of university approach’ to student support, therefore placing a much greater responsibility on faculties and departments to provide inclusivity and outreach. A&TSI centres are therefore not ‘segregation’ as implied by some reports in The Australian, but are in fact government-endorsed initiatives funded through the Indigenous Support Program to encourage A&TSI participation in higher education.
students, these centres have been under threat at a number of campuses where ‘mainstreaming agendas’ are taking place. Academic programs and student support designed specifically to cater to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have been absorbed into mainstream faculties and departments not only affecting student access, but also leading to staff losses.
NTEU Council motions
A&TSI under-representation It is important to note that the most recent governmental report of student data shows that for the first half of 2015, the percentage of A&TSI students on campus was 1.1 per cent. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff numbers dropped between 2014 and 2015 and are currently sitting at 1 per cent of the total staffing number at universities. The most recent Australian census data shows that A&TSI people make up 3 per cent of the total population of this country. At this moment in time, both A&TSI students and staff are thus currently represented in the higher education sector at about a third of the number of what a population parity rate would be. Therefore, the argument made by the media that A&TSI centres, including the provision of computing services in these centres, are a form of ‘segregation’ simply does not ring true. If anything, while A&TSI people continue to be so woefully under-represented on campus, it is abundantly clear that the true segregation lies in an education system which continues to exclude A&TSI people.
Fixing the inbalance There is much work to be done and the NTEU supports not only government efforts to redress this imbalance, but a vigorous collective bargaining program with the provision of clauses designed to better incorporate A&TSI staff member growth and life experience on campus.
At our 2015 National Council, the NTEU passed a motion against the forced closure of A&TSI communities, and within the broader definition of ‘communities’ sat A&TSI centres on university campuses. It is vital that these centres are seen not just as an educational hub, but as a provider of community on campus and an important interface between universities and the broader A&TSI populations. Where an A&TSI staff member has been exposed to harm in the workplace which could equate to racism on campus; both blatant and structural; resulting in a loss of income or work, the NTEU wholeheartedly supports the right of that staff member to seek redress using the available legal frameworks. That this case has been turned into a campaign by the media to talk about ill-considered notions of ‘reverse racism’ as well as an opportunity to call for the removal of the Racial Discrimination Act, shows a lack of knowledge of the disparities on campus as well as a knowledge of the many government and university-designed programs to address these disparities. Until such a time exists where we see true equality on campus, the media would do better investigating why it is that these educational gaps still exist between A&TSI people and non-Indigenous people, and look at promoting initiatives which seek to address these gaps. It would certainly serve the students and staff, as well as the general public, better to have an understanding of the range of issues. Celeste Liddle, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser
Photo: Holly Kemp
Finally, it must be said that despite the demonstrated need for A&TSI centres on campus as a means of providing equity and safe spaces and encouraging the engagement and retention of A&TSI
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13
Universities expected to drag business out of the innovation dark ages Following its dismal failure to convince the Australian public or the Senate of the merits of fee deregulation and public funding cuts, the Coalition Government under the new leadership of Malcolm Turnbull launched its much publicised and anticipated National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) on Monday 7 December 2015. This changes the focus of the Coalition’s higher education policy away from the funding and regulation of education to research and research training.
The objective of NISA is to redirect our public research infrastructure, public research organisations, public universities, schools and government processes to improve the appalling R&D and innovation record of Australian business and industry. That is, the Government is expecting Australia’s highly successful universities and public research organisations to drag the business sector out of the innovation dark ages. As the Prime Minister said on the release of NISA, university research will no longer be a matter of ‘publish or perish’ but rather a situation where you must ‘collaborate or crumble’. A more detailed analysis of the individual components of NISA and associated funding can be found in NTEU Briefing Paper Changing Australia’s Research Agenda: From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘collaborate or crumble’. While the ‘ideas boom’ turned out to be more of a ‘publicity boom’ it does include a number of significant changes to the way university research will be funded.
Paul Kniest Policy & Research Coordinator
page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Dr Ian Watt, former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and appointed to conduct a review of research funding has been appointed to chair an inter-departmental committee with the responsibility of implementing the NISA.
research as traditionally measured through peer reviewed publications. This significant change in focus is in real danger of undermining the heavy emphasis that the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) and universities have placed on publications.
Will HASS research continue to be valued?
Figure 1: Impact of New Formulas on Distribution of 2015 Research Block Grants Research block grant funding One of the elements of NISA was the inclusion of sharper incentives for greater collaboration between universities and business. As the NISA Report stated: We will introduce new arrangements to encourage collaboration between researchers and industry by streamlining and refocussing a greater proportion of research block grant funding toward collaboration (p. 11). The Minister for Innovation, Christopher Pyne, described the ‘changed arrangements for the support for research grants to universities’ as the ‘big ticket item’ of the NISA. He went on to say this represented a ‘massive cultural change’ which meant that the government was ‘going to abolish publications as the chief reason why you attract research grants’ which would now be dependent on showing that your ‘idea is going to be able to be commercialised.’ (Sky News, 9/12/15)
Funding changes The Government has adopted the recommendations of the Watt Review into Research Policy in relation to the distribution of university research block grants. In summary, these recommendations included simplifying block grants into two categories (Research Support and Research Training) and abolishing publications and significantly elevating the importance of non-competitive research (end user) grants in the distribution formulas. While it is impossible to know how the introduction of the Watt funding formulas will impact on the future actual distribution of research block grants (as researchers and individuals respond to different incentives), it is possible to get a sense of the intended impact by applying the new funding formulas to 2015 block grants as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows that, all other things being equal, the introduction of the new funding formulas would have had a significant impact on the distribution of research block grants in 2015. It shows that there are a limited number of universities (predominantly Group of Eight universities) who benefit significantly from these changes, another group of universities where the impact would be relatively small (within the range plus or minus $1 million) and a handful of institutions that would definitely be worse off under the new arrangements. In other words, the new funding arrangements will, as was no doubt clearly intended, lead to a significant shake up in the distribution of research funding. The NTEU is highly supportive of greater collaboration between university researchers and business and other end user groups. Our concern is whether this ‘massive cultural change’ will result in universities introducing incentives for collaboration that in effect devalue the importance of other research.
Are we sacrificing excellence for engagement? In January 2016, Australia’s Chief Economist published a report entitled How Regional Universities Drive Regional Innovation? On page 24 of the report it says Australia is internationally renowned for the high level of excellence demonstrated by our universities. …On a per capita basis this represents extraordinary excellence. The report then concludes that ‘many international studies … have shown that organizations with high academic excellence have lower levels of participation with industry.’
The other issue that cannot be ignored by giving greater incentives for universities to pursue collaborative research is that it will not impact equally on all disciplines. Emeritus Professor Graeme Turner observed the new arrangements were likely to particularly problematic to researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences because: Changes to university research funding that remove peer-reviewed publications as one of the measures of success (in which HASS historically excels), and instead reward research that attracts industry partners or investors (which favours science, technology, engineering and medicine), puts the humanities at a structural disadvantage. (The Age, 13 Dec 2015)
Conclusion While the release of the much anticipated NISA failed to live up to expectations, it did nonetheless include a number of very significant changes to the ways university research funding will be allotted in the future, which the Minister for Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne, has described as the ‘big ticket items’ of NISA. The Government’s motive seems to be to use research funding as lever to encourage universities to undertake more collaborative research with industry and other end users. The Government clearly wants to use university resources to drag the business sector out of the innovation dark ages. This raises concerns about whether this change in emphasis will compromise the excellence of research undertaken by our universities and create a significant financial disincentive for universities to encourage research in the humanities, arts and social sciences. Changing Australia’s Research Agenda: From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘collaborate or crumble’ www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/6726 Watt Review https://docs.education.gov.au/ node/38976
The NTEU is concerned that the change in focus toward more collaborative research will comprise the excellence of Australia’s
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15
University Councils
When is an interest a conflict? Despite the welcome news from Victoria of the restoration of staff and students onto university councils, participation of staff and students continues to be challenged by some chancellors and vice-chancellors and their allies in government. In Western Australia draft legislation reveals plans to remove elected staff and students entirely, while in Queensland, the election of the Labor Government has forestalled the worst in removing staff and students altogether. The University of Sydney is seeking to corporatise their Senate and in the usual pattern wants to cut elected alumni representatives. Alumni are also in their sights in WA as they were in Queensland. Corporatising university councils is all about reducing or eliminating any elected positions. The bête noire of the corporate Chair (chancellor) and the CEO (vice-chancellor) is the very notion that members of council may be ‘representative’ and indeed have any accountability to those they represent. Hence the horror of elected members. The most extreme manifestation of this is the case at the University of New England where the staff elected representative to Council, Margaret Sims, has been accused of having a standing conflict of interest and therefore cannot fully participate. The NTEU is challenging this (see report p. 3). This issue did not arise until Professor Sims became the NTEU Branch President, after being an elected staff member on the Council for several years. Conflict of interest is an interesting concept, but has clear legal definitions which enable people to sit on boards and recuse themselves when they may have a conflict.
It usually works quite smoothly because an occasional conflict may not be surprising as often the best qualified members have deep interests and experience in matters before the board or committee. As an example, I sat on the advisory committee of the former Office of Learning and Teaching where members stated and, if necessary, recused themselves if a matter came up in relation to their university. The members were senior university officers with experience and standing to make recommendations to the Minister for Education on learning and teaching policy and allocation of grants. This was a sophisticated approach as distinct from the knee jerk reaction that dismisses the standing and experience of a long term staff representative because she is now also President of the Union Branch. The concept of conflict of interest is interesting because it begs the question of the difference between an interest and where that becomes a conflict. Staff, students and alumni elected onto Councils (or other university decision making bodies) clearly have an interest, otherwise they would not stand. Indeed their ‘interest’ is what qualifies them as bringing expertise. When does this become a conflict? Arguably when they may incur a distinct personal gain. Therefore, it would be reasonable that a student representative receiving an honorarium paid out of the Student Services and Amenities Fee should not be voting on remuneration of student union officers. However, their advice and experience remains valuable. Should the staff representatives vote on matters pertaining to the Enterprise Agreement? Should only those who are members of the Union be excluded when the Agreement covers staff whether they are union members or not? Should a Council member with an interest in a company the University is deciding to partner with vote on proceeding with that partnership. This sounds like classic conflict. All of these are very interesting to debate and inform the development of rules and practice around conflict of interest. The point is that this can be resolved without excluding an individual or class of person.
page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The real issue is that the Council Chairs and CEOs do not want members who may question not just matters for decision, but indeed the very reports and information provided to Councils. What is not on the agenda is often as important as what is. During the public debates over university funding cuts and fee deregulation, it was surprising to find how few university Council members from outside universities had been briefed at a Council meeting on both the issues and the ‘university’ position. Noting that all but one VC endorsed or were silent on Federal Government plans to cut funding by 20% and deregulate undergraduate fees, if this had gone to university Councils there may have been even more opposition. At the very least VCs would have their stance questioned. Staff and student representatives may ask awkward questions – the students may even present as awkward – but surely these are the people on the ground in university every day. Their experience is critical. Vice-Chancellors accede to this and even opponents of elected student members agree that there could be appointed students or maybe a student advisory/focus group that talks to the VC. Apparently the problem with elected students is that they may be ’political’. If they succeed in getting elected they probably are ‘political’, just like if an NTEU member is elected to a staff position having run as an NTEU endorsed candidate. Universities are supposed to embrace vigourous debates. And this is the crux of the problem, when a university defines itself as a ‘$1billion innovation business’ as UWA did recently, we know the horse has bolted on how far universities have descended from sites of higher learning. The NTEU is planning a two day seminar later this year for NTEU members on university Councils (and similar decision making bodies) to explore what is going on, compare experiences, learn more about the law, finances and governance of universities and how to fulfil their role ethically and effectively. Jeannie Rea, National President
University Councils Palaszczuk consulting on changes The defeat of the Newman Government led to the revelation that come Chancellors at universities in Queensland had been lobbying the LNP to change the governance requirements at the State’s universities. The incoming Palaszczuk Government advised NTEU and commenced consultation around the proposed changes. Unsurprisingly, one of the key changes being sought by the Chancellors was to reduce the size of university Councils/Senates and to remove the requirement for elected staff, student and alumni representatives. The arguments that had been presented to the Department were the usual suspects: ‘flexibility’ and to better align universities with corporate governance models. Originally we sought to convince government that there was no need for change. This was not because current structures are perfect, but out of concern that in the current political context the outcome of any change process was likely to be worse. Since that proved impossible, we have sought to build in protections for staff and student positions. In the most recent round of consultation, the Department has proposed that 25% of positions be made up of elected staff and students. We would like 33%, and will continue to lobby for larger (not smaller) and more representative (less corporate) Councils. Michael McNally, Qld Division Secretary
WA plans now clear The end of elected staff and student representation on University Councils and Senates are among key changes proposed for WA University Acts. Our worst fears were realised in a briefing from the Department of Education Services with confirmation that draft legislation to amend all five WA University Acts contains provisions to make significant changes to governance structures and further corporatise Universities. The Bill includes reducing the size of Councils and Senates from a maximum of 24 members down to 15, dumping alumni representation entirely, replacing elected staff and student representatives with a reduced number of appointed ones, giving University management greater control over student services and amenities and fees (SSAF) and allowing the commercialisation of crown land. The potential effects are obvious. With governing bodies already dominated by lawyers, accountants, management executives and directors (and men at that), it is clear that the changes will result in the staff appointments becoming the domain of senior management. The same goes for the SSAF. Currently Guilds are guaranteed to receive a minimum 50 per cent share and that will be now determined by the universities and almost certainly reduced, thereby starving Guilds of the funding needed to effectively and independently represent students’ interests. While the State Government has indicated that the proposed legislation is not a high priority, it does not intend there be any public consultation over its contents, no opportunity for staff or student input and no Committee consideration in Parliament. Rather, the Minister for Education says that the legislation has been prepared at the behest of Vice-Chancellors, most particularly UWA’s, and he expected they would have consulted with interested parties. Unsurprisingly, that has not been the case, and those Senate and Council members
Council changes in Victoria The Victorian University Council (and TAFE Board) legislation is now in effect. It requires that by 1 July 2016 each University Council have at least one elected staff member and at least one elected student. At an absolute minimum, we must ensure that the elected staff member is a NTEU member. However, we also have a chance in the next few months to persuade universities to elect 2 or even 3 staff to their Council. Once they settle on one they will be very hard to shift. Swinburne (for example) had until 2013 an academic staff member, a TAFE staff member and a general staff member. We could insist the previous arrangement be put back into practice. We should expect elections to take place no later than May, so action will need to be taken on this soon. Colin Long, Victorian Division Secretary Further information www.education.vic.gov.au/ training/providers/highered/ Pages/governance.aspx
with whom it has been discussed have been sworn to secrecy. In response, NTEU WA has been working with a number of State and Federal MPs and the National Union of Students to try and bring about public consultation and reconsideration of the more odious parts of the Bill. Gabe Gooding, WA Division Secretary
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17
Privatisation
Challenging the privatised university The colonisation of universities by neoliberalism and corporate influence represents a major challenge to the essential role of universities. This essential role was defined by the leading radical sociologist Raewyn Connell in her keynote address to the Challenging the Privatised University conference, as the advancement and transmission of knowledge, along with public universities’ mission to serve the public good in the fulfilment of their role. We have seen the push for virtual privatisation of our public universities via deregulation of student fees under the Abbott Government, and the Turnbull administration has made it clear that it sees the role of the universities as serving corporate interests first and foremost, rather than the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. Cuts to public funding of research, and increasingly non-transparent governance arrangements that are susceptible to corporate influence, are making universities increasingly vulnerable to pressure from private interests.
It was timely, then, that a conference was held at the University of Queensland (UQ) on 23-24 November 2015, called Challenging the Privatised University, co-hosted by the NTEU, the Ngara Institute, Friends of the Earth (FoE), and the National Alliance for Public Universities, and organised by Kristen Lyons (UQ) and Jeremy Tager (FoE). Key themes were outlined in the initial plenary session, with Jeannie Rea (NTEU National President) articulating a critique of neoliberalism in higher education, Raewyn Connell (University of Sydney, Professor emerita) on ‘Re-imagining universities’, asking what a good university might look like, and Amy MacMahon (UQ student leader) providing a student perspective on the privatised university. The conference then broke into parallel panel sessions dealing with issues including the effects of corporate investment on universities, including research; commercialisation of emerging technologies; scientific integrity, intellectual integrity and dissent in universities; the public role of universities; and the effects of privatisation and corporate influence on collegiality, cooperation and transparency in universities. Participants in panels included Margaret Thornton (ANU), speaking on university governance and the public role of universities, and Richard Hil (Griffith University), author of the recent books on the state of
page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
universities Whackademia and Selling Students Short (see article by Richard Hil, p. 20). While some of the discussion covered ground familiar to many participants – articulating principled critiques of the impact of neoliberalism on higher education and research, there was also discussion of the practicalities of how to negotiate the pressures that can arise from corporate involvement with education and research. For example, Deanna Kemp, from UQ’s Sustainable Minerals Institute, gave a presentation on the complexities of negotiating with both mining companies and NGOs to try to improve environmental and social outcomes from developments. There was some discussion of the need for robust protocols for managing relationships with corporate clients or stakeholders in research. (The need for these is illustrated by the history of the pharmaceutical industry’s relations with researchers – industry-sponsored studies on the effectiveness of drugs have a conspicuously higher rate of favourable findings than publicly funded studies, and inadequately based research or suppression of negative findings have been issues in this field.) In the last afternoon session of the first day, the focus shifted from canvassing problems to addressing avenues for action, with discussion on how to build an activist culture in universities and on the current power relations within universities
and possibilities for collaboration. The discussions in this session gave rise to the list of topics for the second day’s workshops. The second day moved to active consideration of what can be done to address the concerns identified during the first day, drawing on input from students as well as staff and representatives of social movements, and discussing the ways in which we can all work together. The conference had a very participatory feel, with the participants making collective decisions about the second day’s program, with an emphasis on moving towards taking action. The conference generated a good deal of social media attention, and online articles through sites like New Matilda. A special issue of Australian Universities’ Review is also in the works. It is hoped that the networks that were created during the conference and the ideas for action the conference generated will lead to more activism in the new year and beyond.
Pearson infiltrating NAPLAN & visas Multinational education corporation Pearson’s contracts with the Victorian and NSW Governments to run parts of the NAPLAN alerted the attention of the Australian Education Union (AEU) to potential conflicts of interest.
In her keynote, Raewyn Connell pointed out that there was never really a ‘golden age’ of universities. Before neoliberal corporate managerialism set in, universities were run by oligarchies of relatively privileged people, and catered mainly for a privileged minority of students.
The contracts are for data collection including registration of students, as well as marking. Outside of these contracts Pearson sells practice materials. AEU Victorian president Meredith Peace said in Fairfax media on 24 December 2016, ‘The integrity of our education system is at risk where student assessment processes become sullied by commercial considerations.’
The purpose of critique of the current corporate university is not to return to mythical ‘good old days’, but to draw on the cultural and intellectual resources that universities have at their disposal and use them in ways that make for a more democratic and equitable society, as well as addressing our most urgent social and environmental problems.
NSW Teachers Federation (NSWTF) President Maurie Mulheron noted on the NSWTF website that these materials could be provided on a not-for-profit basis by the department. He said, ‘The corporate slogan of Pearson is ‘Always Learning’. Many critics across the globe believe it really should be ‘Always Earning’.’
Andrew Bonnell, Associate Professor in History, UQ, and NTEU Vice-President (Academic)
A spokesperson for Pearson denied there were any conflict issues, claiming safeguards are built in to prevent any access to data outside of the contract specifications.
Challenging the Privatised University conference: privatiseduni.com
The NAPLAN testing system has come under consistent opposition from teachers and education experts as it does not serve its intended purpose of assisting teachers and schools in providing the learning and teaching environment individual and particular cohorts of students need, but rather sets up schools to compete in NAPLAN rankings. Despite protestations that schools should not ‘teach to the test’, teachers are directed to prepare students, and frantic parents scouring the internet are ready customers for Pearson’s practice products. Every year there are stories of schools trying
to game the system, as other learning grinds to a halt, and students and teachers stress out. As noted in the report of NTEU National Council’s international panel in the last Advocate, this type of relationship between misconceived government policy and edu-businesses is no surprise elsewhere around the world. A recent Education International report, Corporatised Education in the Philippines, exposes the deep ties between corporate sector influence and participation in public sector education in the Philippines. NTEU National Council 2015 unanimously declared their concern about the rapidly accelerating involvement of Pearson and others in public education internationally. What was unclear at that time was the extent of Pearson’s interests in Australia. However, even a cursory search indicates further activities that deserve some scrutiny. Several universities appear to have contracts with Pearson in, particularly, online courses. It is unclear where this is just the normal practice of an assigned text, or indicative of deeper relationships with Pearson. Transparency would be a good start. Back in 2012, the University of New England announced their intention to have a public-private tie-in with Pearson for their distance education provision, but this did not eventuate. Are there other universities involved in similar discussions, and what impact may these have on course integrity, student learning, staffing and the spending of public money? Please contact the NTEU National Office if you are interested in adding to this discussion. This January, Pearson Australia proudly announced that their international student English proficiency testing product, ‘PTE Academic’, can now be used to apply for Australian visas. The website explains that, ‘The Department of Immigration & Border Protection (DIBP) now accepts PTE Academic for temporary graduate, skilled, work and holiday, and former resident visa programmes.’ Is this the first step in the privatisation of Australian visa processes and decisions? Are there not state sovereignty implications? Education, as the NTEU repeatedly says, is far too important to be left to the market. Jeannie Rea, National President References http://education.nswtf.org.au/education12/ news-1/profit-education-impact-revealed/ http://www.ei-ie.org/asiapacific/en/newsshow.php?id=8145&theme=ppp&country=Philippines http://pearsonpte.com/australian-visas
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19
Privatisation
Living the ‘student experience’ At the recent ‘Challenging the Privatised University’ conference (held at the University of Queensland, 23–24 November 2015), speaker after speaker noted how over recent decades the character and purpose of universities had altered almost beyond recognition.
toiling away in the shadow economy – and, hey presto, we have all the ingredients for the soulless campus.
But this was not the usual round of complaints about how the ‘three Ms’ – marketisation, massification and managerialism – have turned higher education into a service-based industry overseen by zealous bean counters. No, the conference explored the very innards of what is a lucrative, commercially oriented system – from the incursions of multinational corporations into teaching and research, the drudgery of endless measurement, through to the soul destroying tasks of processing travel claims and accessing the stationary cupboard.
But you’re unlikely to hear university administrators admitting to any of this. They’re too busy gathering big data on consumer preferences and ‘connectivity’, and effusing over the wonders of campus life, seemingly oblivious to the complex realities of everyday life. Such delusionary self-confidence is keenly supported by a posse of private research organisations that churn out weighty statistical surveys extolling excellence across the sector.
Many presenters spoke, often heatedly, of the stifling over-regulation of academic staff – many thousands of whom are casual employees – which has compounded the burdens of having to attend to growing numbers of students demanding value-for-money. But something even more worrying has occurred: a profound and dispiriting sense of disconnection between academics (with collegiality now replaced by the greasy pole) as well as among students (now referred to as ‘consumers’). Ballooning staff-student ratios certainly haven’t helped matters, nor has the growing trend toward online education. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of students now work – with many international students
But there’s more: the institutional obsession with job readiness and careers, and an often drab educational journey through the thicket of performance targets, grade distributions and job relevant ‘graduate attributes’. For many of today’s students this all feels like a costly, drive-through experience, minus the spark and soul of the once grungy university campus. These days, students are more likely to spend their extra-curricular hours in hubs and chill zones, or journeying to and fro while trying to figure out how to achieve ‘work-life balance’.
But a very different picture has emerged in other surveys like the University of Melbourne’s periodic first-year experience survey, and those undertaken by the National Union of Students. Here we find reports of widespread isolation, loneliness and disenchantment among students who are often referred to – somewhat unkindly – as ‘walking ATMs’ and ‘neoliberal zombies’. For many graduates, things get even worse once they leave university only to discover, as recently reported by the Australian Youth Foundation, that they may wait for up to five years before landing a job in their chosen field. Others are even less fortunate. Despite all the inflated promises, thousands of students in disciplines like law, psychology, nursing, teaching, engineering, speech therapy end up in unrelated jobs and lifelong debt. Not surprisingly, such disillusioned ‘consumers’
page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
feel somewhat done over by university marketing divisions. In Selling Students Short – Why you won’t get the university education you deserve, I spoke at length with 150 students, traversed the literature on the ‘student experience’, visited campuses and sat in on lectures. It’s difficult of course to generalise from such a small sample, but it became abundantly clear to me that a sense of functionality, disconnection and soullessness now pervades much of the student population – this despite the efforts of university administrators to create a sense of community and belonging. Centralised curricula, the demands of occupational relevance and the compression of time and space for intellectual and idle chatter have further eroded the quality of the student experience. Rather than a culture of slow learning, joy and passionate contemplation of the things that make us better citizens, partners and community members, students are prepared for the world of work – which, after all, is one of the main purposes of a neoliberal education. Sadly, as numerous employer surveys point out, the quality of graduates emerging from our universities is often considerably less than might be expected. Not all students are unhappy of course, and those lucky enough to avoid the necessity of work and who reside in halls of residence are amongst the happiest of all. For the rest however, the university experience is more nuanced, with many feeling they’ve spent three or four years in a soulless and expensive retail outlet. Richard Hil. Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University Richard Hil’s latest book is Selling Students Short – Why you won’t get the university education you deserve. www.allenandunwin.com/browse/ books/academic-professional/ education/Selling-Students-ShortRichard-Hil-9781743318898
International students
The tipping point What is the tipping point for exploitation of international students working in Australia? Many who frequented 7-Eleven stores during the franchise’s rise to ubiquity in Australia may have fleetingly wondered about the lives of the staff who dutifully staffed counters, regardless of the time of day or night, public holidays or weekends. That was until late 2015, when a joint Four Corners/Fairfax media investigation uncovered the systemic rorting of workers’ wages and conditions in the nation’s largest convenience store chain, making their plight much harder to ignore. It was a story of clinical and cynical exploitation, underpayment and intimidation of some of the country’s most vulnerable workers – many of them international students. The public was told 7-Eleven staff were routinely forced to work excessive hours, and paid half the award rate (or less) for their trouble. Those who dared complain were threatened with deportation for breaching their student visas. Responding to the scandal, 7-Eleven hastily established a ‘Wage Fairness Panel’ – headed by former ACCC chair Allan Fels – in an apparent attempt to right some considerable wrongs. However, as recently as February it was reported Professor Fels told a Senate inquiry he had lost confidence in the company’s ability to deal with the matter, amid claims workers were still being forced to hand back pay, and that at least one person had been beaten for complaining.
A pattern of exploitation The 7-Eleven case might be the highest-profile recent example of international student exploitation but it’s hardly an isolated one. In 2012, a report by Victorian TAFE International and services industry union United Voice, Taken to the cleaners, found significant numbers of international students employed as cleaners reported they had worked unpaid additional hours. International students also reported suffering rude behaviour or abuse at almost twice the rate of domestic colleagues, while ‘sham contracting’ jobs were found
to potentially be costing some up to $250 per week in pay and entitlements. More recently, data presented to an IR academics conference by University of Sydney Business School lecturer Stephen Clibborn, which showed almost 75 per cent of surveyed Chinese workers on student visas were paid below the minimum wage, featured in a Workforce report. The report said two out of five Chinese student workers were paid just $12 an hour or less, while all those working as waiters were being paid at below the minimum award rate for casuals. Of 272 surveyed international students working part-time jobs, 60 per cent said they were paid under the national minimum wage, with 35 per cent paid $12 an hour or less.
A vicious cycle There is little doubt that increasing reports of the exploitation of international student workers have coincided with the Australian education ‘industry’s’ escalated pursuit of international student revenue, which exceeded $18b for the first time in 2014–15. Indeed, just as education providers have increasingly incorporated significant overseas income into their business models, unscrupulous employers appear to have incorporated the underpayment of international students into theirs. President of the Council of International Students Australia (CISA), Nina Khairina said given interntional students’ contributions to the Australian economy and society, the exploitation was alarming but, worryingly, also so widespread that some had become resigned to it. ‘It can be a vicious cycle because when a lot of international students come here… they know they won’t be getting more than $10 to $12 per hour. They know that just from talking to other students who are already based here, even if they do know what minimum wage is,’ said Khairina. ‘That’s where you also get issues with 10 or 12 international students in one apartment. There is also a limit on how many hours you can work, and we don’t dispute that because we are here to primarily study, but getting paid $10 an hour for 20 hours, it’s not possible to survive.’ What also became clear during the 7-Eleven scandal was that the threat of
deportation for exceeding allowable working hours was a key component of what allowed bosses to exploit workers. ‘That’s part of the cycle, because they can’t survive on 20 hours at $10 or $12 an hour, so they go over it,’ said Khairina. ‘If we just stuck to paying people at least minimum wage, then that would get rid of a lot of the issues.’
Stopping the rot While the 7-Eleven case has served to increase public awareness of the plight of international students, clearly there is much still to be done. Khairina said she believed it would take significant changes in attitude to put an end to the exploitation. ‘I know there are industries out there and organisations, government organisations working to end this. The Fair Work Ombudsman and unions help so much but in the end, I think it’s the way of thinking that will be the most difficult thing to change,’ said Khairina. ‘Students come here and they know their rights and what they’re entitled to and what they should or should not do, but because of the vicious cycle, it is difficult for them to break out. That’s where CISA has a role, working together with the government to empower students so they’re not afraid.’ Others too are working to improve the situation, with two of Australia’s largest unions, United Voice and SDA, having launched the Welcome to Work campaign, to provide international students with free information about workplace rights, and encourage union membership. ‘By speaking with students before they start working and letting them know their entitlements, we will create a safer and fairer working environment,’ said United Voice National Secretary Jo-anne Schofield. ‘If they experience trouble, we want the workers to know there is a union there to help because this campaign is about ensuring all workers know their rights and where to turn to for help.’ Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21
Federal Politics
Deb O’Neill and the benefits of unions If you ever think to ask Senator Deborah O’Neill about the benefits of union membership, be prepared to hear a few. Since an early foray into the workforce with a retail job during her time as a student, the Federal Labor Senator for NSW, and NTEU member, has known the value of belonging. Senator O’Neill said what started as a ‘friendly and warm’ introduction to the movement has – during a career encompassing retail, teaching, academia and politics – become an unwavering belief in the value of unions and the risks of becoming complacent. ‘My first experience with trade unions was when I was a student myself and I worked for Grace Brothers. I was introduced to the SDA and the students there and it was a really friendly and warm introduction from experienced workers who said that the union is really important for us because they make sure that we have fair conditions where we work and that we do get paid,’ said Senator O’Neill. On transitioning from retail to teaching in the independent school sector, Senator O’Neill joined the Independent Education Union (IEU), before moving on to tertiary education and the NTEU. Senator O’Neill said what struck her about the challenges facing staff in the tertiary education sector was the rapidly rising tide of insecure work, and difficulties that created around planning a life and securing home loans. ‘One of the things that is endemic in all areas of Australian life now is the insecurity of employment and I think the NTEU have prevented some of the worst excesses of exploitation of some of the great intellectuals of this country – academics who have been forced on to short term contracts, casualisation,’ said Senator O’Neill ‘So the unions have a very important role in the sustainability of the sector. I
think we’ve seen some terrible things happen and I think it would have been a hell of a lot worse without the NTEU in there making sure people have the advocacy they need.’ While the union movement may be facing challenges, Senator O’Neill said recent instances, such as the exploitation of 7-Eleven workers, illustrated precisely why strong unions are so important. ‘The stories that we hear about non-unionised workplaces… where we have clusters of incredibly abhorrent IR behaviours, that would never happen in a place where you have 10 or 20 per cent of the workforce as a minimum becoming union members,’ said Senator O’Neill. ‘In Australia unions have ensured that our wages have actually been able to grow as our wealth has grown as a nation and we see a really vastly different outcome for workers in this country by comparison to workers in the USA over the last 20 years. ‘One thing I love about our country even though we don’t always get it right, is that we do genuinely still value and believe in egalitarianism. We don’t celebrate gross and excessive wealth as a wonderful contrast with abject poverty living beside it. That doesn’t delight Australians and … I think to a huge extend we owe that reality to unions because they have been advocates for ordinary working people who are so busy doing their jobs, looking after their families.’ Senator O’Neill said she also believed Australians saw through the Liberal Government’s recent political attacks through the Heydon Royal Commission, and that she hoped for a renewed appreciation of the union movement among the next generation.
page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
‘I hope that the backlash against this wasteful excess of the spending of taxpayers’ money to attack unions is going to be an awakening that the Liberal Party really don’t want workers to have any voice in their workplace that is organised. ‘I think that should give people a sense of how important their union is in making sure that their workplace, and the workplaces of their children… are safe, not just in terms of occupational health and safety… but that there are safe wages as well. A safe wage, where you know with a degree of certainty that you can bank on a particular amount of income and that you have a relationship with your employer where your contribution is sufficiently valued that you’re not seen as an easily dismissed unit of Labour. ‘One of the things I have observed in my life is that when you assume the things you take for granted are always going to be there, they become eroded. ‘We need to keep looking for those who are vulnerable in our workplaces and be collectively advocating for fair and safe workplaces, where the advantage is not just to the individual but to the organisation and it’s sustainability and ultimately to the benefit of the nation.’ Andrew MacDonald, National Media and Communications Officer
Federal Politics
Robert Simms knows the value of a union Though a relative newcomer to the Senate, having filled a vacancy left by resigining South Australian Senator Penny Wright late last year, Senator Robert Simms brings a range of professional and political experience to the upper house, and his role as the Australian Greens’ spokesperson for Higher Education, Sexuality and Marriage Equality, and Water and the Murray Darling Basin. Those experiences – including time working in the community sector, as a casual academic, political adviser, and Adelaide City Councillor – have also bought exposure to different unions and the work that they do. Having first become politically active at university, and through his role as State Education Officer for the National Union of Students, Senator Simms’ experiences coordinating a state-wide response to the then Howard Government’s deregulation of university fees gave an insight into the power of the collective. Senator Simms said he had also been aware of the value of union membership, since the start of his working life. ‘I joined my first union when I got my first job working in retail when I was 17,’ said Senator Simms. ‘Since then I’ve had an ongoing association with unions throughout my working life.
‘As a university student, I was a proud member of my student union and went on to be elected State Education Officer for the National Union of Students. When working in the community sector, I was the ASU union representative for my office and later, when working in the university sector, joined the NTEU.’ Having spent almost two years as an NTEU member while working as a casual academic until recently, Senator Simms said it was the Union’s strong advocacy on behalf of members and the sector which prompted him to join. ‘I was concerned about the implications of the (then) Labor Government cuts to universities and wanted to join an organisation I knew was leading the campaign against these,’ said Senator Simms. ‘I was working part-time at the university. Balancing this with my PhD studies, I wasn’t really active within my campus branch though it was nice to know I was contributing to the employment protections to the full membership just by paying my union fees.’ Senator Simms said he believed unions had made significant contributions to the Australian workplace and society, adding
a strong movement would help resist government attempts to erode these advances. ‘From the penalty rates to the minimum wage, unions have been at the forefront of fighting for workers’ rights in this country. By working together we have been able to achieve real, positive change,’ said Senator Simms. ‘Unions have been active when previous governments have sought to strip workers’ rights. We’re facing a government that now wants to trash penalty rates and unions will play a large part in the campaign to help protect people’s livelihoods. People working in the hospitality and retail sector in particular will succeed in joining their unions to fight against this possible change to their working conditions. ‘History tells us that by working together collectively, communities can bring about positive change. By joining a union, you’re becoming part of something that is much bigger than the individual. And that is a powerful thing.’ Andrew MacDonald, National Media and Communications Officer
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23
2015 NTEU
STATE OF
THE SURVEY UNI
Fixed term employment
The gig is up A recent AHEIA report, Australian Higher Education Workforce of the Future, noted the view of senior university staff that Enterprise Agreements ‘Limit our flexibility’ and ‘protect our staff from change’. With only 35 per cent of the workforce in secure employment (see report p. 26), the obsession with flexibility has become a mantra that is blind to the impact of this imperative on the people who work in universities, and to the long term interests of high quality teaching and research.
Matthew McGowan National Assistant Secretary
page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The NTEU’s recently released State of the Uni Survey Report 3: Fixed Term Employment highlights the realities for staff who often face decades of uncertainty. These realities include the fact many staff, often (but not exclusively) in research related positions, are burdened with a lifetime of insecurity. A lifetime of uncertainty about whether work will be available in the future, if they will be able to secure bank loans, and if they will be able to plan their lives and families. By way of justification, employers often claim that fixed term employment is necessary to mitigate against the risk of losing funding for positions. They also regularly say they are acting within the bounds of the collective agreement and therefore concerns are unwarranted. There are certainly some positions where funding is uncertain and the work is limited to the period of funding. It is hard to argue that this is unreasonable. However, this only tells part of the story. In many cases, jobs may be funded from external grants, but there are multiple funding sources and the loss of one source will not jeopardise the work. The fact that research centres often operate for decades demonstrates this. Management excuses also do not explain their tendency to employ people on contracts of 12 months duration or less. In the
Narendra Babu Technical Officer, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Workshop, Monash University I have been working here since 2007, so nine years now. Over that time I have been on one year contracts. More than 20 years
It can be very stressful when it comes to the end of the contract and you are waiting for a new one. There have been times where one contact has ended and the new one hasn’t been ready, so I have just kept working on the old contact until they have the new one ready. It can also make it quite difficult to do things like apply for loans from banks, and I know some of my friends have had trouble with that. A permanent position would be the ideal thing for me. They might say it’s not possible but I have seen permanent jobs out there. I know they exist.
44
11 – 20 years
Report 3 results
172
6 – 10 years
333
4 – 5 years
269
2 – 3 years
221
1 – 2 years
208
Less than 1 year
152
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Table 1: How many years have you been continuously employed on fixed term contracts (without breaks of greater than 3 months)?
The State of the Uni Survey Report 3: Fixed Term Employment draws on responses from 1,440 staff who identified as being employed on fixed term contracts across the university sector. The snapshot highlights the following:
State of the Universities survey, 50 per cent of respondents reported being employed on a series of these short term contracts, even though some have worked at an institution for over 20 years. Meanwhile, 6.6 per cent reported being employed on contracts for 11 years or more, and that they were on contracts of 12 months duration or less. The Union has had a long, proud history of attempting to tackle insecure employment issues. In 1996, the introduction of limitations on fixed term employement through the Higher Education Contract of Employment (HECE) Award saw a large number of fixed term staff converted to continuing employment. Under the Howard Government, universities were actively encouraged to abandon continuing employment arrangements and the HECE award provisions were weakened in our Agreements. The union worked to limit the damage, but with the threat of significant funding cuts (and job losses) we could not prevent some weakening of the award standards. While we have gone some way to reverse this during the Rudd/Gillard Government period, there is further work to be done. But what motivates our employers to drive people into long term insecurity when it is unnecessary and has such a damaging impact on the people they employ? Surely
they do not intend to drive staff to look elsewhere for work because they cannot plan their lives on short term contracts? Professor Sharon Bell, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) at Charles Darwin University, wrote in The Australian (17 Feb 2016, p. 33) how early career researchers found it hard: ... the gigs are often so short that halfway through grant funded employment the researcher is distracted by the necessity of finding or generating the next gig... All deserve equity and dignified livelihoods, and if we are to achieve our goal to be a leading contributor to innovation we need to question whether the gig economy is appropriate The Union has committed itself to seek to redress this problem in the coming round of collective bargaining. Employers need to think themselves about what they are doing, and not just because the union is demanding a better deal for fixed term staff. Justifying decades of insecurity and inequity with ‘because we can’ is reprehensible. Maybe if our employers were more considerate of the impacts of their policies on staff it would not be necessary to ‘limit flexibility’ through Agreements. Until that day comes, it falls to the Union to deal with this through the best tools we have – our campaigns and our Collective Agreements.
• 50% reported being on contracts of 12 months duration or less. • 6.6% reported having been on contract for 11 years or more and were on contracts of 12 months duration or less. • Of those reporting 11–20 years service, 40% reported being on contracts of 12 months or less. • Overwhelmingly, fixed term staff reported that more secure employment was the most important factor that would persuade them move to another job. For ongoing staff the issues of ‘Improved Salary’ and ‘More interesting work’ dominated. • 5 4% of women in fixed term employment reported having access to 17% superannuation compared to 66% of men On the other hand, staff reported more manageable workloads and were generally more positive about their workplace. It is unclear how these things are linked. Are staff happier because they have better workloads, or are they responding more positively in general? On this latter point, there were no significant differences in a range of other issues such as attitudes to the sector.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25
Gender Equity
Universities’ dishonest & misleading reporting Analysis of the 2015 university employer reports to the Workplace Gender Equity Agency (WGEA) has revealed a sector that has become dangerously reliant on insecure employment. It also revealed the reluctance of many university managements to report accurately on their staffing numbers, with some appearing to misreport data to the point where some people might conclude that they are deliberately misleading the Agency and the public in their reports.
Photo: Lasse Kristensen
While the employer reports are required legislatively to record staff by ‘head count’ (that is, actual numbers), some institutions have recorded figures that are impossible to reconcile with other published information including that provided to the Department of Education and Training. This seems to be particularly problematic with some institutions reports in relation to casual staff.
Terri MacDonald Policy & Research Officer
page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Casual staff under-reported Deakin University has claimed in its 20142015 WGEA report that is has no casuals at all amongst its 668 clerical or administrative staff. The NTEU knows Deakin has many casual general staff, so the question is, how have they been reported in the WGEA report? The University has reported to WGEA some 5066 casual non-management ‘professional’ staff, (which other institutions have clearly used to include academic and other professionals, as opposed to administrative staff ). Why Deakin has separated their noncasual and casual administrative staff in this manner is a mystery. Working from Deakin’s casual FTE figures reported to the Department of Education we note that there are 389 teaching and research casuals and 757 FTEs in total. Taking the generally accepted ratio that there are 4-6 casuals per FTE, it means that the ‘professional’ casual numbers in the WGEA report will be in the ballpark of the official FTE total casual figures. What cannot be determined, however, is how many are administrative (general staff ) or academic. Deakin’s data is also a good case to demonstrate the problems with universities self-determining how they report their WGEA data within the Agency’s problematic and opaque ‘one size fits all’ format, and how to interpret what is reported. It shows the vast differences between the
actual number of employees that work at an institution and the Department of Education’s official FTE data. In 2015, the FTE level of staffing resources at Deakin was 3,284 which contrasts to the 8,500 employees it reported to WGEA. Deakin is not alone. For example, Murdoch University has recorded almost no general staff, appearing to have transferred all such employees to ‘professional non-management’. What is more interesting, however, is that Murdoch has reported that they only employ 515 casual employees in the entire institution. This is curious given that there are 275 casual FTE casuals reported in the Department of Education’s 2015 data. This would mean that Murdoch would have a very low ratio of casual FTEs to actual persons, less with 1.9 ‘real casuals’ for every single FTE. Other institutions reporting similarly low ratios of around 1:2 are University of Sydney (1.6 real casuals for every FTE); University of Southern Queensland (1.7 real casuals for every FTE) and the University of Western Sydney (1.8 real casuals for every FTE). However, the University of Queensland and Bond University go even further in their reported data. If accurate, these institutions have less real casuals than reported FTEs, with both reporting 0.9 real casuals for each FTE. What this means is that, on average, the casual staff at Bond University and the University of Queensland are working more than a full time load. For those others who are reporting ratios of around close to two real people for every FTE (University of Sydney, USQ and UWS), it means that they are employing casual staff for around 19 hours per week over a full year – essentially, as half a full time employee– on a casual contract. If the data these institutions has reported is correct then these universities are most certainly exploiting the use of casual employment as such work would warrant conversion to permanent full time or part time status. These numbers contrast sharply with the other end of the spectrum, whereby institutions have very high ratios of real people to FTEs. Edith Cowan, for example, has 10.5 real casuals for every FTE, and RMIT is close behind with nine casuals for every FTE. Again, this is an exploitation of casual employment, with clearly the bulk of teaching, research and general administration being done by casual employees. Drawing on this data, we have collated the number of casual employees per casual FTE for all universities, and while there is an average, most institutions are at the extremes with either very low, or very high ratios of real casuals to FTEs. What is remarkable about all these institutions is the sheer numbers of casual employees. RMIT leads with 6,308 WGEA reported casuals out of a total 10,509,
but other institutions are not far behind. Indeed, the majority of other universities have much higher figures which show the overall trend in the sector for casual employment to be running at between 60%-70%, depending on the institution and area.
Gendered casualisation The WGEA reports also reveal that casual employment is highly gendered, with far more women in insecure employment across all the areas reported on. Looking at the ‘professional non-management’ category (where the bulk of the male workforce tends to be), often (although not always) there are often more men in permanent full time employment, but women at all institutions dominate in casual employment. For example, at the University of Melbourne, there are 2249 full time non-management professional staff; of these 1234 are male and 1015 female. However, of their 2,484 casuals, 1362 are women, while there are 1122 men. In terms of contract employment, there are 2707 contract staff in total, with 1528 women and 1179 men. The NTEU has long suspected this gender differentiation was distinctive and had evidence presented to this effect in previous research and reports. That the WGEA data also verifies this, on an industry wide level, is highly concerning. Conversely, in the majority of instances, women are under-represented in management and senior levels. The lowest numbers are at ANU with 31% of women in management levels, although it should be noted that this is coming from a low base, as there are 50% women in the entire institution. However, institutions like the University of Adelaide (with 54% women out of total staffing numbers) have only 33% in identified ‘management’ categories. The overall trend in the WGEA data for the sector is that women are the majority (approximately 60%) of the total staff numbers, but the minority (just under 45%) in identified management roles. The WGEA reports show that while universities enjoy the accolades of being ‘employers of choice’, many fall short of the mark of pushing for real gender equality when their employer reports are held to the light (despite attempts at obfuscation by some managements). For example, the NTEU at Macquarie University recently wrote to the VC to ask whether many of the ‘stand alone’ gender equity policies that the University claimed in their WGEA reports had existed, or were being finalised, as no one had seen them on paper (let alone in action).
Access to parental leave Another clear example of the blatant disregard many institutions have for WGEA reporting can be seen in their declaration of the percentage of staff with access to employer funded paid parental leave. The
only institution whose answer seems to reflect the likely reality is the University of Tasmania at 46%. Many claimed falsely on their WGEA reports that all staff had access to paid parental leave. Offenders were both large and small institutions, with Charles Darwin, Federation University, Murdoch University, RMIT, University of Melbourne, UNSW, UTS and Victoria University all claiming to offer employer paid parental leave to all their staff. While the NTEU would be delighted if this was indeed the case, the reality is that employer paid parental leave is not available to casual and the majority of contract staff, or staff with less than 12 months service. Others appear to ‘stretch the truth’ by over estimating their numbers of staff with access to employer paid parental leave in varying degrees – while some of these would no doubt be honest errors and others appear to have just guessed the actual figures, there is no doubt some ‘massaging’ is going on in the reporting.
Improving gender equity Leaving aside both the inadvertent and deliberate misreporting of data, there are clear patterns which certainly do not put the universities in a positive light. The WGEA data could be most informative and useful, if institutions chose to use it in order to embrace the need to improve gender equity, reduce insecure employment and engage in real workforce planning. There is a valid and pressing need for accurate reporting if institutions are to ensure the quality of their teaching and research, improve student retention and staff talent, and safeguard the future of the sector. Those employers that take it seriously, report correctly and seek to improve their levels of secure employment while reducing their reliance on casual and contract employment, will see things like gender pay equity and the numbers of women in senior roles improve. However, those that try to ‘game’ the WGEA reports will achieve nothing, and only damage the reputation of both their institutions and the sector in the long run. The NTEU will continue to monitor the WGEA reports and lobby both WGEA and Government to put in place improved compliance requirements. The NTEU will also name and shame those employers who continue to disregard their legal reporting requirements whilst highlighting the value of the information in these reports. It will take a change of culture before many employers take gender equity and the need for accurate reporting seriously so, like so many other gains we have made, clearly it’s up to us to lead the way, as the employers have, once again, failed in that task.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27
International Womens Day
Photo: Supporters of the Progressive Organisation of Women protesting in New Delhi in 2011. Source: Gurinder Osan
Agitating for control over our own lives Why do we continue to celebrate International Women’s Day (IWD)? These days IWD, held annually on 8 March, is often misunderstood as a creation of the United Nations arising out of International Women’s Year 1975 and the 1977 General Assembly resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day for Women’s Rights and International Peace.
True history of IWD Importantly, the UN always acknowledges that IWD’s origins are in women organising in the labour movement at the turn of the twentieth century. The actual history is that the Socialist International meeting in Copenhagen in 1910 adopted the date in recognition of the bravery of the mostly immigrant and mostly female clothing and textile workers who rose up and poured onto the streets of New York demanding ‘bread and roses too’. These were young women with hope and a vision of their own worth and a belief that life should be more than eking out an existence. Sadly the women’s demands for safer workplaces were vindicated when within days of the first IWD in March 1911, the Triangle shirtwaist factory fire killed 140 workers and maimed hundreds more. Belatedly, male trade union leaders paid some attention to the women workers after this disaster, albeit temporary. This was similar to the Victorian Tailoresses Union’s experience in Melbourne some decades earlier, who organised themselves having been rejected by the male union leadership.
Jeannie Rea National President
page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
So IWD’s origins and observance were, for the first half century, situated amongst working women and their supporters, but largely ignored by the organised trade union movement in Australia as elsewhere.
Struggles not scones IWD was an occasion for making demands for equal pay, to open up jobs to women, to make regulations protecting pregnant workers, for childcare centres and to recognise that women had to work to support themselves and their families. These demands were made of employers, government and unions alike. Women workers have won through organised struggle and solidarity, not through morning teas or inviting male champions to speak on their behalf. Indeed women workers supported women’s suffrage because, like their middle class sisters, they knew women would have to speak for women, as few men would. The makers of the recent film Suffragette got it right when they decided to focus upon working class women’s support for the militant campaign of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). The film is set in the same period as the first IWD. While the main character Maud was fictitious, she personified issues of working class women – abject poverty even when in paid work, long hours and dangerous conditions, sexually predatory and bullying employers, no legal rights over their own children, and lack of male understanding or support. There was no turning back after becoming a suffragette for the likes of Maud. All her bridges were burned as she lost her child, her husband and her job. But what she had was hope not despair and what she gained was pride and respect (and, in a subtle comment on class, better clothes once she raided the WSPU’s jumble sale basket). What she did not get was the vote until another decade after her middle class property owning suffragist sisters. Emily Wilding Davison was a real person. She died after being trampled by the king’s horse at the1913 Epsom Derby as she sought to draw attention to the suffrage campaign. Not surprisingly her courage and sacrifice has been dismissed in many a contemporary and historical account as the actions of a ‘hysterical’ woman. Davison was not hysterical or seeking martyrdom, but a committed suffrage and education activist and a working woman, with higher education but working in a low paid and status teaching job. She and Maud had common cause in agitating for the vote to gain control over their lives. They wanted decent jobs with decent pay and conditions. Mill worker and lead WSPU organiser Annie Kenney and middle-class WSPU co-founder Christabel Pankhurst were the first ‘suffragettes’ arrested together after the Union was formed in 1905. After petitioning for the vote for seventy years,
Women unionists marching during the General Strike of 1912, Brisbane. Source: State Library of Queensland a new generation of suffragists, rich and poor, decided that asking got them nowhere so they committed to a campaign of direct action. The vote, when it came to middle class women (and working class men) in 1920 and to all women in 1928, did not bring women that control over their lives, as it had not to their Australian (non-Aboriginal) sisters who had been voting since Federation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had been written out of the Australian population in the new federal Constitution and were not included until the 1967 referendum. Not surprisingly, at the turn of the 20th century socialist and other left-leaning women focused their energies on labour organising despite coming up against a lack of brotherly solidarity. Christabel’s socialist sisters Sylvia and Adela (who migrated to Australia) rejected the WSPU militant campaign as they thought it would not work and would hurt poor and working class women, who had so much less already and so would be even further marooned. Suffragette has copped criticism for not including women of colour – as part of the predominantly white suffrage movement.
over our own lives for a very long time.
Step it up for gender equality This year’s UN IWD theme is ‘Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality’. The UN explains that the ‘observance on 8 March will reflect on how to accelerate the 2030 Agenda, building momentum for the effective implementation of the new Sustainable Development Goals. It will equally focus on new commitments under the UN Women’s Step It Up initiative, and other existing commitments on gender equality, women’s empowerment and women’s human rights.’ IWD 2016 events reported by NTEU members www.nteu.org.au/women Reference: www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/international-womens-day#sthash.ogaf5Fh6.dpuf
Continuing the story There are more stories to tell and more provocations to make. We can, and should, continue to debate and to organise and to reflect and not forget that feminism will always be a contested realm. What we must not allow is the washing out of feminism’s colours to reduce IWD to a platform for corporations and government (and universities) to declare their support for gender equity and women’s rights so they can announce their latest policy, as though women have not been agitating for control
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29
COP21 and unions
Photo: Delegates to the COP21 Climate Change Conference assemble in the Plenary Hall. Source: Wikipedia
After Paris, where to now?
Much has already been written about the result of the Paris Conference of Parties, COP21. For unions, there was a sense in which some improvements to international climate change policy were made, and the outcome of the Conference was better than expected. However, assessed in the cold light of day, the lack of enforceability of targets or provision of funds for mitigation and adaptation, and the inadequacy of the parties’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – their commitments so far – are disappointing.
Just transitions Equally disappointing was the exclusion from the main text of the agreement of a number of labour and human rights, and specifically the ‘just transitions’ (JT) concept. Just transitions is the dominant framework in which the international union movement is approaching climate change. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) defines it in the following way: A just transition will: • Invest in jobs – decent work opportunities in sectors which reduce emissions and help communities adapt to climate change. • Respect the contribution that workers in fossil-fuel industries have made to today’s prosperity and provide them with income support, retraining and redeployment opportunities, as well as secure pensions for older workers. • Guarantee social protection and human rights.
Colin Long Victorian Division Secretary
• Invest in community renewal to gain the hope and trust of regions and townships at the forefront of the energy transition, industrial transformation or climate impacts. • Support innovation and technology sharing to enable a rapid transformation
page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Former Greens leader Christine Milne joins with fellow Australian activists outside the Moulin Rouge in Paris during COP21 to declare ‘Yes We Can Can’. Source: Sarah Johnson
of energy and manufacturing companies along with all other economic sectors, and the involvement of workers and communities in the sectoral plans for transforming megacities. • Formalise jobs associated with rescue, restoring communities and building resilience to climate disasters. • Be based on social dialogue with all relevant parties, collective bargaining with workers and their unions for workplace change, resource productivity and skills development with the monitoring of agreements which are public and legally enforceable. Although it was disappointing that JT was not included in the core of the final Paris text, to its credit the ITUC was able to ensure that JT was highly visible both inside the talks and in the civil society spaces outside. JT dominated ITUC panels, but was also picked up in numerous panels organised by environment and other organisations. Pleasingly, it is clear that most environmental organisations fully understand the JT concept and are keen to cooperate with unions to implement it. It strikes me, however, that the JT concept does not have substantial currency amongst Australian unions yet. I suspect this reflects the general inadequacy of climate change discourse in Australia, as well as a failure on behalf of unions to comprehend, so far, how pressing and dramatic the changes we must make really are.
Energy democracy The other substantial strand of discussion particularly relevant to trade unions that took place in Paris was energy democracy. Energy democracy is about the transition to a low- or zero-carbon economy being more than a technical matter – it is as much political and social. Importantly, it reclaims an idea that has long been neglected by unions in the developed world and by most social democrats: the idea
that ownership of the means of production matters if we are interested in equality and justice. Energy democracy means a rapid and widespread expansion in the social ownership of energy generation, including public ownership (at all levels of government, if possible), as well as through cooperatives of various kinds. It is argued that it will be quicker and more socially just to achieve an energy sector dominated by renewables if the ownership of energy generation and distribution assets is democratised. Energy democracy featured in a number of forums in Paris, including a large event with Naomi Klein and Jeremy Corbyn. Most of these were organised by the global union organisation Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED), but there were other events in the civil society spaces that explored the same concepts, in particular the cooperative ownership of energy assets. In order to successfully engage workers in serious climate action based on a JT and energy democracy framework, unions will adopt several approaches. For a start, we will need to reclaim some of our own heritage. Drawing on the actions of the NSW and Victorian BLF in the 1970s in the Green Bans movement, we will need to make the point that workers’ industrial and ‘domestic’ interests do not occupy completely separate realms. What workers do in their working lives affects their own lives and the lives of others outside the world of work. Today there are very many economic activities that contribute to climate change – indeed, there are almost no industries that could not make a contribution to reducing our environmental impact. It is entirely possible for workers to be engaged in making their own industries more environmentally friendly. In coming
decades – even now – companies that do not reduce their energy and other environmental costs will come under increasing competitive cost pressure, threatening jobs. It is also worth noting that activities that pose an environmental risk also tend to pose a risk to workplace health and safety – the mining industry being the most obvious. A more fundamental argument for unions to adopt is that climate change represents the single largest threat to our society and the functioning of its economy that we have yet seen. To deal with it will require a comprehensive reconstruction of the economy; the extent of that reconstruction means that all workers, not just those in the most carbon-intensive industries, have an interest in how we deal with climate change. Dealing with climate change, arguing the case for a fundamental and rapid transition to a sustainable economy will allow unions to reconnect with the broader Australian public, especially younger people. It will allow us to be at the forefront of debates about the future, rather than what we currently are – locked into a discourse about defending what we have or trying to rebuild what we have lost. It will enable us to be seen as integral to the construction of the new economy, and thus relevant to workers in new jobs, including jobs that we haven’t even thought of yet. Many environment and community organisations already have a good understanding of, and commitment to, JT and energy democracy. This means that unions can make connections to these broader movements through JT and energy democracy strategies, helping to build alliances and minimise labour movement isolation. Such alliances will be vital if we are to achieve the goal of keeping temperature rises below 2 degrees, as committed to by the international community in Paris. www.cop21paris.org
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31
Refugees
Uni staff supporting asylum seekers In late 2015, Professor Philomena Murray, spokesperson for Academics for Refugees, circulated a letter calling for the release of all children from detention centres on and off shore. Quickly gathering over 1000 signatures, Professor Murray forwarded the letter to Malcolm Turnbull. While the PM did not heed her call, the letter attracted the attention of politicians and the media and added to the groundswell of opposition to the Australia Government’s notorious asylum seeker and refugees’ policy. More recently, the Australian High Court decision upholding government policy saw tens of thousands of people pour onto streets across Australia demanding that the 267 men, women and children about to be deported to Nauru be allowed to stay in Australia. The ‘Let Them Stay’ campaign has gained rapid and widespread momentum, building upon the steadfast work over many years of refugee solidarity activists. Hopefully it may embarrass the Government into action and shame the Opposition into changing their position of support for the internationally condemned and contemptible Coalition Government policy of ‘turning back the boats’. Australia’s inhumane and lousy position is incomprehensible overseas where countries, much poorer than us, are providing refuge to hundreds of thousands of people first and then sorting through the legalities and issues. Many university staff and students are enthusiastic participants and leaders in actions for asylum seekers and refugees organising through union and solidarity
groups, as well as on campus. For example, staff at the University of Sydney organised an open letter to the Australian public which called upon the public to join them in condemning the conditions at the on and off shore mandatory detention centres. They drew upon their standing as members of ‘an academic institution situated in the forefront of Australian cultural and social life.’ Others also recognising the uniquely positioned universities, have called upon their university leaders to step up and provide support for refugees to attend university and to support research and advocacy on human rights and settlement of refugees. Some universities have been continuously active in responding to particular groups of refugees and asylum seekers, but a sector wide approach is needed. There is a start with the announcement by NSW Government appointed Coordinator for Refugee Resettlement Professor Peter Shergold that NSW universities are collaborating in offering scholarships, financial and other support for refugees on humanitarian visas. The NTEU refugee policy received unanimous support at National Council as delegates understood the importance of the Union taking an active stand on this important social justice issue. In response to approaches from members, NTEU wrote to Universities Australia adding our voice to the call on the university sector to declare support for the ‘let them stay’ campaign and to make practical contributions to settling people in Australia. The response from the Chair of Universities Australia is encouraging. Professor Barney Glover notes a number of initiatives of
page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
which they are aware including ‘Academics for Refugees’ and calls for access to HELP and CSPs for temporary protection visa holders. Universities Australia has requested information from the Refugee Council of Australia on the number of young people temporarily on bridging visas who are unable to afford to go onto higher education because they are excluded from both the HELP and CSP programs. They are also seeking clarification from government departments on work and study entitlements of refugees and asylum seekers. Once this information is available, there is no doubt universities can develop programs, but many will still miss out. We also need leadership from our universities advocating policy change and challenging the attitudes and behaviours that allow the major political parties to maintain their cruel mandatory detention policies. NTEU Branches continue to call upon their VCs to support ‘Let Them Stay’ and broader refugee support campaigns. Following a furore, and 15,000 viewings of a Facebook story, where a Murdoch University academic revealed that she had been reprimanded by marketing as being off brand when she posted a ‘Let Them Stay’ photo taken in O-Week, the acting VC Prof. Andrew Taggart eventually did step up and reaffirmed the University’s support for freedom of speech and social justice on campus and participated in a ‘Let Them Stay’ photo initiated by students. Jeannie Rea, National President The Academics for Refugees letter now has reached almost 2000 signatures academicsforrefugees.wordpress.com
Above: NTEU, AEU & IEU officers and staff in Melbourne show support for #LetThemStay. Photo: Paul Clifton
Trans Pacific Partnership
TPP heats up in May After almost six years of negotiation, the final text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was finalised on 5 October 2015 and signed by the respective parties on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand.
evidence to the FADT Senate Committee, aside from DFAT itself.
Negligible benefits
While the TPP contains reservations in Annex II about Australian education services, these are not comprehensive carve-outs. Nothing in the reservations prevent an affected foreign company from suing the Australian Government for indirect expropriations through Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). This assessment directly contradicts advice by DFAT that ‘certain ISDS claims in specific policy areas in Australia cannot be challenged including social services established or maintained for a public purpose, such as public education’.
A report by the World Bank has highlighted that the benefits of the TPP to Australia are negligible. Furthermore, the National Impact Assessment (NIA) prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has failed to provide economic modelling about either the positive or negative impacts of the TPP. In spite of these failures, the Australian Government recently responded to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (FADT) Senate Committee’s ‘Blind Agreement’ report on the Commonwealth treaty-making process by declining any of the proposed changes. These included modest and widely-accepted recommendations such as the necessity of a document providing a public rationale, at the outset, of any set of trade negotiations, the tabling of the TPP text in Parliament before it is signed, and a final assessment of the benefits and costs to Australia by an independent body, such as the Productivity Commission. The response of the Coalition Government is at odds with nearly every community and civic association that presented
Education unions’ concerns The text has been tabled in Parliament and is being reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). The NTEU is contributing to a submission to JSCOT outlining its concerns with the TPP. The education unions are emphasising that the TPP will unnecessarily damage the ability of Australian governments to regulate education in the public interest, and continue to critique the broader trade agreement process as undemocratic.
Education International (EI) has provided analogous advice about the detrimental impacts of the TPP on the ability of member nations to regulate public education. In response to a request by EI for urgent international action before the signing of the TPP, NTEU joined the Australian Education Union (AEU) and the Independent Education Union (IEU) to issue a joint statement.
US resistance Many of the circumstances shaping when the TPP comes into force depend upon
the United States and whether the TPP is supported by the US Congress. This outcome is not a given, with Democrats and far-right Republicans in the House arguing that the agreement either attacks US working conditions, or does not advance US multinationals economic interests enough. Numerous presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have expressed their discontent with the TPP. In comparison, European citizens, trade unions and civic associations successfully brought the ISDS provisions in the TTIP to a grinding halt back in January 2014, pausing debate about them until the end of negotiations. The Australian union movement has recognised that lobbying the Senate to block the legislation is critical. The ACTU, Trade and Labour Councils and key national trade unions will be calling on members to protest at the JSCOT public hearings around the country as part of May Day celebrations. In the meantime, we call on NTEU members to send a letter to their Federal MP via the AFTINET website, and call on them to vote against the implementing legislation. For more information about these see the links below. Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer May Day events www.australianunions.org.au/tpp Petition to Federal MPs http://aftinet.org.au/cms/civicrm/ petition/sign?sid=33&reset=1 The Australian Education Unions’ Joint Statement on the TPP is available at: www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/6784
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33
Unionism
ACTU Leaders Forum
Leading – because no one else will do it At the recent ACTU Leaders Forum (February 2016) the National President, Ged Kearney declared that trade unions were in crisis as membership had dropped to 16 per cent of the overall workforce. Unfortunately, in an antiunion frenzy following the report of the Trade Union Royal Commission, her comments were greedily picked up by the media as evidence of the once great trade union movement’s terminal decline. Fortunately, over 200 union leaders responded to the call in recognition that if 85 per cent of workers were not joining unions, this is a problem that cannot be avoided or rationalised any longer. Unfortunately, similar gatherings have been routinely held over the past three decades as private sector union membership and density dwindled, but hopefully this time it will be different. This is not to deny the successes at the same time of unions getting members, keeping members, organising and winning for workers. At this forum the usual issues were raised again. There are still some arguing about servicing versus organising models. The aging of union membership and lack
of attractiveness of unions to younger workers has been a reality for more than a generation. Technological change (now called digital disruption) has always changed jobs and the organisation of work, sometimes dramatically. The division of the workforce between those in secure and precarious work has always been so, too. A diminishing core of secure, unionised workers and a growing periphery of unorganised workers is a well-understood labour market trend. It has though accelerated and the periphery now includes the qualified, skilled and experienced. Halting this decline and increasing decent and secure jobs is the challenge for organised labour everywhere. Ignored by the anti-union commentators, Kearney also pointed out that over sixty per cent of Australian workers are covered by conditions negotiated by unions in enterprise agreements and modern awards. Also, around two-thirds of workers have been in the same job for the last ten years and the same proportion are in full-time jobs. I would argue that this correlates where unions are active and relatively effective. The result is that many benefit from the efforts and fees of union members.
‘Hard to organise’ Kearney’s own union the ANMF (Nurses and Midwives) is now the biggest union in the country with well over 200,000 members and they have organised in areas that were previously dubbed ‘hard to organise’. (This used to be a euphemism for women and migrant workers in precarious and part-time work and a myth that they were reluctant to join and become active in unions.) The ANMF recently organised nurses in rapidly expanding aged care. Other unions covering workers in aged care are also
page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
successfully organising and winning more secure and better jobs. Some of these jobs have never previously been organised and others have been neglected by unions. These unions have found, as others have across Australian and internationally, that ‘hard to organise’ masked sexist and sometimes racist prejudice and reluctance to organise amongst casualised and parttime workers when it was easier to focus upon keeping the faith with the ‘traditional’ membership. This is ironic considering so many of the great labour mobilisations throughout history have been when the most marginalised workers have risen up and insisted upon their rights. It is salient to remember this year is the 50th anniversary of the Wave Hill Walk Off, when Aboriginal workers and their families went on strike for equal pay and for land rights. They expected and got union support, but this was not the first industrial action. Aboriginal workers had watched the unions and emulated industrial action even when they were not even recognised as workers or backed by unions. Gaining the support of the ‘traditional’ unionists has historically been a struggle. But there are also many exceptions. A good sign today is that unions are at last stepping up in support of the international student workers, and also organising recent migrants in the food production and distribution chain. Significantly, some of these campaigns are involving several unions collaborating instead of competing for members. Unions are also taking on sham contracting where workers are made sub-contractors so employers carry no legal responsibilities. For the NTEU, making casual and fixed term contractors claims central to our enterprising bargaining signifies standing in solidarity with our super exploited colleagues. Like other unions it is also facing the reality that all of our jobs are
Unionism undermined along with the quality of our work, when employers demonstrate such little respect for staff. Most unions have come belatedly to organising and winning for casual and fixed term contractors. There is no doubt that where, for example, young academics start their career in precarious positions, they are unlikely to identify with the union as the place to be to get ahead individually or collectively in the university or in their hospitality job, unless the union shows a genuine interest in them. This has to change for unions to once again become central to people’s working lives. However, it is much more difficult these days to stick your head over the parapet and become a delegate when work has intensified so much, and unions are often on the back foot. Our capacity to effectively organise is under constant attack. It is not the anti-union rhetoric that stops people joining up, it is success in winning better wages and conditions. Our opponents argue, on the one hand, that unions are no longer needed and, on the other, work very hard to strip away union powers in the interests of increased profit and control. It is not at all surprising that the recommendations of the Trade Union Royal Commission, ostensibly called to examine corruption, are all about legislating away the right to organise. The proposals, many of which are already in Coalition Government bills before parliament, are about even higher penalties for unprotected industrial action, restricting right-of-entry even on health and safety matters and increasing secondary boycott liability. If passed, like previous legislation including from Labor Governments, unions will be further restricted in organising and industrial action rendered illegal with threats of jail and bankrupting the union and unionists. Surely this is the big issue. So what did the ACTU leaders’ forum decide needed to be done? There was keen interest in using digital technology in organising and looking to other social movement organisations for clues on how to organise in the 21st century. But these are not the central issues. There was too much of a tendency to be hypercritical and/or ignore the messages people did not want to hear.
Feminisation What was not discussed beyond weak allusions that more young women are needed, is that both the labour force and union membership is feminising. Too many, in and outside of unions, still believe that union muscle is literally a bloke in a singlet with biceps, even though women are
ACTU Secretary Dave Oliver, President Ged Kearney, and Assistant Secretaries Michael Borowick and Scott Connolly at ACTU Congress 2015. Photo: Jorge de Araujo joining unions at a faster rate than men. The growth industries are where women are now and will be for most of their adult lives. Yet unions still remain tough places for women to have influence despite having numbers. We still find ourselves pushed to the edges and sexism remains endemic, despite the typical unionist of today being a woman with a degree not a man with a spanner. This reality is stark when the ACTU President’s growing ANMF is compared to ACTU Secretary, Dave Oliver’s once very powerful AMWU (manufacturing workers), which is down to 90,000 members. The AMWU fought hard for Australian manufacturing jobs, but ultimately unsuccessfully and not helped by successive government policy. The members were loyal and with their union behind them had decent jobs and respect, but those jobs have gone. Labor party policy should have been a major focus of the forum, but all we heard was that we need to get Labor back into government and hope they will do the right thing this time round! Labor’s Workplace Relations Act makes it ludicrously hard to organise and even threaten industrial action. We have no legal right to walk off the job. We are tied to enterprise level agreements that in many industries just pit workplaces against one another and bosses compete by cutting wages and conditions.
still matter. The answer is obvious: we have not come up with an alternative way of organising in the workplace. Our power as workers comes in threatening to withdraw our labour. We organise in unions to extract the best wages and conditions we can, and the more of us in the union the better the outcome. The other reason that unions matter is because, as Kearney acknowledged, the ‘public’ expect trade unions to be the standard bearers on fairness and equality and redistribution of wealth. As unions have stagnated in influence over the past decades, no one else has been able to step up. Unions provide a powerful voice, and we also have resources. Unions’ strength is in being membership supported organisations, but we must be democratic, independent organisations. Democratising unions is more than transparency and eliminating any toleration of corruption, it is about having cultures of trust and supporting delegates who speak out. The outcome of the forum was to establish a series of taskforces to examine such key issues. Hopefully, these taskforces will break new ground in forging a union future in this country. Jeannie Rea, National President
Why unions still matter But probably the key question that was not directly tackled and should have framed the discussion is why do unions
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35
Turkey
Academics’ freedom under attack NTEU joined with 20 higher education associations and unions from around the world in expressing grave concern over recent reports of widespread victimisation of members of Turkey’s higher education and research community. Organised by Scholars at Risk (SAR), the letter responded to reports that Turkish federal prosecutors have placed under investigation approximately 1,128 academics, in retaliation for their co-signing a public petition urging Turkish authorities to end the repression of civilians in the country’s Kurdish districts and to re-open
the peace process with the Kurdish guerrillas. Dozens of academics have reportedly already been detained and interrogated, and suspended or forced to resign from their positions at Turkish higher education institutions. The letter notes that some of the scholars have already been investigated for and/or charged with criminal offenses including spreading ‘terrorist propaganda,’ ‘inciting people to hatred, violence and breaking the law,’ and ‘insulting Turkish institutions and the Turkish Republic.’ ‘Actions reportedly taken against these scholars raise serious concerns not only for [the scholars’] professional and personal well-being, but for the overall well-being of the Turkish higher education and research community, and for the ability of intellectuals and institutions in Turkey to undertake world-class scholarship.’ The signatory organisations call on Turkish authorities to intervene before any further harm is done to the academics, their insti-
page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
tutions, and to the reputation of Turkey’s higher education and research sector. The signatories hope that the letter will encourage Turkish officials to end any pending legal, administrative or professional actions undertaken against the scholars concerned and to renew publicly their commitment to internationally recognized principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of association. NTEU is also supporting an Australian open letter of support created by Australians for Kurdistan, which calls for the immediate release of all the arrested academics, dropping the prosecutions, and for an end to the repression in the Kurdish districts. scholarsatrisk.nyu.edu australiansforkurdistan.org
Below: Police detain a man in Istanbul, one of more than 200 people protesting peacefully against curfews and operations in mainly Kurdish cities and towns in southeastern Turkey, 3 Jan 2016. Source: voanews.com
United States
Higher ed an election battleground Oscar Wilde famously said that there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about. Applying this dictum, those concerned about the future of higher education should be pleased that there is much talk about higher education in the US presidential election. While the US States are largely responsible for funding and regulating universities and community colleges, the federal government runs the largest student loan scheme. This means that the presidential campaign has been focused on affordability rather than funding or quality. The primary impetus for this has come from Democrat hopeful Bernie Sanders. The self-described socialist has proposed that the federal government should use a tax on Wall Street speculation to raise $47 billion a year to provide for free tuition at all public universities and colleges. His plan would provide two-thirds of the cost of doing so, with the US States being asked to provide the other one-third. Polls show that three in five voters support Sanders’ tuition-free public higher education. This is no surprise, with 43 million Americans owing US$1.3 trillion in student debt and many more deterred from higher education because of the price tag. Without doubt, Sanders policy on higher education has been a significant factor in what polls suggest is an 85% preference among college students for Sanders over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, who has been endorsed by the two largest education unions – NEA and AFT – supports President Obama’s proposals to make tuition free in two-year Community Colleges, which offer mostly vocational diplomas and some degrees. Clinton and Sanders also want to modify existing loan arrangements to ensure that students can re-finance loans at lower interest rates. Many former students are currently locked into loans at much higher interest rates than those which currently prevail, which means the government is making huge profits out of student debt. Clinton and Sanders also want to ensure that loan repayments cannot exceed 10% of income. We here in Australia, who are used to being smug about ‘crazy America’ need to recognise how far in advance of us the debate is in the USA. There is a real debate in the US about making public higher
education free, and about the student debt crisis. In Australia, neither of the major parties are even contemplating free higher education, and ‘moderate’ Malcolm Turnbull still wants to de-regulate fees if re-elected. However, there are few in Australia who could compete with the Republican candidates when it comes to hostility to higher education. Front-runner Donald Trump says he would consider abolishing the US Department of Education and its expenditure, which would result in large cuts to student assistance and in significant cuts to universities and colleges. A number of the Republican candidates have also been very strong on what they call ‘accountability’, by which they mean that universities should be monitored for political bias, or even denied funding if they show ‘extreme’ bias. Given the significance of the US for developments in tertiary education internationally, there is much at stake for NTEU members in the outcome of these debates, and the November election itself. Ken McAlpine, Union Education & Training Officer
Above: Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton. Left: Donald Trump. Sources: YouTube
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37
News from the Net Pat Wright
Is Twitter dying? The ‘net has been full of debate about the presumed passing of Twitter for several months now – not only in the geek sheets, but also in mainstream hardcopy magazines such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The New Statesman, and even on Aunty ABC Radio’s Life Matters (where the most level-headed commentary came from QUT’s Prof Jean Burgess). The debates usually hinge on one or more of three themes – the economics of Twitter.com, the debilitation of twitter by trolls, and the changing experience of using twitter. In Feb 2015, Derek Thompson, in The Atlantic, found that Twitter – as a marketing tool to drive traffic to his employer’s website – was ineffective. His stream of tweets had been seen by 150,000 people, 9,000 of whom had interacted with it, and just 1,500 of them had followed the link to the website to read the article. This would temper the enthusiasm of any company for twitter as a marketing tool.
There was a claim that Twitter had become a political shouting match in Australia, but it was possible that that was due to the hyper-adversarial character of Australian politics since 2010, rather than due to Twitter alone.
Last October, Umair Haque, in the Huffington Post, had detected a different feel in using twitter – as interpersonal communication – over several months, from that
of fewer tweets, to that of a deserted bar, to that of a cemetery, and ascribes the decline to people fleeing abuse by trolls – people who use their twitter ID (usually anonymous) to engage in vicious, personal abuse. No doubt this can be highly offensive, and prompt many victims to abandon the medium because of the message. In January 2016, Joshua Topolsky, in The New Yorker, lauded the immediacy of twitter – as a news service – particularly at the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, but lamented the company’s loss of direction since then. He points to the wholesale loss of senior executives of the company, the plummeting share price, and the invidious comparison with the size and growth of Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. In February 2016, Barbara Speed, in The New Statesman, found it highly ironic that proposed changes to Twitter’s chronological timeline and 140-character limit prompted users to set up the hashtag #RIPTwitter ON TWITTER. According to a Business Insider’s sample of tweets, Tweets per User had fallen 50 per cent in the last 6 months, but numbers of New Users had remained largely the same – which suggests not that twitter can’t get new users, but can’t keep its current ones engaged. Most recently, the discussion on ABC Radio National focused on the problem of abusive trolls driving users away from twitter, and cited particularly the exit of Stephen Fry, who had 12 million followers. There was a claim that Twitter had become a political shouting match in Australia, but it was possible that that was due to the hyper-adversarial character of Australian politics since 2010, rather than due to Twitter alone. It was considered that the coarsening of public discourse was driving out the everyday personal chit-chat and that this
page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
was diminishing the humanity of the medium. The use of links to documents rather than personal comments had accelerated this trend. However, the actual number of Twitter accounts and activity in them is still growing in Australia, and globally. But there are fewer @tweets (tweets directed to a particular person in a conversation) and more Re-Tweets (forwarding of a tweet to the twitterverse without comment). This suggests more activity, but with less personal engagement. And less fun. The Managing Director of Twitter Australia, Karen Stocks, pointed out that Twitter was trying to address the abusive trolls problem by taking down offensive tweets and suspending users, and that users could always Block annoying trolls. The chances of finding an offensive tweet on your time-line are greatly reduced if you Follow like-minded people and you use hashtags to found communities of interest. Karen, like Mark Twain, suggested that rumours of Twitter’s death are highly exaggerated, and pointed out that, globally, Twitter has over 300 million active users and over 500 million consumers of content (or ‘lurkers’). The diversity of opinion on the question leads one to the conclusion that it all depends on what one uses Twitter for – interpersonal communication, networking, marketing, archiving research, curating experience, discussing ideas, etc. Twitter is a great example of ‘bushy’ evolution, and whether it dies, is transformed, or is reborn depends on its users. Twitter is what Twitterers do. Pat Wright is an NTEU Life Member. pat.wright@adelaide.edu.au
Lowering the Boom Ian Lowe
Slash and burn, baby, burn at the CSIRO The scientific community was shocked by the February announcement that hundreds of CSIRO positions will be axed. The cuts follow a steady erosion of the public science body, with over 200 redundancies a year in recent times. The new CEO, Larry Marshall, justified the attack on CSIRO’s climate science capacity by saying the 2015 Paris conference meant the science was settled and we now need to concentrate on adaptation. Of course, the basic science has been settled for a long time, largely because of the work done by CSIRO scientists over the last thirty years. But there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the scale and rate of changes that will result from the human impact on the atmosphere. In other words, the adaptation task is still uncertain because we don’t know the details of the changes to which we need to adapt. The work being done by the CSIRO Division of Oceans and Atmosphere remains critically important to our future. The cuts drew widespread criticism. Nearly 3000 climate scientists from 60 countries signed an open letter which said ‘The decision to decimate a vibrant and world-leading research program shows a lack of insight, and a misunderstanding of the importance of the depth and significance of Australian contributions to global and regional climate research’. It went on to say ‘maintaining and augmenting this research capacity’ is crucial for our capacity to assess future risks and plan for adaptation. Earlier, the World Climate Research Program had pointed out that the cuts threatened ‘vital linkages’ between southern hemisphere data sources and science in the northern hemisphere. Local critics weighed in to the debate. Julian Cribb, an internationally respected science journalist (and former CSIRO communications leader) described the cuts to climate science as ‘a very bad call for the
Australian people’, given the likely impacts on agriculture and urban life. He called the scaling back of land and water science ‘primal idiocy’ and concluded, ‘If there is one thing we’re going to need in the future it’s an understanding of water, soil and climate, how they are changing and what we must do to sustain our continent, society and industries’.
Tangney, boasted on his Facebook page that he had given what he called science advice to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and expressed delight that the head of CSIRO was now acting to reduce public funding of climate science. Jensen is part of the group within the Coalition that are still in denial about climate science because it doesn’t fit their ideology.
It is always disappointing when science is cut back, especially when we need to be more innovative to overcome the economic problem of falling commodity prices. It is particularly bad when the cuts are in such areas as Oceans & Atmosphere, Land & Water and Manufacturing, as these are all critical to our chances of a sustainable future.
Also in February, I heard the announcement that Greg Hunt had been given the title of Minister of the Year. I have not been able to find out much about the strange group that met in Dubai and gave him the award.
The language makes clear the Government is trying to sabotage our public science body and turn it into a consulting business.
More worrying than the cuts was the language used by the new CEO. There won’t be scientists sacked, there will be ‘reductions in headcount’! And these aren’t research areas, they are ‘business units’, headed not by top scientists but ‘business leaders’. The cuts are ‘something that we must do to renew our business’, according to the CEO. The language makes clear the Government is trying to sabotage our public science body and turn it into a consulting business.
Award winners (but not in a good way) I was worried this might happen when the new CEO was appointed, as his background was in venture capital rather than science. He distinguished himself last year by his support for water divining, a stance that caused the Australian Skeptics to give him their annual Bent Spoon Award, a trophy recognising support for pseudo-science. At least one member of the lunar right on the Government backbench hailed the attack on climate science. Dennis Jensen, the member for the WA electorate of
So I reflected, what sorts of actions by an environment minister in the Abbott and Turnbull Governments could qualify for global recognition? Did he expose the inadequacies of Abbott’s ‘direct action’ response to climate change, based on his undergraduate thesis showing that it would be much more effective to charge polluters? Did he stand up to the attacks on renewable energy and the charge that wind power was such a serious health risk that a public official should be appointed to consider complaints? Did he defend the need for Commonwealth assessment of large projects to prevent enthusiastic State governments waving them through without proper scrutiny? Did he resist the move by the Attorney-General to prevent community groups exposing inadequate government processes? Did he knock back the irresponsible proposal for a huge coal mine in the Galilee Basin that would put threatened species at risk and contribute massively to global climate change? Did he defend the Great Barrier Reef against plans to expand coal ports and increase the risks of shipping to the reef lagoon? Since he didn’t do any of those things, it is hard to make a case that his performance as a minister deserved special recognition. First Dog on the Moon, stand-up comedians and those who post Facebook messages predictably had a field day with the announcement. Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University. M@AusConservation
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39
The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn
The addiction I have a friend, let’s call her Helen. Helen recently completed a PhD and is now in the post-post-post doc stage of the academic wilderness. Helen is not a scientist, so her academic life now consists entirely of threemonth sessional contracts and guest lectures (most of which are unpaid). If you have done this for any stretch of time you will know it’s not a great way to make a living. The November to February non-teaching months are particularly hard. Just when everyone else is out shopping, your wallet is empty. Helen rang me to tell me how, as usual, Christmas had precipitated a financial crisis. She sobbed as she told me how behind she was on the rent and could barely afford the other necessities of life. She told me she looked to me as a role model of a successful academic, because I did 11 years as a sessional. What should she do to be more like me? It’s not the first time I’ve taken this call from a friend doing sessional teaching. People in Helen’s situation want to know how I made the seemingly impossible leap from tenuous periphery to associate professor at a prestigious research university. Getting a proper job, one that enables you to start climbing the academic ladder is a bit like trying to get inside a moving car with three locked doors. Sessional teachers who want a ‘proper job’ often find themselves in a vicious, chicken and egg
situation. You can apply for everything for which you are qualified for and still not be shortlisted because of the premium Australian employers put on experience. You can be a great researcher, but this doesn’t count as much as having already had a job as a researcher – and these jobs are certainly in short supply. Unless you get a lucky break you might never be in a job that lets you evidence skills you already have, so you will never be truly competitive. This, as you can imagine, the chicken and egg situation can make you feel powerless. People like Helen want to take action. The assumption these people make is that it was something I did that made me different. They want to do something too. What they fail to take into account is that academia is now structured with very few
‘It’s like this Inger… I love teaching’ she confessed, almost shamefully. ‘I love to see the light come on in their eyes.’ My heart sank.
with many of the features that you enjoy without the perilous pay-check situation? Helen hesitated. ‘It’s like this Inger… I love teaching’ she confessed, almost shamefully. ‘I love to see the light come on in their eyes.’ My heart sank. Helen, like so many, many other people I know, is addicted to teaching. The addicted sessional teacher is willing to endure the low pay, uncertainty and knock backs because they are hooked on that classroom experience. This teaching addiction explains why there is such a ready supply of people willing to do casual sessional work, when it clearly doesn’t pay their bills. I know exactly how this addiction feels because I was once addicted too. In fact, I probably still am, but, ironically, the more stable my employment becomes the less classroom time I have. Our sector needs to take responsibility and recognise its role as an enabler. Teaching addiction is real and it is severely affecting the well being of Helen and many like her. Yes, teaching is fun. It makes you feel like you are making a difference. But universities should not implicitly rely on teaching addiction to make sure there is a ready and able workforce. It’s literally wrecking lives.
entry points and some people start closer to the finish line. They are inevitably disappointed with my advice. Yes, blogging is a really good idea – if you like it, and you can do it. Yes, building networks is essential for any professional career. Yes, developing a clear and useful specialty, like research education, is helpful.
Gently I told Helen I thought it was time to stop. I told her she deserved better from her employers. That she should be valued and paid a decent living wage for her labour. But, just like many addicts, she just didn’t want to hear.
But I had to tell Helen the truth. The difference between her and I was… a husband.
Dr Inger Mewburn does research on research and blogs about it.
Yes, my secret career weapon is Luke, my beloved spouse and well-paid computer scientist. For nearly 20 years now Luke’s ‘unstable’ private sector job has counterbalanced my ‘stable’ public sector one. Luke’s income meant the Christmas never caused a crisis in our household. Crucially, Luke supported my long periods of study and had faith that it will all pay off eventually. Helen quickly ruled out the husband option, so we started casting about for other solutions. What is the adjacent possible? I asked. Can you get a job in a university
page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
She hung up on me.
www.thesiswhisperer.com
M@thesiswhisperer
Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Sandra Grey
The undercover vice-chancellor controversy Christchurch has been shaking with earthquakes again this month. However, the more disturbing jolt for many union members just down the road at Lincoln University was the revelation that the university’s preferred new vice-chancellor has been deceitfully interviewing staff under the guise of a visiting academic. It was our very own version of Undercover Boss – but we’re still awaiting the promotions or financial rewards that accrue to the deceived employees in the reality TV series. Lincoln’s newly appointed vice-chancellor Professor Robin Pollard was a deputy vice-chancellor at Central Lancashire University and before that was the pro-vice-chancellor and president of Monash University’s Malaysia Campus. Before he accepted the Lincoln job, Pollard took it upon himself to undertake what he termed ‘due diligence’ by pretending to be a visiting academic and interviewing some of his soon to be employees. Some staff were told that he was preparing a discussion document for Council on things that were happening on campus. Pollard, the candidate for vice-chancellor, only disclosed the true purpose of his visit at the end of his meetings to some staff and stated that he was the preferred candidate for the vice-chancellor position. As you can imagine this was an unsettling experience for the deceived staff members whom Pollard had interviewed. They soon started turning up at the doorstep of our local union office.
Local Tertiary Education Union (TEU) organiser Cindy Doull says she understands some staff were quite open and frank about the university and their concerns. ‘A number of staff are very distressed that they were deliberately misled as to the real purpose of the meetings.’ Concerned staff who contacted the union would ‘stand by what they said but would have phrased it differently’. ‘He didn’t disclose his true intentions to all people.’
Harrison founded one of New Zealand’s largest meat processing companies. His approach to employment relations mirrors the approach common in New Zealand meatworks these days – extremely neoliberal. Harrison said the appointments committee headhunted Pollard, as the only viable candidate for the job. Harrison said, with hindsight, Pollard made a mistake but his actions showed leadership.
‘No ethics committee would pass this as a good and ethical process,’ Doull says.
However, Doull says the whole process has been deceitful and ‘based on a whole series of lies’.
Doull says she is appalled and considers the meetings with staff to be a breach of good faith obligations to not mislead or deceive.
‘Pollard may very well be the best person for the job, but it’s not about him. It’s not good leadership.’
Aside from the soon-to-be vice-chancellor’s deceptive behaviour the University Council was also acting poorly. At the time all this was happening TEU and the University were still negotiating a process for appointing the new vice-chancellor, and had agreed union representatives could meet the five candidates in structured focus groups. Doull says the University changed the process unilaterally, without informing TEU, after one of the five candidates for vice-chancellor refused to participate in the focus groups. ‘We are extremely disappointed that Council accepted an amended process. For some time now we have expressed on behalf of staff a growing level of frustration with the management of Lincoln University and the significant impact on staff morale and wellbeing.’ Union members are calling on Pollard, who has not yet started his job and has not commented on the situation, to apologise. However, University Council member and chair of the Council’s appointments committee Sir Graeme Harrison subsequently doubled down in the media saying once Pollard arrived in the role, ‘this will be yesterday’s little upset’.
Local newspaper the Christchurch Press wrote a scathing editorial, saying ‘as outrageous as Pollard’s suggested approach was when he was the preferred candidate, it is even more outrageous that the University Council knew and endorsed it.’ Lincoln’s previous vice-chancellor Dr Andy West abruptly departed the University in controversial circumstances last year, part way through his five-year term. Under Dr West’s leadership the University had awarded over half a million dollars of fees to consultants, ‘some of whom he knew’. So, Lincoln starts a new year with the pressure of recovering and rebuilding from earthquakes and aftershocks, the stress of its previous leadership mishaps and turmoil and now an undercover boss who is yet to step on campus and unmask himself. We can only expect all the public pressure will cause some change of approach from our university leaders. Sandra Grey 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. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41
My Union Victorian Division Delegate Awards In December 2015 the NTEU Victorian Division held its inaugural Gala Ball to celebrate our achievements as a Division and to honour our Delegates through the presentation of Delegate Awards. The awards were presented to delegates and activists in each Branch who have made an outstanding contribution to our Union. The University of Melbourne Branch Delegate Award recipient for 2015 was Gordon Dunlop. Gordon works in the ERC Library, and is a long term NTEU member. Throughout his Union membership, Gordon has shown enormous commitment and dedication to NTEU activities, from coming to meetings and morning teas through to taking industrial action during bargaining, and involvement in a number of NTEU campaigns. He has
always led by example, encouraging his colleagues to join and be active in the NTEU. The 2015 Delegate Award was given in acknowledgement of Gordon’s work to build Union support and solidarity in the Library over his years as a member, and to recognise Gordon’s contribution to the ‘heart of the University’ campaign during Melbourne University’s ‘Business Improvement Program’. As a key member of the campaign committee Gordon worked with other NTEU activists and delegates to plan our rallies and campaign actions. His enthusiasm, creativity and commitment led to the Branch doing a number of new things, including our ‘raise our voice’ rally where we sang outside the University Executive meeting to let them know we (the staff ) are the voice at this university, not just them! Gordon was unable to attend the Gala Ball, and so was presented with his award at the 2015 University of Melbourne Branch BBQ. True to form, Gordon accepted his award with the following poem. Bec Muratore, Branch Industrial Organiser, University of Melbourne
Right: Gordon Dunlop receiving his Delegate Award. Photo: Emily Lebetzis. Below: National President Jeannie Rea handing out the awards, and some of the 2015 Award winners. Below right: Members enjoying the Gala Ball. Source: Nicholas Kimberley
page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The Delicate Activist In thanking you for this reward I’d like to make it plain, Beside the risk of being sent a management ‘Please explain!’, I’m sorry for the library staff I tried to help in vain, Now all of them our library’s loss, some other libraries’ gain. In spite of ‘University First’ , this small burst of defiance – We are each others’ COLLEAGUES – no, not customers or clients. I like this quote from Richard Branson on staff and clients science – If you look after staff they will, in turn, look after clients. In 20-15 during BIP, we had a brand prevision – We CLASHED with management’s slash and burn – exemplary COLLISION! We gave them heaps of feedback too – I wonder where it’s stored. We can’t get staff we need back since our feedback was ignored. They tell us MOM is a success. I merely ASK – Who erred? Us? Them? M model? Muddle? Mess? No? Yes? BUT – MUM’s the word! Gordon Dunlop, 3 December 2015
My Union Crime thriller set in a university undergoing restructure
The environment at her university is toxic and soon her life becomes a nightmare because she is facing serious charges of embezzlement and believes that someone has set her up.
NTEU members know only too well the impact restructuring in universities has had on staff and students. Well, now readers of crime fiction are getting a taste of how devastating these changes have been.
From the start we know that her husband is going to get lost and the story soon takes us to Paris and Athens and the Amalfi coast as Rebecca, our perhaps unreliable narrator, tries to dig up the truth (archaeological pun intended).
Award winning filmmaker and first time novelist Ann Turner, who worked at the Victorian College of the Arts (VCA) has made the university the setting for her crime thriller The Lost Swimmer. The hero (or perhaps villain) of the story is Rebecca Wilding, an archaeology professor and head of the school of classics and history at Coastal University. Things are not going well there. The University is
Rebecca is married to Stephen a professor in economics, also at Coastal, and they have two children. But she cannot turn to him because she suspects that he is not all that he seems. Add to this mix Professor Priscilla Chiton, a nasty bully who is the Dean of Arts, and as the story unfolds, we get a critique of the changes sweeping universities.
being underfunded by the Government, management is implementing cuts and staff are losing their jobs. Professor Wilding is being asked increasingly to implement a business model focused on meeting financial targets but she is also trying to look after her department. She has been at Coastal for many years, cares about her staff and doesn’t want to see them mistreated. But she is really struggling because she is an educator not a business person.
The Lost Swimmer is much more than a nail-biting, page turning, dramatic thriller – it is an insightful observation of what motivates people’s behaviour and an exploration of loss and the meaning of trust. Helena Spyrou, Union Education & Training Officer www.annturnerauthor.com
WAC ready for action in ‘16 The NTEU national Women’s Action Committee (WAC) met in early February to determine the 2016 agenda. The major focus will be upon women’s workplace rights, both in our sector and more broadly. Gender equity within higher education and research is a mirage for most women as our hard won rights to equality and fairness continue to be undermined. Career advancement seems to have come to a standstill for many professional and academic women, and with the reality that one in two new jobs in universities being precarious women cannot even get on the first rung. Women dominate in casual academic and general staff jobs, and also in fixed term higher education and research positions. Research has established that the lack of job security is a major
impediment to women getting ahead in science careers. Meanwhile the gender pay gap across Australia continues to expand and fewer women – not more – are in influential positions in politics, government, business or education. And the debate about paid parental leave is focused on babies’ well-being rather than women workers’ rights. Bluestocking Week (15-19 August) will once again provide us with the opportunity for concerted focus on women in higher education and research and we once again join with the students in
organising events on and off campuses that highlight the issues of today. This year a focus is upon the intersections between gender and other parts of our identities mediating just how sexism continues to dominate women’s lives. NTEU is committed to enhancing the participation and voice of women members. We are a proudly feminist union. All Divisions are represented by two delegates on the WAC and establishing/ revitalising local networks/committees are a priority in 2016. Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President www.nteu.org.au/women
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43
Enjoy great savings
on a wide range of member benefits
NTEU members enjoy exclusive savings on accommodation, airline lounge memberships, package tours, insurances and more.
VALUE ADDED BENEFITS þ Save on travel accommodation
These services are free to use at any time and can be accessed by phone or via the Member Advantage website.
þ Save on movie tickets þ Save on financial and wealth services þ Save on shopping, leisure experiences and gifts
Dining
Insurances
Package Tours
Accommodation
International Money Transfers
Online Shopping
Airline Lounge Memberships
Lifestyle Experiences
Car Rental
Magazine Subscriptions
Credit Cards
Gift Cards
For further information, contact NTEU Member Advantage: 1300 853 352 | info@memberadvantage.com.au | memberadvantage.com.au/nteu page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
My Union have made the ground more fertile for the growth of ISIS and its counterparts.
The NTEU Lecture
Universities have an important role in terrorism debates Australian universities should be spaces where hysteria around terrorism makes way for discussion and debate, however unpopular, said Queensland civil rights lawyer Terry O’Gorman when presenting the fifth annual NTEU Lecture at Griffith University in November 2015. Terry O’Gorman is a renowned figure in both Queensland and Australian legal circles. He currently serves as the President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, and as Vice-President of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. He is also a practicing lawyer specialising in criminal law, and a frequent speaker at national and international criminal law conferences. The Lecture, entitled ‘Civil liberties v terror: Advancing and preserving liberties in a complex environment and the role of the university’, was particularly timely, given that it took place only a few days after the most recent attacks in Paris.
Universities have a critical role to play in confronting the radicalisation of Australia’s Muslim youth, O’Gorman said. ‘Stopping young Australians suspected of sympathising with ISIS from travelling to those areas is necessary, but understanding and addressing their motivation is critical. Universities must continue to support (but not uncritically) the dialogue of the Australian Muslim community, its leaders, academics, and above all its students.’ He also noted that universities are often the first to call for caution instead of kneejerk responses such as excessive counter terrorism measures which risk so many of our civil liberties. It is crucial we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.’ And yet after the September 11 attacks in the USA, O’Gorman said that when we needed debate more than ever before, universities struggled to conceptualise their role and their place in a heightened security environment. Faculties in the USA in particular began to self-censor. ‘Often the only discourses being disseminated followed government policy and agenda, leaving little room for constructive dissent.’ He quoted Oxford University Vice-Chancellor Professor Louise Richardson, a highly commended terrorism scholar: ‘The role of the university is to ask the hard questions the rest of society is avoiding, to be critical of Western responses and avoid the ‘over-simplified’ world view that the terrorists themselves have often succumbed to.’ O’Gorman said that Australian universities need to allow for the most unpopular of discussions, and strike a balance between condemning attacks and also questioning our role. He said it was time to openly discuss the argument that the invasion of Iraq and our role in the Middle East more broadly over the last 15 years may
‘We have leading academics who are warning about excessive counter terrorism measures, the risk of home grown radicalisation and the need to reintegrate our Muslim youth. Tertiary education in Australia must continue to be a key stakeholder in the conversation particularly about home grown terrorism and radicalisation, especially to widen and balance the often simplistic public debate.’ Michael Evans, National Organiser The annual NTEU Lecture provides a public forum for eminent Australians to present unique perspectives on aspects of higher education and its impact on the economic, social and cultural frameworks of Australian society. A video and transcript of Terry O’Gorman’s lecture, as well as information on previous Lectures, can be found on the Lecture website www.nteu.org.au/lecture
Above: Terry O’Gorman QC delivering the 2015 NTEU Lecture. Below: Lecture crowd at Griffith University. Photos: Chris Taylor
‘Environments of terror and fear, much like the one we are living in, often elicit instant responses where society forgets to protect the very rights being threatened by the attacks,’ O’Gorman said. ‘Our greatest hurdle in the coming decade is in dealing in a balanced manner with the often conflated issue of terrorism and Islam and Australia’s Muslim community.’ He used the example of the debates and activities on campuses questioning western countries’ roles during the Vietnam war being well ahead of where we were at as a society. ‘But Vietnam in hindsight is a strong reminder that so often society has regretted not giving credence to the legitimate concerns raised on campuses. NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45
My Union New NTEU staff
Staff movements Emma Gill Industrial Officer Tas Division
News on new, moved and departing NTEU staff.
Rohan Hilton Industrial Officer Qld Division Rohan has recently joined the NTEU Queensland Division as an Industrial Officer. With formal qualifications in Employment Relations and Human Resource Management, Rohan is a dedicated employee advocate. He has previously worked as an Industrial Services Officer with the Independent Education Union – QLD & NT, where he was responsible for representing employees in non-government schools across Queensland and the Northern Territory. Rohan has also worked as an Industrial Officer with the Queensland Working Women’s Service and currently sits on the Management Committee of the Industrial Relations Society of Queensland. Rohan welcomes the opportunity to represent the NTEU’s members across Queensland.
Since 1958, the Australian Universities’ Review has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life.
Emma has replaced Miranda Jamieson as the Industrial Officer in the Tasmanian Division, as Miranda has left for the bright lights of Melbourne. Previous to starting with the NTEU Emma worked for a number of unions in Tasmania, and started her ‘career’ in the union movement when she was a workplace delegate in the state public sector. She has worked with members from a vast range of workplaces and occupations and believes all workers face essentially the same issues at work. Unionism flows strongly through Emma’s family, with her father being the Secretary of various Tasmanian unions, her mother being an active delegate in the workplace (and even led a sit-in in the Premier’s office!) and other family members being involved in their unions. Emma’s primary school aged daughter has a strong sense of social justice and is often found advocating for fairness and equality at school. Perhaps she will be the third generation of Gills to find a passion helping working people!
Brigitte Garozzo resigned from her position as ACU Branch Organiser in February 2016. On 26 February, NSW Division farewelled two longtime employees. Jo Kowalczyk, who has left to take up a leadership role in the NSW Teachers Federation, has worked for the NTEU for the past 17 and a half years and leaves after making a large and sustained contribution to the Union. Jo spent the first ten years of her NTEU employment at the University of Wollongong as a Branch Executive Officer and then Branch Industrial Organiser. The last seven and a half years have seen her in the Division Office as a Senior State Organiser. Adam Knobel has worked for NTEU for almost six years as the NSW DIvision’s Communications and Campaigns Organiser. Adam leaves us to take up an exciting and challenging position as Head of Digital Campaigning on the national marriage equality campaign. We wish both Jo and Adam the best in their new working adventures!
AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU.
vol. 56, no. 1, 20 14 NTEU
Published by
Miranda Jamieson has moved from her position as Industrial Officer in the Tasmanian Division and commenced as a Division Organiser based at Deakin Burwood, effective on 1 February 2016.
ISSN 0818 –8068
NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis .
AUR
If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive AUR, please email aur@nteu.org.au
Australia n Unive rsities’R eview
AUR is listed on the DEEWR register of refereed journals.
www.aur.org.au Stay connected with NTEU Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
facebook.com/NationalTertiaryEducationUnion
page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
@NTEUNational
My Union Obituary: Liz Cheligoy NTEU notes with sadness the passing of Liz Cheligoy in January this year. Liz served as Industrial Organiser (1981 to 1984) and then Secretary (1984 to
1987) of the Victorian Colleges Staff Association (VCSA), the general staff union which later (as ACUSA) merged with other unions to form the NTEU. Liz will be remembered by NTEU’s veteran general staff members in Victoria as a forceful and effective leader in the period when VCSA made the transition from small staff association (formed 1979) to authentic trade union with a solid profile in the post-secondary education sector.
Free Union Education direct from your computer! To provide easier access to union education, information and discussion, NTEU is commencing a program of Friday afternoon online video conferencing sessions. Sessions will be held at 3pm (AET) on Fridays, lasting 60 or 90 mins and cover topics of interest to NTEU members and delegates, starting April.
In particular, Liz’s powerful advocacy in the relevant industrial tribunal helped improve and preserve terms and conditions for thousands of workers in Victorian colleges. NTEU expresses its sympathy to Liz’s family and friends. Paul Rodan
d: Topics already planne rsity • Understanding unive budgets Budget • What the Federal education means for tertiary rsity stats • Understanding unive e pay for • What does separat n? casual marking mea
To receive occasional emails letting you know about education sessions coming up, please contact
fridaysessions@nteu.org.au
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. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47
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
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.
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 $110
PLEASE ACCEPT MY CHEQUE/MONEY ORDER OR CREDIT CARD: MASTERCARD VISA
Processed on the 15th of the month or following working day
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
|ACCOUNT NO.
CARD NUMBER — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXPIRY
|$
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
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
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
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
page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 23 no. 1 • March 2016 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
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
“Education is the most poweful weapon which you can use to change the world.” - Nelson Mandela
Every day you inspire, helping people grow. You’re the leaders, the educators and the professional staff that make aspiring students’ dreams possible. That’s why we’re invested in you. As a customer owned bank, dedicated solely to the Victorian education community, our profits go back to you through competitive financial solutions, more personalised service and support of education. Helping each other do more, be more, achieve more.
Call 1300 654 822 I Visit victeach.com.au
Bank
I Save I Borrow I Invest I Protect
At UniSuper, we are proud that over half of our members are women . Yet on average, women are likely to retire with 47% less super than their male peers.* Arm yourself with knowledge on this issue. Visit unisuper.com.au/women to register for a webinar for women, read about other female UniSuper members, and get information to help you make informed financial decisions. unisuper.com.au
education@unisuper.com.au
1800 331 685
* Source: The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Limited (ASFA), ‘An update on the level and distribution of retirement savings’, Ross Clare, Director of Research, March 2014. 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.